All posts tagged "missouri"

How Trump's racism-fueled revenge tour came for workers in St. Louis

Donald Trump’s revenge tour has come to St. Louis.

But this time, it’s not about prosecutors or political enemies. It’s about dismantling civil rights programs — and it’s personal.

Nearly 2,000 minority and women-owned businesses at Lambert International Airport just learned they must prove they were discriminated against — with evidence locked in their competitors’ files — or lose their ability to bid on federal contracts.

Under new Trump administration guidelines issued last week, contractors must submit “personal narratives” detailing specific economic harm compared to “non-disadvantaged” businesses. They must prove, with a “preponderance of evidence,” that they were denied financing on terms their white competitors received.

How are they supposed to find the evidence? Bank loan terms are confidential. Competitors’ financing deals are private. The contractors are being asked to document discrimination they cannot possibly access.

They can’t. And that’s precisely the point.

The targets of Trump’s dismantling campaign? Civil rights programs created to remedy the exact kind of discrimination he was accused of — and denied — more than a half-century ago.

In 1973, the Nixon administration’s Department of Justice sued Donald Trump and his father for refusing to rent apartments to Black families across 39 buildings in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. The government charged that Trump Management refused to rent to people “because of race and color,” required different rental terms based on race, and misrepresented to Black families that apartments weren’t available.

Trump’s response to the federal civil rights lawsuit?

“They are absolutely ridiculous. We never have discriminated, and we never would.”

He settled without admitting wrongdoing, paid no fine, and faced no requirement to prove his innocence. The discrimination lawsuit — backed by DOJ lawyers, civil rights investigators, and documented evidence — simply went away.

Fifty-two years later, President Trump demands that minority contractors prove they’ve been discriminated against, using evidence they cannot access, or lose their ability to compete for federal contracts.

The double standard is the point: Discrimination you can deny, even with the Justice Department’s lawyers and evidence arrayed against you. Oppression you must document in triplicate, with impossible proof, or lose everything.

The timing couldn’t be worse for St. Louis. Lambert is planning a $2.8 billion terminal renovation — the largest construction project in the region in decades. From 2015 to 2019, the airport reported 28. percent participation by disadvantaged businesses under the old program. Those billions in contracts represented real wealth-building in communities systematically excluded from economic opportunity.

Now the rules change just as the money arrives. Adolphus Pruitt, president of the St. Louis City NAACP, had this to say to the Post-Dispatch:

“By shifting the burden of proof onto minority and disadvantaged business owners with these deeply subjective requirements, the federal government risks reviving old discriminatory barriers under the guise of ‘neutrality.’”

That word — neutrality — is a lie. In an unequal system built on centuries of exclusion, “neutrality” isn’t neutral. It freezes existing disparities in place. It has nothing to do with merit; it’s about returning to the days when white, male contractors got pretty much all the business.

The Lambert changes are part of a coordinated national assault on diversity programs. On his first day in office, Trump displayed his contempt for the civil rights movement of the 1960s by revoking the 1965 executive order requiring federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans.

In May, the DoJ moved to dismantle the entire $37 billion Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program serving 49,000 contractors nationwide. All federal DEI staff have been placed on leave for eventual termination.

It cannot be overstated that the DBE program itself was created in 1983 during the Reagan administration. Republicans who go along with Trump’s treachery might want to keep Reagan’s name out of their mouths.

Reagan did, after all, sign off on a bipartisan acknowledgment that discrimination in contracting was real and required remedy. Federal officials estimate the new rules will cause a 10 percent nationwide drop in certified firms and cost $92 million to implement. But those numbers vastly understate the impact.

This follows the blueprint laid out in Project 2025, which explicitly called for prosecuting “all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers” with DEI programs.

As John Bowman, president of NAACP St. Louis County and an airport commissioner, aptly told the Post-Dispatch, the “political scapegoating … will have a devastating impact on minority and women-owned businesses.” Which, of course, was Project 2025’s dream outcome.

The contractors at Lambert aren’t asking for handouts. They’re asking for what the DBE program was designed to provide: a fair shot at competing for publicly funded work after decades of documented exclusion. Now they’re being told to prove they deserved that shot all along—to produce evidence of their own oppression as a prerequisite for economic participation.

This answers a fundamental question about who gets to build America’s infrastructure — and who gets built out of the American dream entirely. The man who said “we never have discriminated, and we never would” — while the Justice Department documented otherwise — now demands minority contractors prove their discrimination with evidence he never had to produce.

Say this much for Donald Trump. When it comes to settling old grievances about getting busted for racism, he has a fine memory.

Ray Hartmann writes on Substack at Ray Hartmann's Soapbox.

This GOP gov's National Guard ploy is an absolute scam — but ICE horrors are all too real

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe made headlines this week by “activating” the National Guard to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. The detail buried in most stories: He deployed just 15 people.

If the news landed in your inboxes, you might have been drawn in like this:

“Missouri Gov. Kehoe activates National Guard to assist ICE agents”

Or this:

“Missouri ‘authorizes’ National Guard to assist ICE’s deportations statewide”

Or this:

“Gov. Kehoe authorizes Missouri National Guard to assist in ICE enforcement.”

Bet you didn’t know from those headlines that this bold initiative involved 15 men and women in a state of 6.24 million people. Bet also you didn’t know that these poor folks will be assisting ICE’s creepy crackdown from the comfort of desks at undisclosed locations.

Far be it from me to minimize the potential impact of such an operation. I mean, dispatching 0.00024 percent of our population to work desk jobs is not nothing in the fight against crime.

At that rate, St. Louis County would qualify for two people. The city of St. Louis might proportionately receive three‑fifths of a person, in keeping with the prevailing thought patterns of many of our state legislators.

But let’s not diminish this bold commitment on the part of our governor. It was such a profound announcement that the media was captivated to the point of forgetting to ask some basic questions — or at least forgot to report the answers in all the excitement.

Such as these:

What exactly will these 15 guardsmen be doing? Are they answering phones? Filing documents? Processing detainee records? Is this top‑secret law‑enforcement support, or an upgrade to the ICE employee lunchroom?
Do they have security clearance to access ICE systems? These are federal databases containing immigration records, legal casework and sensitive personal information. If no clearance is needed, why not?
What training — if any — did these guardsmen receive to do ICE work? Clerical support in a federal law‑enforcement agency isn’t just about typing fast. It involves complex processes, legal standards and chain‑of‑custody rules.
How does pushing paper actually “free up” ICE field agents? In almost all law‑enforcement agencies, a clear distinction exists between personnel behind desks and those risking their lives in the field. Are we to believe that the guys wearing masks, kicking down doors and hauling off suspects also change printer cartridges in their spare time?
Where, exactly, are these guardsmen being stationed? Which ICE offices? For how long? Who’s supervising them? Who requested them? And who benefits from their presence?

These questions answer themselves. The security clearances alone take months. Desk work doesn’t free up field agents. But here’s what does work for scoring cheap political points: a press release. And nothing more.

From the standpoint of millions of immigrants — legal or otherwise — the United States is functioning as a dictatorship. Racial and ethnic profiling of citizens and non‑citizens alike (many of the latter being here legally) has been sanctioned by the Supreme Court.

Most of us don’t experience that terror personally. But that doesn’t make it any less dangerously un-American.

Donald Trump and soulless minions like Deputy Homeland Security adviser Stephen Miller gleefully terrorize America’s immigrant community by the hour. Like Kehoe’s frivolous announcement, this filthy enterprise rages on a foundation of lies.

According to recent data, about 65 percent of people booked into ICE detention have no criminal convictions whatsoever. More than 93 percent have no violent convictions. The agents supposedly “freed up” by these 15 guardsmen in Missouri are being dispatched to raid workplaces and homes to arrest individuals whose only violation is a civil immigration matter.

But the evidence shows this campaign isn’t just cruel — it’s catastrophically counterproductive. The Peterson Institute for International Economics projects that if 8.3 million undocumented immigrants are deported, GDP will fall 7.4 percent by 2028. When 500,000 undocumented workers were deported through the Secure Communities program, the result wasn’t more jobs for Americans — it was 44,000 fewer jobs held by U.S.-born workers.

Back in Missouri, 15 guardsmen will shuffle papers they’re not trained to process, potentially accessing systems they’re not cleared for, supposedly freeing field agents who do entirely different work.

None of this matters to Kehoe. The fraud isn’t a bug — it’s the feature. He’s not protecting Missourians’ safety. He’s protecting his own political standing, giving his base red meat while economists warn this policy will devastate the economy and cost American workers their jobs.

Fifteen Guardsmen. That’s what protecting politicians looks like.

Ray Hartmann writes on Substack at Ray Hartmann's Soapbox.

This Republican may blow up her life's work — just to please Trump

As many of you know, I ran last year for Congress against Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), and lost. I have no plans to run again.

As regular readers know, I’ve hardly mentioned her since starting this Soapbox almost four months ago. She’s largely irrelevant.

But the upcoming bombshell decision facing the U.S. House of Representatives about whether to release the Jeffrey Epstein files is a test of Wagner’s fundamental integrity unlike any other she has faced in her years in Congress. And it is upon us.

Wagner has had one signature issue in her career — standing up, she claims, for the plight of women who are victims of sex trafficking. When I say it’s her one signature issue, let me add: whatever comes in second place isn’t even close.

The issue didn’t come up when I ran against her, because there was nothing to argue about. For years, she has spoken loudly and repeatedly and elegantly on behalf of the need to have better protection for sex-abuse victims, and particularly for those who have been trafficked.

Good for her. I never questioned her righteousness nor her sincerity on this point and there were plenty of other issues for me to campaign on, none of which needs to be rehashed here.

But the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is the definitive sex-trafficking story of our time, and maybe of all time. What this pervert did, who he did it with, how, when and why — and the ongoing coverup of his trail of evidence by Donald Trump — is about as major as news stories get.

As best as I can tell, Wagner, the self-proclaimed champion of trafficked women, has never once spoken Epstein’s name publicly — despite the fact that he used his power and privilege to traffic and abuse hundreds, if not thousands, of young girls.

Wagner faces a vote that is tough for her fellow Republicans — but should be a slam-dunk for her — which is whether to require the Justice Department “to release all the files related to Epstein’s case, including information related to his clients and close circle,” as reported today at The Hill.

The Trump White House, dropping any pretense of true innocence, has gone full-authoritarian with its own Republican Party on this one.

“A White House official commented on the discharge petition Tuesday night, saying that supporting it would be viewed as ‘a hostile act,’” NBC News reported.

Really? Releasing all the Epstein files — in accordance with Trump’s repeated pledges on the campaign trail to do just that — is now a hostile act. Those are pretty strong words.

Wagner’s vote, whenever it happens, will present a rare binary choice. So would her refusal to follow the leads of fellow Republican Reps. Thomas Massie (the disclosure bill’s co-sponsor), Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert in the event Trump’s lapdog House Speaker Mike Johnson manages to kill it.

Here’s the choice:

Wagner votes “yes” for full disclosure of the Epstein files, proving she is a woman of integrity and cares about sex-trafficking victims, as she has claimed for at least a decade

Wagner votes “no” or even fails to vote “yes” as a participant in Trump’s coverup, in which “integrity” and “Ann Wagner” should never be mentioned in the same sentence again.

You didn’t hear me talk like that during the campaign, because nothing had occurred in her record for me to question her personal character. This would be it.

If Wagner fails to stand with Epstein’s sex-trafficking victims — and with the basic principle of accountability for sex traffickers — then she at least should do the world a favor and renounce the following that she either sponsored or cosponsored:

FOSTA – Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act
Bill: H.R. 1865 (115th Congress)
Role: Primary sponsor (authored)
Summary: Amended Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remove immunity protections for websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking, enabling civil and criminal liability. Passed the House 388–25 (Feb 2018), Senate 97–2 (Mar 2018), and signed into law April 11, 2018 as part of the broader FOSTA‑SESTA package.

SAVE Act – Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act
Bill: H.R. 4225 (113th Congress, 2014) & H.R. 285 (114th Congress, 2015)
Role: Primary sponsor
Summary: Made it a federal crime to knowingly advertise commercial sex acts involving trafficking victims, particularly minors or coerced adults. Passed the House 392–19; ultimately incorporated into the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA) of 2015.
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA)
Bill: S. 178 (114th Congress, 2015)
Role: Key House co-sponsor and advocate; included Wagner’s SAVE Act provisions
Summary: A wide-ranging bipartisan anti-trafficking law that enhanced law enforcement tools, increased restitution, funded services for survivors, and strengthened training across federal agencies. Incorporates multiple bills, including the SAVE Act, and was signed into law on May 29, 2015.
Trafficking Survivors Relief Act
Bills: Multiple versions — H.R. 6292 (114th), H.R. 459 (115th), H.R. 3627 (116th), H.R. 8672 (117th), H.R. 7137 (118th Congress, 2024), and reintroduced in H.R. 1379 (119th Congress, 2025)
Role: Original sponsor or cosponsor in multiple sessions
Summary: Provides post-conviction relief—such as vacating convictions, expunging arrests, sentencing mitigation, and affirmative defenses—for survivors of human trafficking who committed non-violent crimes as a direct result of their victimization. Versions reported in the House and supported across party lines.

For cynics who might think Wagner believes Trump is entitled to some special exemption on the subject of sexual exploitation of women, I would direct them to her public comments on October 9, 2016 — in the wake of the release of the infamous Access Hollywood Tapes — in which she most clearly stated he was not. In fact, she felt so passionately about sexual exploitation of women, that she made this public statement:

"I have committed my short time in Congress to fighting for the most vulnerable in our society. As a strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault, I must be true to those survivors and myself and condemn the predatory and reprehensible comments of Donald Trump. I withdraw my endorsement and call for Governor [Mike] Pence to take the lead so we can defeat Hillary Clinton."

It took Wagner less than three weeks in 2016 to decide that Trump wasn’t such a bad predator, after all. Or maybe that she didn’t need to be that true to victims of sex trafficking and assault.

Today, the “strong and vocal advocate for victims of sex trafficking and assault” has another opportunity to show that she means what she has been saying all these years.

What’s it going to be, Ann Wagner, when it comes to your chance to stand up and make a politically difficult statement on behalf of those victims? Even at the risk of seeming “very hostile” to Trump?

It is her moment of truth.

This rare Republican can't avoid being crushed — by her own party

They partied like it was 1999 in Gov. Mike Kehoe’s office this week.

Kehoe unveiled Catherine Hanaway as Missouri’s new attorney general at a news conference Tuesday in his office. Hanaway represents a major upgrade over Andrew Bailey — who was called by Donald Trump to bring his thuggery to the FBI.

Being better than Bailey is lower than any limbo bar in the world. Hanaway is a normal person with the intellect, character and résumé for the AG job. Bailey is the polar opposite in all four respects.

Hanaway is what’s known as a “normal Republican.” She also is a hard-right social conservative — especially on women’s reproductive freedom — to a degree that almost guarantees she won’t be loved in her new job by anyone to the left of Attila the Hun.

Bailey, on the other hand, is a MAGA Republican to his venomous core. And herein lies the real uncertainty about Hanaway’s path ahead.

Catherine Hanaway is most definitely a RINO in the minds of Trump’s MAGA base. That’s not my definition; it’s theirs. The point’s not even debatable.

Watching the video of Hanaway’s introductory press conference, one could easily imagine Republicans were back in 1999 or thereabouts, when Hanaway was a freshman Republican state legislator. Kehoe was in Jefferson City as well at that time, as the owner of a prominent car dealership.

Everything said Tuesday was just normal GOP fare from the previous century. Hanaway would lead with her proven toughness on crime, she’d be pro-life, she’d advance “conservative values,” she’d draw upon her proud rural roots, and she’d protect individual rights.

But the event was far more notable for what wasn’t said. That would be anything that might soothe the psycho psyches of deep red MAGA world.

There was not a single reference to the scourge of the illegal-immigrant invasion, nor sanctuary cities, nor the need for the state to cooperate with ICE. There wasn’t a single reference to supposed genital mutilation of kids, for which Bailey slandered Washington University while Hanaway sat on its Board of Trustees.

There was no talk about the need to end habeas corpus or to increase the use of National Guardsmen and even federal troops to fight crime in Missouri. Hanaway even referenced St. Louis positively without the obligatory “Democrat-run” MAGA qualification.

Asked if Trump had been consulted or otherwise had input into Hanaway’s selection, Kehoe answered with a most abrupt — and I’d say telling — firm “no.” These folks better hope video of this doesn’t get shown on the walls of Stephen Miller’s vampire cave.

Here’s the problem for Hanaway and Kehoe: MAGA didn’t die this week. And it’s not going away anytime soon in the state of Missouri.

Left to her own devices, Hanaway might perform as a solid prosecutor like she did in St. Louis as U.S. Attorney, but with deference to the political winds that blow harder through her office in Jefferson City. She’d focus on the job, with the aforementioned right-leaning politics.

But Hanaway’s not going to be left to her own devices. Not as long as Trump is president.

Trump’s ceaseless and sustained assault on democratic institutions offends the instinctive sensibilities of real Republicans almost as much as it does those on the Democratic side. Real Republicans pride themselves as the party of states’ rights and less government and more privacy — and while they haven’t lived up to that much — it’s quite another thing for RINOs to embrace full authoritarian control.

On the other hand, we’ve seen what’s happened with Hanaway’s good friend, Rep. Ann Wagner, who quite literally sold her political soul — who cares about the Epstein files and all this talk about sex trafficking stuff? — in full subservience to the rule of Trump.

It’s not a question of whether Hanaway will be called upon to sacrifice her core beliefs — just as Kehoe is preparing to do now on Trump’s gerrymandering demands — it’s a question of when.

Whether that manifests itself in endless, feed-the-base frivolous partisan lawsuits at taxpayer expense like Bailey did — or whether it might involve something more deadly and serious — a MAGA reckoning will be coming for Hanaway.

As a citizen and as someone whose early career was privileged to feature working for the wonderful Kit Bond — mine when he was governor, hers as a young Senate aide — I truly wish Hanaway well. For all our sakes.

But I wouldn’t bet against the power of Trump and MAGA in Missouri. Horrific times lie ahead.

These aren’t the good old days

New Trump henchman's disastrous record would make a North Korean general blush

Andrew Bailey, Missouri hardly knew ye.

But what we saw of ye was plenty more than enough.

One of the most nakedly partisan attorneys general in Missouri history, Bailey has been tapped by President Donald Trump to become his quasi–number two man at the FBI. Bailey snagged his career vault solely by politicizing the power of his state law-enforcement office in Trump’s name.

Meanwhile, Governor Mike Kehoe announced today that former GOP House Speaker Catherine Hanaway — the only woman to hold that post — is his choice to replace Bailey as attorney general. That’s unlikely to sit well with many in MAGA world, a subject for later in this space.

For now, as I documented here, Bailey served a constituency of one and it paid off handsomely — one adoring, taxpayer-funded Trump press release at a time. Bailey didn’t limit himself to following the MAGA playbook like others at his craft; his degree of obsequiousness to Trump was enough to make a North Korean general blush.

Bailey’s rise is a cautionary tale. He succeeded not only because he advanced Trump’s agenda, but because of how he went about the task.

His was not a triumph of right-wing ideology. It was of style points, groveling, ruthless ambition, and a willingness to get down and dirty.

Bailey took a back seat to no one as a toady for Trump during the 2024 election campaign. That meant paying homage in a big way to the Big Lie that Trump was somehow robbed in 2020.

“The left stole that election by changing the rules of the game at the 11th hour. They’re going to try to steal this one by silencing our voices on big tech social media platforms, by stifling us in the mainstream media and by packing the polling places with criminal illegal aliens that shouldn’t be here in the first place.” — Bailey, May 14, 2024 debate in Springfield, MO

Most Republicans survived by nodding their heads at the falsehood needed to soothe Trump’s mental trauma over losing to President Joe Biden in 2020. Not Bailey. He went all in on the lie — and I suppose garnered some style points with that whole “packing the polling places with criminal aliens” sequel, which you didn’t hear every day.

Holding fast to the Big Lie wasn’t unusual. Doubling down with zeal four years later was quite another thing.

But Bailey goes big, just the way Trump likes it. When he attacked trans people as attorney general, he didn’t just check off a box — he went all in with the declaration that virtually all trans care was “an unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful practice” for “any person or health organization” to perpetrate.

Bailey didn’t even limit that dripping bigotry to kids. He tried to include adults as well — not for any decent reason, but to get himself lambasted by the nationally respected Human Rights Campaign. Think Trump doesn’t go for that sort of thing?

It’s the pattern that Bailey followed throughout his tenure in office. He wasn’t satisfied to use the power of his office to attack DEI wherever he could detect it as some horrible virus.

Instead, Bailey would do things like falsely blame the Hazelwood School District’s DEI program for the off-campus assault of a student. When proven wrong, Bailey must have been smiling broadly to become the focus of a formal complaint about the behavior of his office.

He recused himself from a gambling lawsuit filed against the Missouri State Highway Patrol after PACs connected to the lobbyist of the companies suing the state wrote thousands in checks to the committee supporting his campaign, the Missouri Independent reported. Trump likes that sort of thing.

It was not his only brush with campaign violations. And Bailey was blasted by Clay County Judge Karen Krauser, who ordered Bailey to sit for a deposition after it was discovered he and a deputy met with a member of the Jackson County Legislature without the knowledge of the county’s attorneys. The county was a defendant.

Do you think Trump minds that he crossed the line with a judge?

Bailey has resisted releasing individuals whose convictions were overturned, even when new evidence supported their innocence. In the case of Sandra Hemme, a judge threatened to hold Bailey in contempt for instructing prison officials not to release a woman whose conviction had been overturned after she served 43 years.

If there’s any mitigating circumstance to Bailey’s tenure as attorney general, it’s that he’s not a good lawyer. In one of his first and most important cases, Bailey attempted to thwart the will of the people to keep off the ballot the 2024 constitutional amendment that eventually reinstated women’s right to an abortion.

That wasn’t remarkable. Bailey was expected by Republicans to fight the measure. They might not have expected his 6-0 thrashing before a moderately conservative Missouri Supreme Court.

Legal observers point to the astonishing number of losses he’s piled up. From mask mandates to social media censorship to his toxic emergency order declaring gender-affirming care as “experimental,” the list goes on.

But the point for Bailey was never about winning cases. It was about winning attention from the MAGA base and, above all else, Trump himself.

Just because a guy isn’t good at trying cases doesn’t mean he can’t be good at that.

Besides, Bailey is off to a new job as one of the very top officials of the FBI, the most important law-enforcement agency in the world. There, he won’t need to worry about trying cases — or losing them.

In fact, how he did in his previous work won’t matter at all. Although he had a fine career in military service, Bailey comes to the FBI with zero experience at the FBI or any police agency like it.

Zero. Unlike all the 38,000 men and women who serve today at the FBI. What could go wrong with any of that?

Nothing, apparently, if Andrew Bailey does what he does best.

Which is to keep Donald Trump happy.

This ruthless GOP apparatchik shows Trumpists stop at nothing

As much as I’m no fan of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, I must admit he has stumbled upon a promising cause.

And one that he has vast firsthand knowledge about: alleged misuse of public funds for political purposes, a dark art for which he truly deserves respect as a master practitioner.

Bailey sent Missouri state troopers to pay an unannounced visit Monday to St. Louis County Executive Sam Page’s office with a court order allowing them to seize his cell phone. That’s a bit unusual.

Ostensibly, the reason for taking Page’s cellphone is to investigate whether he might have improperly used nearly $36,000 in taxpayer money for a mailer to sway voter opinion about a proposition on April's ballot, the Post-Dispatch reported. That was the subject of a complaint by citizen-activist Tom Sullivan of University City.

I’m guessing Sullivan had a solid point, although I’m with the 62 percent of St. Louis County voters who rejected Proposition B — the subject of Page’s ire — as a dramatic overreach by the County Council. The measure would have given the council the power to fire department directors and the county's top attorney.

But that’s water under the bridge. So, too, is Page’s not-at-all-persuasive argument that the county-funded direct mailers attacking the proposition were “educational.” Somehow phrasing like “B is bad … B as a power grab. And B does nothing good for St. Louis County” doesn’t read like it came from a textbook.

None of that, however, makes it okay that Page, a Democrat, is now having his cellphone rifled through by Bailey, who’s not just a Republican, but an ethically challenged hyper-partisan, election-denying, thoroughly untrustworthy, sniveling MAGA disciple of Donald Trump.

And I say that having voted for Republican businessman Mark Mantovani for county executive in 2022 in his failed effort to unseat Page as county executive.

For Bailey, misusing public funds for political purposes is also known as Tuesday. Since his appointment in 2023 by Gov. Mike Parson (after Eric Schmitt vacated the office in winning his U.S. Senate seat), Bailey has treated the Attorney General’s office like a political campaign headquarters with subpoena power.

His record is a highlight reel of partisan interventions. He subpoenaed Washington University for transgender medical records, a move that drew national outrage over patient privacy and stretched the law to its breaking point. He continues to grandstand with partisan probes into diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in Missouri schools (and presumably anywhere else it exists).

Like so many other attorneys general, Bailey regularly churns out lawsuits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers that often represent the views of less than half of his constituents. When Republicans disapprove of the will of a majority of Missouri voters as expressed at the polls, Bailey faithfully represents his party over the people without exception.

As to public resources for political purposes, it was hard to top the help Bailey received from Parson — his former boss — during a 2024 primary race for attorney general. Parson had the audacity to use his government letterhead to attack the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) for not giving enough support to Bailey’s 2024 election campaign, as reported by the Missouri Independent.

“RAGA not supporting one of their own is quite unprecedented and deeply concerning,” Parson wrote in the letter to 10 attorneys general on RAGA’s executive committee and obtained by The Independent through a public records request.

So it’s safe to say Bailey understands the concept of blurring public resources and political purposes. And now he’s about to apply his knowledge base — and whatever other interesting facts he might find in Page’s cellphone — to champion good government.

Even Sam Page doesn’t deserve this.

‘I'm totally stunned’: GOP senator turns on own party over 'bizarre' fixation

WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders are rushing to pass President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act before their July Fourth recess, but rank-and-file Republicans from both sides of the party are tapping the brakes on the effort.

While conservative hardliners continue calling for steeper spending cuts, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), a far-right conservative himself, has become one of the loudest voices of opposition to proposed changes to how states pay for Medicaid.

“I don't get it. I don't get why we would punish working people and rural hospitals, and I don't know. I don't understand. It's broken,” Hawley told Raw Story about his party's fixation on slashing care relied on by millions. “I think it's bizarre.”

For now, Republican leaders are barreling forward, even as they don’t seem to have the 51 votes needed to pass Trump’s sweeping tax cut package.

‘Really surprising’

Hawley and a handful of other Republicans, like Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV), are up in arms over a new Senate GOP plan that slashes a tax states levy on health care providers to pay for Medicaid.

While 38 states slap more than a 5.5 percent tax on health care providers — known as a “provider tax” — under the new Senate proposal, states that expanded Medicaid via the Affordable Care Act would be capped at taxing providers at 3.5 percent by 2031.

The new proposal also phases out clean energy mandates slower than the House-passed measure, which Hawley opposes.

“I'm totally surprised by what they proposed to do on the provider tax. I don't know why we would defund rural hospitals to pay for Chinese solar panels today,” Hawley said.

“It's a huge change from the House framework. It's a big change from what we had previously been discussing, certainly what I discussed with leadership. It's really surprising, and I think it's potentially really bad for rural hospitals.”

It’s all hands on deck for GOP leaders and Trump officials. On Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz joined Republican senators for their weekly policy lunch at the Capitol where each delivered the administration’s pitch.

“We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,” Oz told reporters. “The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill.”

That’s news to Hawley, who said Trump hummed a different tune when they spoke earlier this week.

“We just discussed the big changes made by the Senate, and he said that he was also surprised by what the Senate had done,” Hawley said of his call with the president. “But I’m gonna leave that to him.”

Hawley says rural hospitals in his state are freaking out.

“This is like a crisis point. We’ve got 35 hospitals in Missouri that have fewer than 25 beds. These are really small hospitals, and they just feel they’re at a breaking point,” Hawley said.

“I'm open to any ideas about how we safeguard rural hospitals. That's my bottom line in this, I want to see rural hospitals safeguarded. There's nothing for rural hospitals, nothing but bad, nothing but pain for rural hospitals in this bill. I'm totally stunned by what they've chosen to do here. It is not at all what we have been discussing.”

Hawley’s fine with adding work requirements to Medicaid, but says he’s told party leaders he can’t back a measure that punishes rural hospitals. That’s why he was so surprised to see Senate GOP leaders get behind this new effort to cap state’s provider taxes.

“Ball’s in their court. I mean, I've met with them a billion times,” Hawley said. “They know where I stand on this.”

‘Artificial deadline’

On the other side of the great GOP divide are conservatives clamoring for steeper cuts than are in the House-passed measure, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would add $2.8 trillion to the national debt over a decade.

With all Democrats opposed to Trump’s tax and spending priorities, Republicans only have three votes to spare. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) opposes the package because it includes raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, while Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and others from the far right of the party oppose the measure because it doesn’t cut spending enough.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) wants steeper spending cuts. REUTERS/Vincent Alban

Johnson wants GOP leaders to hit pause until after the recess.

“There's no way you can get this right by July Fourth, so I'm just suggesting we take all of July, let's properly define the problem. Then let's get serious about making this a much better bill,” Johnson told reporters.

“This is an artificial deadline. There's no reason to be trying to rush this. If we rush it, we're not going to get it as a good result. We won't.”

Senate Republican leaders behind the proposed Medicaid changes say they’re working with critics like Hawley to try and find an acceptable fix, even as they work to win over conservatives who want to cut even deeper.

“We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told reporters after the weekly party lunch Tuesday.

“We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.”

House Republican claps back at MAGA senator's rebuke: 'We're not aligned'

Rep. Mark Alford (R-MO) may be from the same party and the same state as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), but the two are worlds apart when it comes to how Medicaid should be represented in the House spending bill.

Hawley told CNN's Manu Raju earlier Wednesday that he would not sign on to the House bill as it stands now because he believes cutting Medicaid benefits is akin to "taxing the poor to give to the rich, and I'm totally opposed to that," Hawley said.

Alford, who favors cuts to Medicaid, appeared Wednesday afternoon with Boris Sanchez.

"I have nothing but the utmost respect for Sen. Josh Hawley," Alford began. "We just dropped his bill in the House today, the PELOSI Act, which bans members of Congress from trading individual stocks. We're aligned on that; we're not aligned on the terminology."

EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE

"Let's put it that way," Alford continued. "For Medicaid, he calls them cuts; I call them savings. Look, we are kicking 1.4 million illegal aliens off of this program, 1.6 million Americans are now enrolled in Medicaid in at least two different states. We are finding the savings in these programs to come up with $900 billion — it was going to be 880 — they come up with 900 billion over 10 years, savings so that we can properly fund the program for people who are truly in need of these services."

Alford said he knows people in the "Show-Me State" are concerned about the proposed cuts.

"But it is a show-me state, and we're going to ask people to 'show me:' show me why you should be using taxpayer money for Medicaid that's funneled from the federal government down to the state level. Look, we are not, we are not empty of compassion — that is not what it's about. I am compassionate about turning this country around."

Alford emphasized that the House has to get the bill reconciliation passed, "or it's going to be the largest tax increase in U.S. history. And, yes, to pay for that, we're going to find savings in these programs."

Watch the clip below via CNN.

'So disappointing!' Trump fans rebel against him after latest election statement

Donald Trump on Saturday sought to release an endorsement for Missouri's gubernatorial race, but it did not go as planned.

Trump earlier in the day spoke at a Bitcoin conference, where he was accused of employing an "old authoritarian trick." After the event, attendees took to social media to complain about the former president's "rambling" speech that they found "embarrassing."

Next, he headed to a rally in Minnesota. But prior to taking the stage, he took to Truth Social to make an odd governor endorsement.

ALSO READ: Boebert, MTG and far-fight friends derail Speaker Mike Johnson’s summer plans

"I love the State of Missouri for every reason in the book, including the fact that it is 'loaded up' with truly GREAT people," Trump said. "I also like Endorsing Candidates for Office if I think they’re good, and usually there is a differentiation, usually a big one, where it is not that difficult to do."

He continued:

"But Missouri has three great people running for Governor - Jay Ashcroft, Mike Kehoe, and Bill Eigel. All have had excellent careers, and have been with me from the beginning. They are MAGA and America First all the way! I can’t hurt two of them by Endorsing one so, therefore, I’m going to Endorse, for Governor of the Great State of Missouri, Jay Ashcroft, Mike Kehoe, and Bill Eigel. Choose any one of them - You can’t go wrong!"

Some of Trump's supporters weren't happy with his hedging bets.

@BlueEyesOpen, a user with "America First" and "DARK MAGA" in their bio on Truth Social, begged Trump.

"Please President Trump, they are not all good!" "[Eigel] is the only choice for Missouri! You can't keep doing this to us."

The user then added, "You did it with our senate race endorsing Eric. Remember?"

@mjnorton, also a Trump supporter, chimed in, "There is only [one] choice and that is Bill Eigel!!"

"NOOOOOOOOO!" another pro-Trump account shouted. "China Kehoe and China Ashcroft, along with keeping Dominion machines."

They added, "Bill Eigel is a veteran and a fighter for the people! Ugh. This is SO disappointing."

John Beckett said, "Sorry President Trump. Bill Eigel is the America First MAGA candidate. The other 2 are huge [Republicans in Name Only]."

@Meme24u said, "Not what I expected."

"You did the same with our Senate... and I'm truly disappointed," the user added.

Other users voiced concerns about Trump's V.P. pick, Senator J.D. Vance.

"Um..... your VP doesn't have a Truth Social account. Red flag," wrote @jrw8881.

@Wfan66wfan called recently leaked emails from Vance "disgusting" and said, "this election is over with because of this POS Vance."

"Your only hope is to dump Vance for Rubio or you will be the only person who could possibly lose" to Kamala Harris.

Convicted double murderer to be executed in Missouri

WASHINGTON — A Missouri man convicted of murdering his cousin and her husband is to be executed in Missouri on Tuesday, despite widespread calls for his life to be spared.

Brian Dorsey, 52, is to be put to death by lethal injection at 6:00 p.m. Central Time (2300 GMT) for the 2006 murders of Sarah Bonnie, 25, and her husband Ben Bonnie, 28, in New Bloomfield, Missouri.

Dorsey pleaded guilty to shooting the couple with a shotgun after they took him in for the night to protect him from drug dealers who were trying to collect on a debt.