Johnson's strategy to bypass Democrats' SAVE Act blockade survives key vote, handing GOP big win

"House Republicans are aiming to use this reconciliation bill to fund states’ election integrity efforts, replenish military funding amid the U.S. war with Iran, and dole out aid to American farmers."

There it is!

They finally figured out how to make the Save Act acceptable to the Senate Parliamentarian as part of a Reconciliation Bill. They had to attach spending to it to make it part of the budgetary process.

They finally figured out how to make the Save Act acceptable to the Senate Parliamentarian as part of a Reconciliation Bill. They had to attach spending to it to make it part of the budgetary process.

So they found a way to force an unpopular bill through because there are not enough votes to do it the right way.  So much for democracy...

So they found a way...

Not yet. They are only talking and whipping various ways to get it jammed through, including doing away with the Senate filibuster. None of the ideas are certain to pass.

Actually voter integrity is very popular and that includes democrat voters. It is the democrat party that opposes it

Actually voter integrity is very popular and that includes democrat voters.

Yes, 79% of independants and 70% of Democrats are in favor of some reforms. Trump and Johnson want to push through something popular before elections to distract from how unpopular the majority is on Iran and the economy. 

It goes to the question of who is voting for these crazy lefties

It goes to the question of who is voting for these crazy lefties

The MAGA right-wing populists have shown the left-wing populists how to organize. 

‘an unpopular bill’

By whom? Show where nationally it is an unpopular bill. The last survey conducted showed 83 percent of Americans approved of voter ID. 

I wonder why the other 17 percent disapproved s/

The last survey conducted showed 83 percent of Americans approved of voter ID. 

But Voter ID isn't the sole point of the SAVE ACT and it violates the States' Rights 

Public support for the SAVE America Act is mixed, with strong backing for specific provisions like voter ID and proof-of-citizenship, but more tepid support for the bill as a whole.

Overview of Support

Polling on the SAVE America Act shows   divergent results depending on how questions are framed . Administration sources report high support, claiming 71% of Americans favor the bill, including 69% of independents and 50% of Democrats, with 81% supporting voter ID and 80% backing the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls   The White House . Other surveys, such as Pew Research and Gallup, similarly show broad support for voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, often exceeding 80% across party lines   The White House .

Polling Nuances

However, independent polling presents a more cautious picture. A POLITICO survey found that   only 37% of Americans support the SAVE Act by name , while 42% were neutral or unsure, and 21% opposed it   POLITICO . Support is higher for individual provisions, such as requiring documentary proof of citizenship, which garners roughly two-thirds approval   factually.co . Navigator Research also indicates that support declines when respondents are exposed to messaging highlighting potential barriers to voting, with support dropping to 45% and opposition rising to 47%   navigatorresearch.org +1 .

Factors Affecting Popularity

• Awareness and information : Many Americans are unfamiliar with the full bill, and exposure to opposition messaging can reduce support   navigatorresearch.org +1 .
• Partisan differences : Trump supporters overwhelmingly back the bill, while Democrats are generally opposed or less enthusiastic, even for popular provisions like voter ID   POLITICO .
• Demographics : Awareness and support vary by gender, age, income, and media consumption, with women under 55 and lower-income Americans less likely to have heard of the bill   navigatorresearch.org .

Key Takeaways

While   specific measures within the SAVE Act, such as voter ID and proof-of-citizenship, enjoy broad bipartisan support , the   overall bill has more tepid and uncertain popularity . Public opinion is highly sensitive to how the bill is described, the level of detail provided, and exposure to counterarguments, making headline support figures variable and context-dependent   factually.co .

SAVE Act popularity - Search

By whom? Show where nationally it is an unpopular bill.

Ummm, that's why it is not brought up for a straight yea/nay vote.  It is unpopular enough that it would fail, so repuiblicans are trying to work around that.

The last survey conducted showed 83 percent of Americans approved of voter ID.

I believe every state requires ID to register to vote at the least. 

Fresh   polling   underscores the SAVE America Act’s popularity with Americans:

• 71% support the SAVE America Act — including 69% of independents and half of rank-and-file Democrats.
  • 81% favor requiring voter ID — backed by 79% of independents and 70% of Democrats.
  • 80% want states to purge non-citizens from voter rolls.
  • 75% support proof of citizenship to vote.
  • 61% support sharing unredacted voting rolls with the Department of Homeland Security.
• 60% call the SAVE America Act a “commonsense way to stop fraud and protect the security of our elections.”
• 58% recognize at least some voter fraud exists in the U.S.
• 85% agree only U.S. citizens should vote in our elections — including 84% of independents and 82% of Democrats.

These numbers align with   other polling   that shatters Democrats’ tired narrative:

• Pew Research Center:  83% of Americans —   including   wide majorities  of Democrats, independents, Whites, Blacks, and Latinos —   favor  voter ID requirements.
• Gallup:  84%   support   voter ID,   with  98% of Republicans, 84% of independents, and 67% of Democrats on board — while an equally robust 83%  back  proof of citizenship for voter registration.
• Rasmussen Reports:   75%   support   voter ID, with support   increasing   over the past decade.
• Heritage Action:   Strong majorities across five battleground states   support   the SAVE America Act

whitehouse

The House just passed the Defense Bill.

The Save America Act was attached to it. Hopefully the Senate can get it passed as well and send it over to the President.

But yet the left wants to gaslight and say the bill is unpopular.

The only thing unpopular is their policies and ideas. They are always on the 20 of every 80/20 issue

There it is!

Ummm... maybe not.

“It’s a waste of time,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), warning there isn’t enough time to implement the SAVE America Act before the Nov. 3 election. thehill

That's ok

 We'll have it for all the others.

We'll have it for all the others.

It hasn't even been voted on in committee yet. 

I know you are focused on them midterms. The Dems are supposed to win that

When the Dems win the house, they will impeach the President again and they will stop his agenda, but in 2028 we will have another Republican President.

You heard it here first

in 2028 we will have another Republican President

uh-huh, yeah, sure ...

Of course he will be impeached , he is 1000% unfit to be president of the United States. 

When the Dems win the house, they will impeach the President again

What does that have to do with a bill that's still in committee? Either way the Senate race is too close to call and a Republican Senate would still vote to acquit. 

Will the charge be he is 1000% unfit to be president?  I hope they can do better than that.

I hope they can do better than that.

I hope Republicans can do better than Trump, but apparently, they can't put forward a candidate who isn't a convicted felon, admitted sexual predator and accused pedophile. I guess that's just their brand now.

The details behind the claim of unfitness are plentiful.   How is it possible that you do not see this?

What does that have to do with a bill that's still in committee?

It was attached to the Defense Bill, and it just passed the House.

[✘]

Of course he will be impeached

After all the foot stomping and crying during his last term, the "impeachments" were for obstructing Democrats.  So what is it going to be this time?  Y'all need to remember that hurting your feelings isn't an impeachable offense.

So will he be impeached for being unfit? Will that be the charge?

It was attached to the Defense Bill, and it just passed the House.

From the NYT 

The moves are unlikely to budge Senate Republicans; they consider the bill dead, given that it cannot draw the 60 votes needed to move forward in that chamber.

The Senate has their own versions of spending bills and provisions tied to voting will be stripped out during reconciliation. 

Actually, pretty much everything is on the table when it comes to impeaching Trump. Hurt feelings ALWAYS leads the list

Of course not.    He is demonstrably unfit, but for impeachment we go to actual charges, not merely the summary judgment of 'unfit'.   As I noted: " The details behind the claim of unfitness are plentiful. "   Unfitness is too vague.   He should be impeached, and there are many plausible reasons.   Here is a list from ChatGPT:

Legally plausible articles of impeachment

Impeachment involves articles of impeachment , not necessarily criminal charges. A president may be impeached for serious abuses of office or violations of the public trust even when the conduct does not fit an ordinary criminal statute. The House needs a simple majority to impeach; conviction and removal require two-thirds of senators present. ( U.S. Senate )

As of July 23, 2026 , these appear to be the most defensible potential articles, ranked roughly by the strength of the current public record.

1. Retaliatory abuse of presidential power and violation of the First Amendment

Trump personally issued executive orders imposing government sanctions on law firms associated with investigations, clients, personnel, or legal positions he opposed. The measures included restricting security clearances, federal-building access and government contracting. Federal district judges invalidated orders targeting Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey as unconstitutional retaliation or viewpoint discrimination. ( Courthouse News )

A suitable article would charge that Trump:

Used the powers of the presidency to punish private attorneys and law firms for protected legal representation, association and expression, thereby suppressing dissent, obstructing access to counsel and undermining the independence of the judicial system.

This is especially strong because the actions came directly from Trump through signed presidential orders, rather than merely from subordinate officials.

2. Usurpation of Congress’s war powers and continuation of unauthorized hostilities against Iran

Congress has neither declared war against Iran nor enacted a specific authorization for the use of military force against it. Trump launched Operation Epic Fury on February 28, 2026. The administration argues that the operation was a necessary exercise of presidential authority against an imminent Iranian threat. However, the conflict continued beyond the War Powers Resolution’s ordinary 60-day period, and both chambers subsequently approved measures calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities. Hostilities resumed in July, with Trump claiming that the resumption initiated a new 60-day period—a position that critics contend improperly resets the statutory clock.

A suitable article would charge:

Usurpation of Congress’s exclusive constitutional power to declare war by initiating and continuing sustained offensive hostilities against Iran without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, and by disregarding Congress’s direction that unauthorized hostilities cease.

The impeachment argument is not simply that the war was incompetent or produced harmful consequences. Poor military judgment alone is generally not impeachable. The stronger constitutional charge is that Trump assumed a legislative war-making power that belongs to Congress.

3. Obstruction of justice, defiance of judicial authority and denial of due process

The Supreme Court recorded the government’s acknowledgment that Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been removed to El Salvador despite a withholding order and that the removal was illegal. The Court required the government to facilitate his release and ensure that his case was handled as it would have been absent the improper removal. Other litigation has raised broader questions about removals undertaken without meaningful notice or an opportunity to challenge detention and deportation. ( Supreme Court )

H.Res. 353 has already proposed an article alleging a broader pattern of misleading courts, evading binding orders, removing individuals without due process and corrupting the administration of justice. ( GovInfo )

A carefully written article would charge:

Directing, knowingly authorizing or deliberately ratifying the evasion of binding judicial orders, the presentation of materially misleading representations to federal courts and the deprivation of liberty without constitutionally required due process.

The critical evidentiary question is Trump’s personal involvement . Agency misconduct alone should not automatically be attributed to him. Congressional testimony and internal communications would need to establish that he directed, approved or knowingly perpetuated the defiance.

4. Usurpation of the congressional appropriations power and unlawful impoundment

The Constitution gives Congress control of federal appropriations. GAO has concluded that executive agencies violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding or delaying congressionally appropriated funds for policy reasons. For example, GAO found violations involving Department of Energy school-improvement funds and concluded that the Department of Transportation was not authorized to withhold federal electric-vehicle infrastructure funds. The actions followed presidential executive directives requiring funding pauses and policy reviews. ( GAO )

A suitable article would charge:

Deliberately nullifying duly enacted appropriations laws by directing executive agencies to withhold, terminate or redirect funds without congressional authorization, thereby usurping Congress’s power of the purse and violating the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.

An isolated administrative mistake would not justify impeachment. A coordinated presidential policy asserting the authority to disregard appropriations enacted by Congress could.

5. Corrupt use of the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement

H.Res. 353 alleges that Trump used the Justice Department to benefit allies, dismiss or punish prosecutors associated with investigations of him, and investigate perceived political enemies. It specifically alleges that dismissal of the Eric Adams prosecution involved a politically motivated exchange connected with the administration’s policy objectives. ( GovInfo )

A defensible article would state:

Using federal prosecutorial and investigative powers to reward political cooperation, protect allies, retaliate against adversaries and obstruct legitimate investigations for personal or political benefit rather than a lawful public purpose.

This could be one of the gravest articles, but it requires a developed evidentiary record showing presidential direction and corrupt intent. Policy disagreements over prosecutorial priorities would not be enough.

6. Bribery, corruption, foreign benefits and self-dealing

Bribery is expressly identified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. H.Res. 353 alleges that Trump has maintained financial interests capable of receiving payments from persons and foreign interests seeking favorable treatment, including through cryptocurrency ventures and other business arrangements. It also alleges prohibited foreign benefits and personal enrichment from public office. ( GovInfo )

A properly supported article might charge:

Soliciting, accepting or retaining financial benefits from private parties or foreign governmental interests in exchange for official action, access, policy influence or favorable treatment, and using the presidency for personal enrichment.

This article should not be based merely on the appearance of conflicts, increased family wealth or controversial business activity. A convincing bribery article would identify:

• A specific benefit or payment

• The person or government providing it

• The official action sought or delivered

• Evidence connecting the benefit to that action

Without that evidentiary link, the matter justifies investigation but not yet a definitive bribery finding.

7. Intimidation of Congress and encouragement of political violence

H.Res. 939 cites Trump’s November 2025 statements describing six serving lawmakers’ conduct as “punishable by death” and his reposting of language saying they should be hanged. The lawmakers had urged military and intelligence personnel to refuse unlawful orders. The resolution characterizes Trump’s statements as an abuse of presidential power intended to threaten members of a coequal branch. ( GovInfo )

A potential article would charge:

Using the authority and influence of the presidency to threaten, intimidate and encourage violence against Members of Congress for performing their constitutional and legislative functions.

There would be arguments about rhetorical exaggeration and protected political speech. Nevertheless, impeachment is concerned with abuse of public office, not merely whether a criminal-threat prosecution could succeed. Presidential calls for death punishment against lawmakers can reasonably be treated more seriously than similar rhetoric from an ordinary private citizen.

8. Unconstitutional delegation of governmental authority and creation of an unlawful power structure

H.Res. 353 alleges that Trump gave Elon Musk and DOGE officer-level authority over agencies, appropriated funds, sensitive government information and federal personnel without compliance with the Appointments Clause or normal statutory structures. ( GovInfo )

A possible article would charge:

Vesting substantial governmental authority in persons who were neither properly appointed nor confirmed, permitting them to exercise powers established by law for officers and agencies of the United States, and using that structure to evade statutory, ethical and congressional controls.

This is more legally complex and probably works better as supporting conduct within the appropriations or abuse-of-power articles unless an investigation establishes that constitutionally significant officer powers were knowingly delegated unlawfully.

The strongest compact case

A disciplined impeachment resolution should avoid a sprawling catalogue of every objection to Trump. The strongest current formulation would probably contain four principal articles:

1. Retaliatory abuse of executive power and suppression of protected expression

2. Usurpation of Congress’s war powers in the Iran conflict

3. Defiance of judicial authority and deprivation of due process

4. Usurpation of Congress’s appropriations power

Additional articles concerning corruption, DOJ weaponization and intimidation of Congress could be added if an impeachment inquiry obtains the necessary communications, financial records and testimony.

General incompetence, policy failures, false statements, low approval ratings, offensive rhetoric and economic damage are not independently sufficient grounds . “Unfitness” is a conclusion supported by serious abuses of office; it is not, by itself, a precise article of impeachment. Likewise, treason should not be alleged without evidence meeting the Constitution’s exceptionally narrow definition.

Hurt feelings ALWAYS leads the list

The typical bullshit ... making up exaggerated nonsense instead of a sound argument.

It is a stupid claim to summarize all the reasons for impeaching Trump as merely "hurt feelings".   That suggests you are entirely unaware of all the wrongful deeds of Trump.

Because democrats hate Trump AND THE COUNTRY!

Claiming that Ds “hate the country” illustrates an inability to distinguish legitimate criticism of Trump from hatred of America.  When you cannot defend Trump’s conduct on the merits, accusing his critics of hating our nation is the refuge of someone who has abandoned critical thinking for cult-like loyalty.

No, they legitimately hate the country.  Trump has nothing to do with Democratic leaders stated desires to  eradicate  western civilization or to fundamentally transform America. 

You should pay attention to what leaders of the party actually say rather than simplistically tying it all to Trump. 

No, they legitimately hate the country. 

Now that is a fine example of emotion over reason.

You should pay attention to what leaders of the party actually say rather than simplistically tying it all to Trump. 

I criticize Trump because of what Trump says and does.   The Ds have nothing whatsoever to do with that.

More bullshit from you.

[✘]

Of course not

Correct and the actual answer to the question i asked JR.

Cherrypicking yet again.

Is it your view that Trump should not be impeached per the charges listed @1.2.16?

Claiming that Ds “hate the country” illustrates an inability to distinguish legitimate criticism of Trump from hatred of America.

It illustrates that I heard correctly when Obama called working class Americans "clingers" and when I heard Hillary Clinton call working class Americans "deplorables' and when I heard Joe Biden call them neo-Nazis and "chumps."

It illustrates that I heard correctly when Obama called working class Americans "clingers" and when I heard Hillary Clinton call working class Americans "deplorables' and when I heard Joe Biden call them neo-Nazis and "chumps."

This comments hilariously illustrates hyper-partisanship. The 'clingers' and 'deplorables' are those right-wing MAGA populists who can't stop calling anyone who disagrees with them marxists, communists, and/or socialist and how much they hate America.

Do you recognize the difference between how you interpret select words from a few politicians and the whole of the D party?

Your post is absurd.

Hurt feelings ALWAYS leads the list

They claim over and over that there is evidence of "crimes trump has committed" but none can seem to link any of it despite their claims it's been posted before.  Which really tells me all they have is hurt feelings.

[✘]

Cherrypicking yet again.

Not changing the meaning of the comment and ignored what was not relevant to that comment

Now you know you are never to mention things like that.  Oh and they expect you to forget it ever happened, you know, like they have.

Why are Dems/Libs so hateful, bad liars, pathetic politicians - and people like them????

Why are any hyper-partisan hypocrites, so hateful and lie?

You cannot defend Trump logically, so you post vague quips.

It illustrates that I heard correctly when Obama called working class Americans "clingers" and when I heard Hillary Clinton call working class Americans "deplorables' and when I heard Joe Biden call them neo-Nazis and "chumps."

A key theme among Trump supporters is to grasp at straws ... to get anything they can (typically minor) and try to exaggerate it ridiculously to try to coverup Trump's wrongdoings.   They know the damage he is doing, so it seems to me that cultish partisanship overrides patriotism.

You cannot defend Trump logically

So I cant do something I didn't try to do and had nothing to do with my comment that you responded to.

Surely you can see how flawed that "logic" is.

So I cant do something I didn't try to do and had nothing to do with my comment that you responded to.

How dare you!!!!!!!

Good question - could be for trying to cover up their losses and claim they are victories??

Only in their head.

So I cant do something I didn't try to do

Well at least you admit to not using logic when fecklessly defending Trump. I mean, you can't actually expect anyone to believe you're not defending Trump, because that fact is just obvious on the face of it. But I can see how you're not "defending him logically" as that would require an actual logical defense for the indefensible, of which anyone with more than half a brain can see there is not.

Well at least you admit 

Making stuff up does not help build credibility 

Sometimes I have flashbacks to the high school debate club

Making stuff up does not help build credibility 

Making what up?

You said you "can't do something you didn't try to do" in response to being accused of defending "Trump logically". I simply agreed that you did not try to defend Trump logically. So, what part of this did I make up again?

Context helps in reading comprehension 

Well at least you admit to not using logic

Where did he do that?

fecklessly defending Trump.

Again, where did he do that?[✘]

[✘]

They should remove the 2/3 requirement from the senate impeachment process. Now that would be something useful. 

They should remove the 2/3 requirement from the senate impeachment process. Now that would be something useful. 

And every president going forward will be impeached for something.  Great plan.

every president going forward will be impeached for something

If they and their friends & families are making billions off the Presidency I hope we impeach every fucking one of them.

I'm a few steps beyond impeachment for that level of criminal activity and abuse of power ...

They should remove the 2/3 requirement from the senate impeachment process.

So set it up for cheating.  Typical Democrat methods.

‘Typical Democrat methods.’

Just like not needing an ID to vote and mass ballot mailings.

Cheating is the democratic party mantra

[✘]

Just like not needing an ID to vote and mass ballot mailings.

Remember, according to Democrats, blacks and women are too stupid to get ID's.  Does that mean that they are looking out for the stupid people?  Maybe they can all go to one of those Learing Centers in Minneapolis.  

John - the 2/3rd's requirement is applicable to approval of Treaties and that is with 2/3rd's approval of those Senators present.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.