Tag New York Times

I’d like to say just a few words about the happenings of this week

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

Oh, Auntie Em, I had the most amazing, wonderful dream…

Things didn’t exactly turn from black and white to Technicolor while I sat up until 2:00 a.m. watching election returns, but at one point just after midnight I remember saying to my wife, “You know, this is fun!”  I hadn’t had this much fun during election returns since the last time I anchored the broadcast, almost forty years ago.

Watching the defeat of an evil empire of Christian nationalist, law-and-norm-ignoring fascists, even if it turns out to be only temporarily, the strongest emotion I’ve felt – am still feeling, almost three days later – is schadenfreude.  I know my mom (maybe yours too) would have gently scolded that’s it’s not nice to take pleasure in the suffering of others; I like to think that Elsie Joan would have allowed some grace in this case, where the “others” in question are people who have been so aggressively contemptuous of so many of our laws and of their fellow men that they deserve little sympathy.  I think they got what they deserved.

For your reading pleasure and historical backgrounding, here is a free link to the New York Times article with the inside story of how the Trump Administration went out of its way to shoot itself in the foot and make it possible for the lost-in-the-desert Democrats to complete a thorough and humiliating ass-whipping of a president and a party that felt they were bulletproof, all can’t-touch-this I dare  you to come against us.

It seems obvious to me that this election was a referendum on TFG in the sense that people have been so angry, and so offended, at what he and his black-hatted henchmen have actually done since January 2025.  At how they have failed to do things they promised that won them new political support in the last election.  At how they have actually gone about doing some of the things they did do in ways that appalled most everyday Americans (remember DOGE?).  At how they have made clear their disdain for the rule of law and even for the participation of the representatives of the American people in the House and Senate.  It turns out the post-election Associated Press polling backs that up.

People couldn’t get beyond the realities of life in Trump’s America: the Iran war and the senseless tariffs that combined to raise prices for us all while alienating our allies around the world; the barely-trained vigilantes ICE dispatched not to round up “the worst of the worst” but to terrorize immigrant society and kill a few American citizen protesters in the process; the unprecedented corruption and self-dealing; the self-aggrandizing efforts of a tawdry real estate developer to memorialize himself in our nation’s capitol – including the interminable gilding of everything that didn’t move out of his way – and the most godawful sycophants who were tiny-hands-picked by Trump himself as candidates (so bad that even staunch conservatives just couldn’t stomach them – yeah, I’m looking at you Ken Paxton).

Yesterday I read another interesting explanation behind the enormous vote “against Trump” not only all across the country, but especially from Black and Hispanic voters: they were responding to the Republicans assault on voting rights.  That is, Trump’s pressure on states to redraw their Congressional district lines ahead of schedule – because, he said, Republicans were “entitled” to more seats due to their winning margin in 2024 (that’s not ever a reason why lines are drawn the way they are) – led to the elimination of many majority-minority districts across the country.  And the litigation over that effort led to a Supreme Court decision that further gutted the Voting Rights Act, ruling that political  gerrymandering is perfectly legal so long as it isn’t intentionally racist.  Justice Samuel Alito further ruled that drawing districts designed to elect  racial minorities constituted “intentional race-based conduct” and that’s a no-no.

Many advocates feared the worst: Between the 2024 and 2026 elections, Republican-led states reassigned over 25 million people, or roughly 7.5 percent of all Americans, into different congressional districts. One report concluded that “the only realistic path” for Democrats to avoid decades of Republican rule—and for Black voters to have any shot at electing candidates who represent their interests—would be “a rare ‘blue wave’ election scenario” where “voters turn out at overwhelming rates.”

Tuesday was not just a wave. It was a tsunami. Preliminary data from the University of Florida Election Lab indicates that approximately 48.8 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2026 midterm election, making it the second-highest midterm turnout in over a century. Other early reports indicate that Black voter turnout in particular soared, rivaling the numbers of Barack Obama’s first presidential run.

And Black folks are mad as hell: In a poll of 700 Black women shortly before the election, for example, 87 percent said that the nullification of the Voting Rights Act and the surge of racially discriminatory attacks on the franchise made them more motivated to vote. A New York Times analysis of 2026 midterm trends shows that 91 percent of Black voters supported Democrats—a considerably higher amount than that of any other racial group.

Republican elites underestimated Black voter turnout and overestimated their own level of support. Now, instead of collapsing, Black representation is expected to remain relatively steady in Congress. Black candidates made historic inroads in statewide elections for offices like the Senate, which are not affected by redrawing individual district maps; and in the House, Black candidates won many contested seats, gerrymandering be damned.

Hey, would you look at that: actually voting makes a difference.

The results we saw in this week’s election were not just thanks to an overwhelming response from voters fed up with TFG and his sycophants in the Administration and in Congress.  Writing in Slate, Richard Hasen reminds us that thousands of people have been working, for years, to be ready to fight if Trump carried through on his threats to steal the election.

There were legitimate concerns Trump would go further [than he ultimately did], such as by seizing ballots or voting machines while states were tabulating ballots and certifying results. People also worried he would invoke the Insurrection Act or declare a national emergency as a pretext for a federal election takeover. He publicly said he wanted a federal takeover of elections in Democratic states. His administration refused to categorically rule out sending ICE officers or other agents to the polls, or to abstain from messing with state election certifications.

That none of this happened is a testament to the very hard work that has been underway for years. It was not just one individual or group that saved American democracy. Civil rights lawyers, who have been in the trenches for years fighting for voting rights, pivoted to fighting against attempts to steal elections. Nonprofit election protection organizations mobilized civic, business, and religious leaders to bolster support for threatened election officials. Foundations and voters stepped up to fund this intense work. Democratic and Republican election officials conducted war games, considering what to do if the DOJ showed up with warrants for ballots or to arrest election administrators. Citizen groups mobilized in case ICE agents showed up at the polls. Courts decided emergency election cases, often on absurdly compressed timetables, and judges across the legal and political spectrum held the line. Journalists relentlessly explored the weak spots in how elections are run, pressed the Trump administration for answers, and reported fairly about the risks. Voters turned out in droves and named democracy as one of their primary concerns, along with corruption, for their votes. They rejected election deniers who wanted to run elections in 2028.

Are you like me, have you noticed since the votes have been counted we’re seeing a few leaders of MAGA World seem to be maybe trying to find their way back out of the wilderness and into the good old Grand Old Party, the one that up until 2016 thought Trump the candidate was thoroughly unqualified to be president and an embarrassment on top of that, but who changed their tune by the time he finished his hostile takeover at the 2016 Republican Convention?  People like Ted Cruz.  Back then Cruz was strongly anti-Trump (and acted pretty provoked when Trump insulted Cruz’ wife) until after the convention; since then he has been a strong and verbal backer of the Republican in the White House.  That, in and of itself, is not unusual: for a politician, there isn’t much future in being a vocal opponent of your party’s leader.  Cruz is ambitious, and not stupid.

But if you go so far as to defend Trump’s claim to have won the 2020 election (in the face of absolutely zero pieces of evidence to prove it), if you defend his decision to start an unprovoked war, if you generally want it known that you and he are asshole buddies, and then within hours of your boy suffering a generational “ass-kicking” (his words, not mine) you can’t piously blame the war for your party’s loss like you had nothing to do with it.  If Cruz disagrees with Trump on important stuff, and I believe he does, it would have been nice to see some of that political courage when it meant something.  Same thing for other Republicans.

Here in Texas, every Republican running statewide on the ballot Tuesday (Cruz wasn’t on this ballot) was beaten badly, including our three-term governor and lieutenant governor; Democrats will also take control of the state House of Representatives (but not the State Senate).  I find it telling that as Republican legislators consider how they will approach governing our state without their party having a stranglehold on all the offices, some are panicking.  Like Brian Harrison, who is so fearful of the scary Democrats having some power that he’s calling on Republicans to change the rules of the game: to use the time between now and the next governor’s swearing-in in January “to restore separation of powers and limit the emergency powers that Governor-Elect Hinojosa is set to inherit, which would allow her to destroy liberty in Texas by executive fiat.”

So, the Republican legislature was just fine with destroying the separation of powers so Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick do whatever they wanted without oversight, but we can’t trust a Democrat not to “destroy liberty” in Texas?  Who believes this crap?  What a pathetic bunch.

I am mindful that this enormous win at the polls for Democrats does not end the fight.  We still have as president the man who’s been stuffing bribe money into his own pockets while promising to end a war he started (and then not doing it), who thinks imposing tariffs on imports does not mean Americans pay higher prices for goods (it does), who doesn’t think he himself has any responsibility for his party getting its head handed to it at the polls (he does), who thinks his eye for design is high class (it is not), and who just today selected as his new White House chief of staff the one adviser who is most responsible for all the crap ICE has pulled since January of last year.  (Of all the terrible aides in this White House, why pick the one who sleeps hanging upside down to be in charge?)  Even if this Administration doesn’t try to stop Democrats from taking control of Congress in January, and I say that is not a given no matter what they’re saying now, we’ll still have two more years of this guy in charge.  Maybe we can take some pleasure in watching his minions defending their past actions when they get to testify before Congressional committees.  Now that’s entertainment!

Fact is, this tortured abuse of the legal process is likely only the beginning

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

OK then, I guess up is down, right is left, the sun sets in the north and I was People Magazine’s Sexiest Man of the Year in 1984 (a test of concept, before rolling out Mel Gibson the next year).  That we now live in Bizarro World is the only reasonable explanation for how Donald Trump’s Justice Department today could – with a straight face – ask a federal court “to block certification of the Senate election in Alaska if the Republican incumbent loses.” [emphasis added]

The Justice Department, in a court filing, argued that confusion over another candidate on the ballot with a name very similar to the incumbent, Senator Dan S. Sullivan, could taint the election result. Mr. Sullivan is in what polls suggest is a close race against Mary Peltola, a Democrat, but the ballot also features Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

A number of tight races across the country, including Alaska, could tip the balance of power in the Senate. The legal gambit also comes shortly after the administration sued the state of California over what it claims are 20,000 “likely noncitizens” on the state’s voter roll.

David Becker of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, a nonpartisan group that advises election officials, said he could not recall a similar instance in which the federal government sought to block certification of an election, “and certainly not 11 days before an election.” The issue of another candidate with a similar name has already been addressed by state officials, he said.

“D.O.J. making this claim this late smells of political interference and is against D.O.J. policy,” Mr. Becker said. “The feds have absolutely no authority to tell Alaska when and how to certify. The state officials are following Alaska state law, as the Constitution requires.” He said he expected the courts to reject the administration’s lawsuit.

Did DOJ argue that confusion might also work the other way, that voters who would have otherwise elected the other Dan Sullivan might be confused into voting for the incumbent senator?  That that might be another reason to stall certification until the confusion could be sorted out?  No, no it did not.  The new politically-supercharged Department of Justice (We Punish Trump’s Enemies; Just You Try Us!) has bravely stepped up to try to protect a poor, defenseless Republican senator from suffering at the hands of the stupid voters of his own state.  And it did so because, apparently, Trump himself told them to do it.  This would be the most pathetic example of the tortured relationship with the concept of truth by people living in Trumpworld that I found in the news today were it not for the sad claim that Melania Trump brokered a ceasefire in Ukraine.  Yes, that  Melania Trump.

Remember, Donald Trump has the emotional maturity of a two year old and cannot admit to losing, or even to making a mistake.  That he is trying to corrupt the conduct of this election in the hope he can steal enough races to maintain his control of the Congress is a given.  That he is doing so while simultaneously sowing the seeds for the excuses he’ll rely on later to blame others for the loss…well, that dexterity may be his only remarkable talent.

Just the facts, ma’am – election rigging edition

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

For a guy who promised to keep “piling up the facts” about our president to illuminate the truth about his ongoing assault on our country and our way of life, it may seem out of character to offer a prediction.  But this prediction is grounded in facts and a clear-eyed review of past actions, which all point to one incontrovertible fact: Donald Trump is trying to rig the November elections to keep MAGA world in charge in Washington.  He’s been doing it right out in the open, in front of our eyes, stacking lie upon lie about a false “crisis of election security” so he can undo enough MAGA losses in November to maintain Republican control of the House and Senate for the last two years of his term of office.  So he can get away with God knows what.

We all witnessed him try to unlawfully snatch victory from the jaws of his defeat in 2020 and fail, thanks to the dozens of lawyers and judges who argued against and struck down his nonsensical pleadings in court cases across the country, and to the members of Congress and Vice President Pence who refused his treasonous efforts on January 6, 2021.  But his basic approach – to election stealing, to everything – is to never admit defeat (even when defeat is obvious) and always fight back with greater force.  Getting his ducks lined up before this November’s election is critical: he knows that if Democrats take control of either house of Congress he won’t be able to get the Compliant Congress® to pass anything to smooth the MAGA path for 2028.

The “facts” he is abusing to make his argument concern voting by mail and voting by non-citizens.  Voting by mail is a simple, reasonable, pretty uncontroversial method of voting, which Trump himself has reportedly taken advantage of for years (apparently without any fraud, eh?).  Yet Trump has been lying about problems with voting by mail for years, despite research by conservative and GOP organizations finding no significant issues: as reported recently by the New York Times,

An election fraud database maintained by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, includes just under 300 cases of proven “fraudulent use of absentee ballots” over a 43-year period, from 1982 to 2025. And in 2025, the Brookings Institution found that fraud accounted for only four out of 10 million mailed ballots.

Only 300 cases of fraud in 43 years !?  Only four cases (one two three FOUR) out of 10,000,000 ballots!?!   (BTW,  Brookings headline is that there was “very low fraud and significant benefits to voters” [emphasis added])  Hardly an issue of fraud, or of election results being compromised.  Might Trump have something else in mind?

Mr. Trump has admitted that combating fraud is not the only reason to target the practice. In March, he told Republican lawmakers that passing a strict voter identification law cracking down on mail ballots, which Democrats now use more than Republicans, would “guarantee the midterms” for his party.

I.  Am.  Shocked.  So shocked.

I’m all for keeping non-citizens from voting in our elections.  As it so happens, it is already illegal for non-citizens of the U.S. to vote in U.S. federal elections.  Also illegal for non-citizens to vote in state elections in all 50 states; municipalities in three states and the District of Columbia do allow them to vote in some municipal elections.  The documented instances of non-citizens becoming registered to vote is exceedingly small; the number of those illegally registered to vote who then actually voted  is even smaller than that.  In summary, there is no evidence that non-citizens have ever voted in large enough numbers to have changed the outcome of any election, despite the hair-on-fire claims of TFG.

There has been a lot of activity in the past week over voting by mail, starting with a Supreme Court ruling that “allowed the Trump administration to move forward with plans to restrict mail-in voting before the midterm elections.”

…the justices said President Trump could proceed with implementing an executive order he had signed, which directed the U.S. Postal Service to help decide which voters should receive mail-in ballots. Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security will also create lists of U.S. citizens that the administration believes could be used to monitor voter rolls for noncitizens.

The decision means the administration can move ahead with planning for restricting the use of mail ballots even as a lower court continues to weigh the legality of Mr. Trump’s executive order.

It’s important to remember that the Constitution gives the states — the states — the authority conduct elections for Congress (both houses), subject to Congressional approval or revision of those plans by virtue of laws passed by the Congress.  Laws passed by Congress, not executive orders from the president –- Constitutionally speaking, the president has ZERO authority over conducting elections, including through the use of executive orders.  (It is believed that the Supreme Court justices are aware of this.)  Yes, Congress has passed laws concerning federal elections: for example, to establish a uniform election date across the country, to require states with more than one representative in the House to draw districts rather than elect all representatives statewide, and to limit campaign contributions.

But this Congress has refused to pass the SAVE Act that the president wants enacted to “ensure election integrity and prevent non-citizens from voting.”  If passed into law, this proposal would “add a new layer of documentation requirements on top of a verification system that is already in place and working.”  In practice,

Every American, including people who have been registered for decades, would need to appear in person at an election office with qualifying documents. Online voter registration, which 42 states currently rely on, would be upended or eliminated. Mail registration would end entirely. Voter registration drives would become functionally ineffective, since they depend on reaching people at events and public spaces where no one carries a passport or birth certificate.

A standard driver’s license alone does not qualify in most states. A REAL ID alone does not qualify. A military ID alone does not qualify. A tribal ID alone does not qualify. Only five states currently issue enhanced driver’s licenses that meet the bill’s requirements on their own.

(snip)

For most Americans, qualifying requires one of the following: a valid U.S. passport or passport card, a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID, a naturalization certificate, or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. If your name does not match across those documents, additional paperwork such as a marriage certificate would also be required.

(snip)

The requirement applies any time a voter updates their registration, including after moving, changing their name, or switching political parties. Millions of already-registered Americans would need to comply, not just people registering for the first time.

Meanwhile, back in court last week: opponents of Trump’s plan refiled their objections in light of the Supreme Court ruling, leading to a federal judge halting Administration efforts to restrict voting by mail, and to the Justice Department appealing that ruling.  And since the election is only two months away and the first mail-in ballots are about to be sent out, “The whipsawing legal battle could have major ramifications for the midterms. Nearly one-third of Americans vote by mail and election officials contend there isn’t enough time to revise their systems to comply with the new Postal Service directives.”  The Postal Service, officially, insists it has to obey the executive order, and “won’t deliver mail ballots unless states provide a list of voters who should receive them and format the envelopes in a certain way.”

But, a Postal Service official has filed a federal whistle-blower report that claims “the agency is moving forward with a ‘secretive, rushed’ effort to carry out President Trump’s order exerting federal control over mail voting, despite a court order blocking those plans.”

The official filed a whistle-blower report, published on Tuesday morning by the office of Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, asserting that the “risky and haphazard” implementation of Mr. Trump’s order could lead to a “catastrophic failure” in the mail ballot system ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

(snip)

The official at the Postal Service, describing their work on the portal in the whistle-blower report, raised “grave concerns” that the portal’s verification process could reject tens of thousands of ballots in a bulk-mailing batch if “even one bar code on one single ballot” failed to properly scan, and that the rushed, “slapdash” development of the portal would significantly increase the chance of errors and other failures in the verification process.

“Potentially millions of American voters may not receive their mail-in ballot this election cycle in a timely manner, or at all,” the official said in the report, which was prepared with the assistance of Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit group that represents people seeking to expose potential lawbreaking.

(snip)

The Postal Service confirmed in a statement that it had continued work on the portal amid the legal battle, but asserted that it was in compliance with the courts because it was not currently using parts of the new system that could invalidate people’s votes.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports today that hundreds of Department of Homeland Security agents have been pulled off of their regular duties of “investigating such serious crimes as human trafficking and terrorism” to scour state voter rolls using the personally identifiable information of individual voters looking for non-citizens who are registered to vote.

Given the decades of evidence showing how rare noncitizen voting is, it’s unclear what the administration will discover, how verifiable any findings will be and what President Trump or Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin plans to do with those findings.

(snip)

Mr. Trump’s unrelenting focus on noncitizen voting has concerned election officials from both parties. So far, the administration has been unable to verify his claims, and has effectively admitted at times that its numbers have been overstated. Yet the public repetition of falsehoods about election fraud has continued to sow doubt and distrust in the electoral process ahead of a charged midterm election that will determine control of Congress [emphasis added].

All of it has left voting-rights groups and Democrats increasingly concerned that the president will try to interfere with the election. And it has alarmed former officials with the Department of Homeland Security that the agency is being weaponized as part of the effort.

Jamelle Bouie summarizes that “the president’s plot to subvert the integrity of the midterm elections looks like this.”

Issue a rule requiring states to give lists of mail-in voters to the Postal Service if their citizens hope to receive mail-in ballots. Knowing that this is a blatantly unconstitutional seizure of the states’ prerogative to run their own elections, count on a federal court to block the rule. Then challenge the injunction, arguing — under the Supreme Court’s “Purcell principle” — that it is too late to make any adjustments to voting procedures, and that the new rules should be treated as the status quo. Then hope that the Supreme Court accepts the argument that the new rules are the status quo and therefore can’t be blocked.

This would leave states that rely on mail-in voting scrambling to accommodate the new rules, leading to the kind of chaos that might keep voters from casting a ballot in the first place. And in states that reject the rules, the administration can tar the results as fraudulent. None of this would stop the public from electing a Democratic majority, but it could give that majority the taint of illegitimacy — and even tee up a situation where new members are challenged in the next session.

It is important to say that there is no way to know, at this point, if any of this will actually work in the end. But it clearly is the plan.

Is it a plan to rig the election?  To rig the counting of the votes in this election?  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, do you have any doubt it’s a duck?

Boss jock spinning stacks of facts

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

It was one thing – one incredibly corrupt thing – for private citizen Donald Trump to wait until after he’d returned to his side hustle as president of the United States to file a personal $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (that he himself just coincidentally again commanded), and then withdraw that suit in exchange for blocking the IRS from auditing his past taxes and creating an almost $2 billion fund to pay off people (like January 6 rioters) who had been “injured” by the allegedly corrupt Justice Department of the prior president.  The judge says that original lawsuit was a sham to set the stage for the “settlement” that tried to end it; she sanctioned Trump’s private lawyers for their part, and wondered where in the hell the Justice Department was in defending the IRS from these highly-Constitutionally-questionable claims.

That, and the small groundswell of opposition to the “settlement” from Republican members of Congress, made it seem that, just maybe, Trump had gone too far this time.  And it provided cover for two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to demand a written promise that those settlement terms would not be pursued before they would join the committee’s majority vote to send acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination for the job on to the full Senate.  It was a “promise” that they got this past weekend.  Or did they?

Critics, however, say the written assurances are a political solution to a political problem, rather than a legally binding document.

“This case was flagrantly illegal from the start and they’re clearly trying to find a political way out of it that gets the attorney general confirmed without giving up their legal rights to actually enforce this illegal settlement,” said Matthew Platkin, a Democratic former New Jersey attorney general. He is now in private practice, representing various people suing over the fund.

(snip)

One of the two documents Mr. Blanche released stated that the order creating the fund “is rescinded and shall have no force or effect.” The second document limits a provision that gave broad protection to Mr. Trump, his relatives, and “related or affiliated individuals” from tax audits. The new written order from Mr. Blanche says that the provision only covers the president, two of his sons and his company, and that it applies “only retroactively.”

[The senators] said in a statement that the documents assuaged their concerns, ending an intraparty stalemate that had stalled Mr. Blanche’s confirmation process for days. The senators added that they believed the department had “acknowledged in a binding written order” that the audit protections were limited, “addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share.”

Mr. Platkin said that was clearly not the case. He pointed to the original wording of the documents that created what Democrats have called a slush fund that could be used to pay convicted rioters of Jan. 6, 2021, and other supporters of Mr. Trump who have been investigated, prosecuted or claim to have been mistreated by the federal government.

The original terms of the documents creating the fund said it “may be modified only with the written agreement of the parties” — a reference to Mr. Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., the Trump Organization and specific government agencies.

As of the time of this posting, there have been no written agreements to this modification signed by any of the Trumps, their businesses, or the government agencies involved.

Mr. Blanche’s order, however, is a government document signed only by him. “So absent any, a new executed agreement that they enter into, all of this is meaningless as a matter of law,” Mr. Platkin said.

For one, an order from the attorney general can be reversed by a future order from an attorney general, so in theory the fund could be revived by the same type of written document any time after Mr. Blanche is confirmed.

Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, echoed those concerns in a statement, asserting that the new written promise did not prevent the administration “from bringing the slush fund back from the dead next week.”

As a matter of fact, last weekend the president promised he was going to do something he hardly ever does: get a law passed, one that would revive the “slush fund” because he’d “like to see [the January 6 rioters] compensated for their pain.”

Take this president’s “promise” with as much salt as you can stand, especially since it is a promise that will require him to work with Congress rather than just executive action a thing into being, the modus with which he is much more comfortable operandi ng.  In The New Republic, Matt Ford argues that TFG lacks any skill at all at legislating, but has set a new standard among politicians for using the office for the benefit of himself.

The only thing truly impressive about Donald Trump is his skill at corruption. This is not, strictly speaking, a good thing to be good at. Yet one cannot help but be awed at the talent that he possesses for abusing power and enriching himself. The last 10 years have seen more innovations in corruption by Trump than the 240 years of American history that preceded them.

Take, for example, his latest scheme to enrich himself and others at the expense of everyone else. Trump owns a social media company named TruthSocial…

(snip)

Last week, TruthSocial announced an extraordinary new “product”: Truth API, a version of his social media feed that gives subscribers “a direct, licensed, real-time feed of the platform’s most market-moving Truths.” (Truths is the hyper-Orwellian name that TruthSocial gives to posts.) In practical terms, it would allow Wall Street firms and other financial institutions access to Trump’s market-moving posts a handful of seconds before they reach the general public.

Why would anyone bother to pay for a few seconds’ advantage to read a Trump post? Because TMTG, the company that operates TruthSocial, can make money off it. Imagine, for instance, that Trump announces higher or lower tariffs against U.S. trading partners, a new bombing campaign against Iran, or his decision to support or oppose a publicly traded American company. A few seconds of lead time could allow firms with complex trading algorithms to cash in on market movements by Trump’s posts—all by handing him a small monthly slice of the profits.

(snip)

The scheme is functionally no different than if he asked for giant burlap sacks of cash from Wall Street executives in exchange for reading his executive orders the day before they are issued.

Trump has largely given up on anything resembling policymaking or governance during his second term. His legislative agenda is practically nonexistent, save for a constitutionally dubious bill to reshape American elections that is dead on arrival in the Senate. He has outsourced his foreign policy, which largely consists of being humiliated by the Iranian government over closures of the Strait of Hormuz, to Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Stephen Miller, Trump’s domestic policy guru, is largely running the mass-deportation portfolio without real supervision.

That gives Trump plenty of free time to devote himself to his two great loves. When it comes to remaking Washington, D.C., in his own image, Trump has had a mixed record of success. The Kennedy Center no longer bears his name, thanks to a court ruling, while the ruins of the East Wing are slowly being built over into a gaudy ballroom. The administration also plans on erecting a giant marble arch outside Arlington National Cemetery to honor Trump himself; the next Democratic president will likely demolish it as soon as they can.

When it comes to corrupt self-enrichment, however, there are no obstacles or guard rails. He has stuffed the Justice Department with his former (and, in a way, current) personal lawyers to end its post-Watergate tradition of independence. The Supreme Court ruled two years ago that Trump enjoys “absolute immunity” for any crimes committed in connection with his “core constitutional powers.” This anti-constitutional decision amounted to a blank check to collect bribes, kickbacks, and other forms of graft.

To that end, Trump has taken millions from various donors in exchange for pardoning a wide range of white-collar criminals. The Wall Street Journal reported in December that the rumored going price for clemency is at least $1 million. In one instance, Trump pardoned a Democratic member of Congress whose family had petitioned him for help and then lashed out at him on social media for not switching parties, implicitly suggesting a quid pro quo of sorts. (Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, the lawmaker in question, has denied any wrongdoing over his original bribery charges or the pardon he obtained from Trump.)

This is fairly unimaginative by Trumpian standards, of course. A more characteristic scheme is assigning a personal aide—Meredith O’Rourke, a fundraiser whom he reportedly calls his “princess of darkness”—to collect tens of billions of dollars in contributions from major corporations for various pet projects. The Journal reported last month that O’Rourke has taken to referring to Trump as “the boss” and telling the companies, many of whom have regulatory concerns in Washington, that “the boss wants this money.” Those companies have in turn donated hefty sums for the new White House ballroom, Trump’s planned presidential library, and more.

And the hits just keep on comin’!

The lipstick on a pig

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The artificial intelligence that is squatting, uninvited, in my Google search engine is trying to reassure me.  There are people  involved in this equation, it says, and “absolute proof that leaves no room for denial does not exist in human  discourse” because people may deny an obvious conclusion if it hurts their feelings.  Or if, as we’ve seen, it casts the Mayor of MAGAtown in a less than a blindingly positive glow.  My conclusion is you’ve got to keep piling up the facts and remain confident they will lead, eventually, to the scales falling from the eyes of enough people to make a difference.  As may be happening now, both in the Senate’s consideration of the nominee for attorney general and in a federal judge’s finding that a Donald Trump lawsuit against the IRS “was manufactured simply to justify its settlement”.

In May we discussed the very clearly corrupt intentions of the lawsuit filed by private citizen Trump (and his elder sons and their businesses) against the Internal Revenue Service of the government run by President Trump, seeking $10 billion to punish the IRS for laxity in letting TFG’s personal income taxes be stolen and later published (by the New York Times) against his wishes during his first term.  He swore in the court filing that letting the public see his tax returns “caused Plaintiffs reputational and financial harm, public embarrassment, unfairly tarnished their business reputations, portrayed them in a false light, and negatively affected President Trump, and the other Plaintiffs’ public standing.”  But just as Judge Kathleen Williams began to question the legitimacy of Trump suing his own government – with Trump controlling the lawyers on both sides of a case in which there seemed to be no real conflict – Trump withdrew the suit (hoping to take away the judge’s control of the proceedings) and then his Justice Department announced a stunning settlement.

  • The creation of a tax-funded $1.8 billion fund to pay damages to persons who claim to have been victimized by the government under Democratic presidents, apparently to include those convicted (and later pardoned, by TFG) of offenses related to the treasonous assault on the Capitol on January 6; the fund was to be controlled by Trump-appointed trustees with no oversight permitted from Congress or the courts; and
  • The IRS would be barred, in perpetuity, from auditing any of the past tax returns of Trump or his elder sons or or any of their businesses, which I had characterized as “An after-the-fact non-disclosure agreement, shielding any evidence of any prior tax evasion” from use in court or from disclosure to the public.

It took less than two weeks for the prospect of a “slush fund” of tax money being used to pay off the rioters who attacked police officers on January 6 to rouse some GOP members of Congress who had conveniently forgotten the concept of “checks and balances” among the branches of government, while always remembering the political power TFG holds over MAGA America.  Acting attorney general Todd Blanche told a House subcommittee that plans for that fund were dead.  Deceased.  Irretrievably unrevivable.  And you could take his word for it, although he refused to put this new part of the agreement in writing.  But the part of the agreement preventing the IRS from auditing the Trumps?  Oh, that would stay in effect.

Meanwhile, Judge Williams had re-opened the case to investigate whether the court had been deceived through the misconduct of lawyers.  She was prompted to that action by a letter from three dozen former federal judges who argued “that Mr. Trump’s settlement agreement raised serious questions about his ‘candor toward the court and manipulation of the judicial system.’”

Judge Williams said that she wanted to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Trump’s efforts to settle the lawsuit in a way that benefited him and his allies. If she succeeds in moving forward with her inquiry, it could ultimately result in questions being asked of the Justice Department leaders who signed the agreements to settle the suit — chief among them, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, and Stanley Woodward Jr., the No. 3 official in the department.

In her order, Judge Williams asserted that she was “empowered to investigate serious misconduct” in any case before her…”

Did she ever.  In mid-July,

A federal judge held [July 13] that President Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS was manufactured simply to justify its settlement, including a multibillion-dollar “anti-weaponization” fund for political allies and a shield from IRS scrutiny.

“This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process,” U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams wrote in a blistering 56-page ruling. “This was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law.”

The fact that the federal government did not ever counter arguments that the arrangement was unconstitutional —and that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche unilaterally canceled plans for the Anti-Weaponization Fund — were glaring signals that the lawsuit was not genuine, Williams said.

And furthermore,

Though the administration has argued that Trump had filed the lawsuit — a demand for a $10 billion payout for the leak of his tax returns — in his personal capacity, Williams said that explanation was untenable.

“The court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here,” she wrote. “The Lead Plaintiff and the Government are one, a fully realized unitary interest.”

Williams added that Trump could have brought the lawsuit while he was a private citizen but appears to have waited until he was reelected president and appointed his former lawyer to help lead the DOJ.

Trump is appealing that ruling, which is a “full-throated repudiation of Trump and his administration” that came just as Blanche’s nomination as attorney general was going before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Where, as luck would have it, sit two Republicans who object to provisions of the Trump/IRS lawsuit settlement AND who are ending their terms this year and so are beyond the reach of Trump’s political threats.  By earlier this week,

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) had insisted that the Trump administration limit — in writing — central provisions of a controversial deal struck this spring between the Justice Department and the president to resolve a lawsuit he filed against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. DOJ was not able to provide the senators sufficient assurances to win their agreement to support Blanche.

The senators have said their votes for Blanche’s nomination hinge on their requested changes to the deal. A “no” vote from either one of them would be enough to sink Blanche’s nomination at the committee stage, given the expectation that all Judiciary Committee Democrats will oppose Blanche’s confirmation.

(snip)

Tillis, who opted not to seek reelection this year and has shown an increasing willingness to tangle with Trump, has expressed concern that the payout fund could end up rewarding defendants who attacked police during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Cornyn, who lost his reelection bid in May after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, shared Tillis’s worries on the fund and has said he wants the administration to clarify, in writing, that the tax protections afforded by the deal do not apply to the Trump family’s future actions.

This resistance led to a rescheduling of the committee vote to next week.  Cornyn and Tillis had continued discussions with Blanche and reported some progress…until Blanche’s former law client couldn’t resist the urge to show everyone who is boss.

President Donald Trump threatened on Saturday to revive his controversial plan for federal payouts to people he says were “badly treated” by the Obama and Biden administrations, telling senators that he would “push hard” for legislation to fund the payments if they did not confirm his nominee for attorney general.

“It will immediately be back on the table, and I will get it done,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account, vowing to pass an “Anti-Weaponization Bill” should his nomination of Todd Blanche for attorney general fail in the Senate.

Trump added that he would keep Blanche as acting attorney general and blasted two GOP senators — John Cornyn (Texas) and Thom Tillis (North Carolina) — who have blocked the nomination from advancing over concerns about the fund.

It was not immediately clear what legislation the president was referencing, and the White House declined to elaborate on Trump’s post.

So, what do we have here:

  1. A man who ceaselessly brags about his business acumen (even though he is a man who ran casinos  into bankruptcy), but who swears in court that public disclosure of his tax returns causes him public embarrassment and tarnishes his business reputation.
  2. A man who, at any time in the years when he was not president of the United States, could have sued the IRS over its contractor’s theft of his tax returns that got leaked to the New York Times, but who didn’t do so until he was president again and thus controlled the governmental department that runs the IRS as well as the department that files lawsuits on behalf of the government.
  3. A man who claimed he really really deserved $10 billion dollars in compensation for real damages done to him, but who dropped the suit without argument when the judge began to question the suit’s legitimacy.
  4. A man who claimed not to know anything about the settlement of that lawsuit (sorta like he claimed not to know anything about Project 2025), but who was all on board with paying almost $2 billion dollars to people he had already pardoned for their crimes in attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6.  And still is, even after a federal judge found that the suit was just the lipstick put on the pig of an effort to legitimize a multi-billion dollar payoff to Trump supporters while shielding his possible past tax evasion from government scrutiny.
  5. A man who wants his former personal criminal defense lawyer to run the Department of Justice (so he can punish his political enemies), but who thinks nothing of bastardizing the legal procedure for putting him in that office in order to get his way after officials in another branch of government have the temerity to do their job instead of rubberstamping his edicts.

When a man’s actions tell you who he really is…it’s time to believe him.  Not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, you know; just piling up some facts over here, boss…