Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
So speaking of poorly considered ideas obviously meant to ignite the base, do you think that Trump will actually denaturalize and deport Ilhan Omar “back where she came from”? As I certainly recall him calling for, way back during the First Trump Administration. It could very well just be a stunt that gets as far as the “let’s Livestream a military firing squad” idea eventually got.
Certainly, MAGA bots tend to screech “De-naturalize and Deport” in response to crimes committed even by brown people who acquired their citizenship by birth, or whose families have lived in the US for generations. So maybe this is just something meant to pander to that crowd. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if there actually is something technically incorrect / illegal about her naturalization application. So, do you think this investigation will actually result in Omar being stripped of her citizenship and deported? Or will it quietly go away after the midterms? —Aylene W.
Hi Aylene. Based on some of the analysis I’ve heard, I heavily suspect the information on Omar’s immigration paperwork decades ago (when she was a minor) was indeed misstated. Also, from what I understand, the statute of limitations for any potential criminal charges related to that offense (if it was indeed an offense) have expired. Even beyond that, there are significant legal hurdles for the government to have to clear in order to make anything stick. Thus, I think the chances of her being denaturalized and deported are extremely low, and I don’t think that was ever really the goal in the first place.
I think this is a political stunt — catnip for Trump’s base. It will put Omar though some legal headaches, and cost her some time and money, but I think the case will eventually get tossed out by a judge (sometime after the midterms). In other words, I don’t think she’s going anywhere.
John - Now that the administration has moved forward- as promised- to investigate U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar, will it be a matter of time before they attempt to deport her after their findings of fraud? I believe they absolutely will. — Sharon H.
Hi Sharon. I’ll direct you to my answer above.
Sir John —Why didn’t the Republicans in Texas come out en masse during the primaries to put Cornyn in the race against Talarico? It should’ve been a slam dunk. — “They Should’ve Sent Paxton Packin’!” Regards from The Emperor
Hi Emperor. If President Trump would have endorsed Cornyn, Cornyn would have won the GOP primary, and very likely gone on to win the general election. Senate Republican leadership and the NRSC very much understood how problematic of a nominee Paxton would be, and they plead with Trump to endorse Cornyn.
But unlike with other GOP primary contests, Trump stayed out of the race (until right at the end), because he knew Paxton was aggressively loyal to him. This let Paxton define himself as the most passionately pro-Trump candidate in the race (which is a priority to many Republican voters). And for what it’s worth, he was. As much as Cornyn had humiliated himself for Trump over the years, Paxton literally tried to help our president overturn the 2020 election. This proved to Trump that Paxton was willing to damage or circumvent our constitutional order on his behalf (which Trump likes). When the polls showed Paxton pulling ahead a week out from the primary, Trump officially endorsed Paxton, which sealed Cornyn’s fate.
As I’ve argued a number of times, I don’t think Trump really cares about maintaining Republican majorities in Congress. He just wants a lockstep party that will do whatever he wants.
How much do you think Marc Thiessen hates you by now? 😂 — Ben G.
Oh, I’m thinking a whole lot, Ben. Lol. For those who don’t know what Ben’s talking about, I give the former Bush official and longtime Fox News contributor, Marc Thiessen, a deservedly hard time on X… mostly over the Trump administration’s handling of Ukraine.
Thiessen, who I believe is sincerely pro-Ukraine (like I am), has some kind of direct or indirect access to President Trump. And he clearly calculated, probably two years ago, that if he cheerleads Trump incessantly (online, in print, and on television), and shamelessly whitewashes the president’s foreign policy decisions on Ukraine as being brilliant, super-awesome for Ukraine, and tough on Russia, Thiessen will not only maintain that access, but Trump will — at some point — actually start listening to him, and do the things Thiessen claims he’s already been doing to better help Ukraine against Russia.
It obviously hasn’t worked. Trump has mostly treated Ukraine like garbage since returning to office, all while Thiessen has not only written one WaPo fan-fiction piece after another about how great of an ally Trump’s been, but has also refused to publicly criticize Trump in any way… even at times when Trump betrays Ukraine in especially hideous ways (like he’s doing now). Thiessen just goes completely silent when that happens.
Thus, I’ve gotten into the habit of quote-tweeting the latest Trump atrocities against Ukraine with “Marc Thiessen could not be reached for comment,” and other posters have been putting it on Thiessen’s radar. Marc’s lashed out at me a few times, but what’s particularly interesting is how many former and event current colleagues of his have reached out to tell me I’m very much on-target. They’re embarrassed by how he’s conducted himself, and believe his efforts have been misguided and counterproductive.
Did you happen to see the Chris Como and Bill O’Reilly argument over Trump’s relationship with Putin? If so, what did you think? — Alex D.
I hadn’t seen it, Alex, but was intrigued enough by your question to seek out the segment and watch it. If I watched the correct one (I think I did), I’d call it more of a discussion than an argument. But on the points of the contention, I think Cuomo was right. Putin only understands force. Unlike Trump, Putin can’t be won over by flattery. The same goes for bribery, at least not when it comes to Ukraine.
I flatly reject O’Reilly’s claim that “Trump has done everything that he can” for Ukraine. That’s not even close to being true. Trump has not only pulled back on our country’s support of Ukraine since returning to office, but has repeatedly thrown Ukraine under the bus, often in very disgusting (and even deadly) ways, to try and force Ukraine to basically surrender to Putin. He’s also needlessly offered all kinds of concessions to Russia.
The best thing we could do, not just for Ukraine, but for the United States and the rest of the free world, would be to ratchet up our support for Ukraine, in the form of intelligence, technology, weapons, sanctions etc. — to make it as painful as possible for Russia to continue this invasion. We should have been doing that all along, instead of defaming Zelensky, trashing Ukraine, and snuggling up to Putin (which no other U.S. president would have done).
There’s no need for us to step in militarily. Ukraine has been doing all the fighting on behalf of the free world, and they can end this war largely on their terms if they reliably have the tools to make it happen. That doesn’t necessarily mean driving Russia all the way out beyond Ukraine’s pre-war borders. But it does mean Ukraine at least maintaining the land that Russia hasn’t been able to conquer militarily.
But unfortunately for everyone except Putin, that’s not what Trump is doing.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.