But the signs are there, and he's pretty good at picking them up.
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Oct 26, 2026
Trump's Health
This guy has been predicting Trump's imminent demise for a year - grains of salt are in order.
Oct 23, 2026
Midterm Shenanigans
Trump's constant bluster about voter fraud and rigged elections may be producing a Streisand Effect by having prompted rigorous investigations that always turn up diddly squat.
DOJ seeks to block Alaska Senate result if Republican incumbent narrowly loses In a lawsuit, the Justice Department cited confusion over two similarly named candidates, including Republican Sen. Daniel S. Sullivan.
The Justice Department has moved to preemptively block certification of the results of Alaska’s Senate race if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses his tight race against Democrat Mary Peltola next month, launching an unusual legal battle amid broader concerns over the Trump administration’s willingness to accept the election results.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday, department officials described the candidacy of a third contender in the race — another Republican named Dan J. Sullivan Jr. — as a bid to mislead supporters of Sen. Sullivan into voting for the wrong candidate.
They asked a federal judge to bar the state from certifying the race’s results should the senator lose by a margin less than the number of votes his same-named challenger receives. In that scenario, the department said, the court should investigate whether that result was tainted by voter confusion.
The move marked a remarkable bid by the Justice Department to potentially intervene in the outcome of a race that could determine control of the Senate before the election has occurred. Just hours before the suit was filed, Attorney General Todd Blanche downplayed the suggestion his agency would seek to interfere with state certified election outcomes outside of what he described as a “doomsday scenario.”
“It is not DOJ’s intention to — and it’s never our intention to — improperly interfere with elections or the state certification process,” Blanche told reporters Thursday. “But, you know, to say there’s no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I’m not going to say that.”
As Election Day approaches, Democrats have grown increasingly alarmed by what they view as attempts by the Justice Department to influence the outcome of the vote. The Trump administration has pushed in public and in court to exert greater control over state-run election administration and worked to cast doubt on the integrity of the results.
In Alaska, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward wrote in the Thursday filing, “the sole purpose of [Dan J. Sullivan’s] candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan.”
“Given the substantial likelihood that the inclusion of Dan J. Sullivan will confuse or mislead voters looking to cast a vote for Senator Sullivan and thus distort the will of Alaskan voters, there is a substantial likelihood that a certification of the election will reflect an electoral process that lacked integrity,” Woodward, the Justice Department’s third highest-ranking official, added.
Dan J. Sullivan did not immediately return requests for comment Friday. Spokespeople for Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Peltola also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan — a retired teacher and a former member of the Alaska Independence Party who registered as a Republican shortly before filing to enter the race this year — has been a source of consternation for Republicans.
Alaska election officials moved in June to boot him from the ballot, agreeing that his entry into the race was meant to confuse voters. But Dan J. Sullivan has repeatedly denied claims that he was trying to confuse, or coordinating with Democrats or Peltola’s campaign. A state court ordered him back on the ballot later that month, a decision later affirmed by the state’s Supreme Court.
He advanced to the general election in the state’s August primary, which selects the top four candidates regardless of party. He received only 2.5 percent of the vote — almost entirely from liberal strongholds in the state.
Name confusion is not new in the state of under 780,000. Dan S. Sullivan, the current senator, was first elected in 2014, the same year the then-Anchorage mayor, also named Dan Sullivan, was running for lieutenant governor.
Jim Lottsfeldt, an Anchorage-based political consultant, said name confusion likely contributed to Dan S. Sullivan’s victory that year. (Former mayor Sullivan endorsed Sen. Sullivan against the teacher Sullivan in this year’s race.)
Lottsfeldt had the idea at the time to recruit more candidates named Dan Sullivan to the Senate ballot to confuse voters, though he declined to actually go through with it. He denied any involvement in Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy this year.
“I actually looked and saw there were like 14 Dan Sullivans,” Lottsfeldt said in an interview last month.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday called Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy a “SCAM” and hinted that his administration could soon seek legal intervention in the race.
“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Dan J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness,” Trump wrote on social media.
Still, election experts described the legal arguments advanced by the department in the suit Thursday as “absurdly thin” and predicted it would not withstand judicial scrutiny. University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller called the department’s suit “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.”
“In short, like many Department letters over the last few years, it is designed to win the press release rather than the litigation,” Muller wrote in a blog post.
The suit relies on a novel reading of the National Voter Registration Act -- a broad statute that governs voter registration requirements. Instead, Justice Department lawyers cited a mention in the law’s preamble Thursday to justify its interest in the outcome of the Alaska race, saying it authorized the federal government to “protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
Though the suit called for Alaska’s results to be put on hold in the event of Sen. Sullivan’s narrow loss so an investigation can be conducted to determine voters intended that result, the filing does not explain how such an investigation would be carried out while also protecting the secrecy of voters’ ballot choices.
Trump has spent years questioning election procedures and has fretted in recent months that a Democratic takeover of Congress could lead to his third impeachment. He continues to insist he won the 2020 election, even though recounts and court reviews found he lost, and he regularly complains without evidence that elections are rigged against Republicans.
He and his administration have spent the past two years trying to intervene with how states run elections, but have had little success. Trump tried to limit who received mail ballots but was stopped by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department sued 30 states for their voter rolls but has lost case after case in court. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized finding noncitizens on voter rolls, but a judge this week restricted how it can conduct its investigations.
Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, told NPR this week he did not believe the Trump administration and its backers would challenge results if Democrats win control of Congress in a blowout.
But Hasen, who spoke before the Justice Department filed its latest lawsuit, named Alaska as a potential legal battleground if Democrats narrowly take control of the Senate. The state uses ranked-choice voting and takes longer than others to tabulate results, heightening the chances of litigation there, he noted.
“If it comes down to one seat, then I think all bets are off. And then I’m very concerned that the Trump administration will try to do things to manipulate the outcome of the elections,” Hasen said.
And given Americans' legendarily short attention span, it kinda looks like people are getting just a little bored with it.
But this is a guy who never gives up - he backs down a lot - but he never admits defeat, and you can bet dollars to dingleberries that he'll keep hammering away.
So IMO it's more than a little probable that this story in WaPo illustrates some of the basic fuckery that I think Trump and Blanche are cooking up.
The Justice Department has moved to preemptively block certification of the results of Alaska’s Senate race if Republican incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan loses his tight race against Democrat Mary Peltola next month, launching an unusual legal battle amid broader concerns over the Trump administration’s willingness to accept the election results.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday, department officials described the candidacy of a third contender in the race — another Republican named Dan J. Sullivan Jr. — as a bid to mislead supporters of Sen. Sullivan into voting for the wrong candidate.
They asked a federal judge to bar the state from certifying the race’s results should the senator lose by a margin less than the number of votes his same-named challenger receives. In that scenario, the department said, the court should investigate whether that result was tainted by voter confusion.
The move marked a remarkable bid by the Justice Department to potentially intervene in the outcome of a race that could determine control of the Senate before the election has occurred. Just hours before the suit was filed, Attorney General Todd Blanche downplayed the suggestion his agency would seek to interfere with state certified election outcomes outside of what he described as a “doomsday scenario.”
“It is not DOJ’s intention to — and it’s never our intention to — improperly interfere with elections or the state certification process,” Blanche told reporters Thursday. “But, you know, to say there’s no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I’m not going to say that.”
As Election Day approaches, Democrats have grown increasingly alarmed by what they view as attempts by the Justice Department to influence the outcome of the vote. The Trump administration has pushed in public and in court to exert greater control over state-run election administration and worked to cast doubt on the integrity of the results.
In Alaska, Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward wrote in the Thursday filing, “the sole purpose of [Dan J. Sullivan’s] candidacy is to benefit the Peltola campaign by reducing the number of votes for Senator Sullivan.”
“Given the substantial likelihood that the inclusion of Dan J. Sullivan will confuse or mislead voters looking to cast a vote for Senator Sullivan and thus distort the will of Alaskan voters, there is a substantial likelihood that a certification of the election will reflect an electoral process that lacked integrity,” Woodward, the Justice Department’s third highest-ranking official, added.
Dan J. Sullivan did not immediately return requests for comment Friday. Spokespeople for Sen. Dan S. Sullivan and Peltola also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan — a retired teacher and a former member of the Alaska Independence Party who registered as a Republican shortly before filing to enter the race this year — has been a source of consternation for Republicans.
Alaska election officials moved in June to boot him from the ballot, agreeing that his entry into the race was meant to confuse voters. But Dan J. Sullivan has repeatedly denied claims that he was trying to confuse, or coordinating with Democrats or Peltola’s campaign. A state court ordered him back on the ballot later that month, a decision later affirmed by the state’s Supreme Court.
He advanced to the general election in the state’s August primary, which selects the top four candidates regardless of party. He received only 2.5 percent of the vote — almost entirely from liberal strongholds in the state.
Name confusion is not new in the state of under 780,000. Dan S. Sullivan, the current senator, was first elected in 2014, the same year the then-Anchorage mayor, also named Dan Sullivan, was running for lieutenant governor.
Jim Lottsfeldt, an Anchorage-based political consultant, said name confusion likely contributed to Dan S. Sullivan’s victory that year. (Former mayor Sullivan endorsed Sen. Sullivan against the teacher Sullivan in this year’s race.)
Lottsfeldt had the idea at the time to recruit more candidates named Dan Sullivan to the Senate ballot to confuse voters, though he declined to actually go through with it. He denied any involvement in Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy this year.
“I actually looked and saw there were like 14 Dan Sullivans,” Lottsfeldt said in an interview last month.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday called Dan J. Sullivan’s candidacy a “SCAM” and hinted that his administration could soon seek legal intervention in the race.
“We are looking at powerful legal options to remove the fraudulent Dan J. Sullivan Jr. from the Ballot, and holding the Democrats accountable for their Election Interference, in the pursuit of Justice and Fairness,” Trump wrote on social media.
Still, election experts described the legal arguments advanced by the department in the suit Thursday as “absurdly thin” and predicted it would not withstand judicial scrutiny. University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller called the department’s suit “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.”
“In short, like many Department letters over the last few years, it is designed to win the press release rather than the litigation,” Muller wrote in a blog post.
The suit relies on a novel reading of the National Voter Registration Act -- a broad statute that governs voter registration requirements. Instead, Justice Department lawyers cited a mention in the law’s preamble Thursday to justify its interest in the outcome of the Alaska race, saying it authorized the federal government to “protect the integrity of the electoral process.”
Though the suit called for Alaska’s results to be put on hold in the event of Sen. Sullivan’s narrow loss so an investigation can be conducted to determine voters intended that result, the filing does not explain how such an investigation would be carried out while also protecting the secrecy of voters’ ballot choices.
Trump has spent years questioning election procedures and has fretted in recent months that a Democratic takeover of Congress could lead to his third impeachment. He continues to insist he won the 2020 election, even though recounts and court reviews found he lost, and he regularly complains without evidence that elections are rigged against Republicans.
He and his administration have spent the past two years trying to intervene with how states run elections, but have had little success. Trump tried to limit who received mail ballots but was stopped by the Supreme Court. The Justice Department sued 30 states for their voter rolls but has lost case after case in court. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized finding noncitizens on voter rolls, but a judge this week restricted how it can conduct its investigations.
Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, told NPR this week he did not believe the Trump administration and its backers would challenge results if Democrats win control of Congress in a blowout.
But Hasen, who spoke before the Justice Department filed its latest lawsuit, named Alaska as a potential legal battleground if Democrats narrowly take control of the Senate. The state uses ranked-choice voting and takes longer than others to tabulate results, heightening the chances of litigation there, he noted.
“If it comes down to one seat, then I think all bets are off. And then I’m very concerned that the Trump administration will try to do things to manipulate the outcome of the elections,” Hasen said.
Just remember that Jan6 was a multi-pronged, multi-phase operation. So taking the states to court is likely just part of the plan.
STAY FROSTY
EYE ON THE BALL
NOSE TO THE WIND
EAR TO THE GROUND
SHOULDER TO THE WHEEL
now try to get
something done
in that position
Oct 7, 2026
Whatever He Wants
Oct 2, 2026
Jul 25, 2026
Jul 19, 2026
Maybe This Will Do It
A Trump scandal finally has the teeth to put him in real danger
Donald Trump's ability to avoid accountability for the many previously inconceivable actions he's taken as president often seemed premised on two essential elements: First, his every scandal was in the open for the world to see; if the coverup is always worse than the crime, don't bother covering anything up, which fed the second premise: Create so many scandals such that the public couldn't keep up with any one egregious abuse of the system. New revelations regarding new issues hit on a weekly basis, quickly rendering last week's outrage history.
But perhaps Trump's failsafe plan to get away with everything, from 747s to Epstein obstruction, may have just stumbled. Badly. He may have crossed a line in his lawsuit settlement with DOJ and the IRS, because this one is biting back and it now has some teeth — but not for reasons you might expect.
On Tuesday, Reuters reported that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams threw out Trump's settlement with the IRS (as overseen by DOJ), the one that granted Trump and family full immunity from IRS investigations and crimes arising in the past and could be read as applying into the future, though that detail is irrelevant because the entire deal has just been rendered irrelevant. Judge Williams threw the settlement out on the basis that the lawsuit didn't involve two adverse parties:
"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," Williams wrote. The judge said it was instead an attempt 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."
Yeah. And as obvious as that might seem to the average reader, the legal system itself often plays out in ways that are not obvious, nor sensible. Still, it's not all that unusual for Trump to lose in court, and he'll likely just appeal this decision like all others — never accepting "No" as an answer, always hoping the SCOTUS bails him out. Fine. Situation normal. Or at least that situation is normal.
Where this case diverts from run-of-the-mill scandals and encroaches on representing a real danger to Trump is what might seem as a tangential detail:
Williams referred a Trump lawyer in the case and senior Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement to state bar authorities to determine if their actions violated legal ethics rules.
Bang.
Because the referral to bar officials is not something that an appellate court can immediately cure. For our purposes, let's pretend the appeals court overrules Judge Williams and says that the deal was brought by adverse parties and is just fine. Such a ruling may save Trump's immunity from IRS investigations and actions, but it will not necessarily save Trump's lawyers from the bar association. The bar investigation may be broader and deeper than the simple legal question determined by an appellate court.
What if the bar association finds that, despite an appellate court finding that the parties were adverse, the attorneys for each side colluded with each other in a manner that did not reflect "adverse parties," but more a "team with the same ultimate goal"? And how could such a finding come about? Just spitballing here, but perhaps obliterating the attorney-client privilege in the negotiations might evidence such collusion. How else? Maybe both parties agreed to the outline of a settlement before Trump's lawyers even filed suit. Perhaps something far more technical, but just as punitive to the attorneys.
The ruling may get overturned, but that doesn't save attorneys from all possible unethical behavior within the suit.
Okay. But how does that affect Trump? It sounds like only the attorneys get punished.
True, and that's exactly how it will affect Trump. Never in history has a man lived and breathed with more reliance on attorneys than Trump. He has his own private lawyers doing his dirty business, he has lawyers working for his White House, he has attorneys seemingly doing his business at DOJ, and he even has his former private lawyers doing his business at DOJ in acting-Attorney General Todd Blanche. It is not hyperbole to say that Trump's existence as a free man, never mind president, depends heavily on attorneys always pushing his interests.
And so what if his attorneys suddenly stopped? What if this becomes a rather urgent bar association investigation and it finds collusion or other unethical behavior? What if it were found that neither side protected any sort of privilege in that collusion and, in effect, lied in the paperwork filed with the court because they weren't really in disagreement in the first place — only working toward the same goal — sign a settlement that Trump could then enforce.
What if the attorneys are disbarred for a year? Five years? (Usually, the limit, at least allowing an attorney to show enough redemption so that he or she can at least apply again.) True, simply working for Trump represents a danger in and of itself, but most of his direct employees likely rely on the presumption of a pardon on the way out the door, so as to avoid any consequences.
Disbarment is not a consequence wiped away by a pardon, and it damn sure is a consequence. Some of Trump's slimiest deals, like this one — but not at all limited to this one: look at the attorneys appearing to sell Trump pardons, look at attorneys going after Trump's political enemies. If defending bar referrals suddenly became part of the job, fewer would want the job. Indeed, far fewer would push the limits of the job, limits like possibly stretching the truth beyond imagination, limits like working as part of the White House Counsel's office, and stuff "heard" but doesn't align with what's presented to the court. Some might find themselves actually telling a few uncomfortable truths rather than hiding them out of nothing less than fear of losing their career, having entered Trump's service with dreams of enhancing it.
Wanna take it one more level? Lawyers are admitted to practice law first by a state or the District of Columbia. Yes, there is a "bar" to which one must join to practice in the federal district courts or the circuit courts, but those are relative informalities once one is admitted to a state bar, which is the predicate to practicing any law anywhere. What if, in the state bar's investigation, it actually finds a crime, perhaps fraud? (Happens all the time). To whom do you think that crime might be referred? Maybe in some cases, in a less political time, it might be referred to the FBI, but then again — it might not. It might be referred to a state bureau of investigation. And that's a problem for our Trump administration lawyers because then, not only are law licenses at issue, but so is their freedom because Trump can't pardon away that problem.
Yes, Trump lawyers have been referred to the bar before, but most of them arose out of the 2020 insanity in trying to overturn the election. Even the attempted clear political prosecutions brought about by Trump lackeys in US Attorneys' offices haven't garnered bar referrals, but even that situation would represent "abnormal insanity" in representing Trump. This particular referral falls squarely into "normal insanity" in representing Trump and his interests in the courts. Referring "normal Trump insanity" to a bar changes everything.
The very fact that this matter was a) thrown out is of now consquence, but b) Garnered a bar referral is and will likely spin the spine in any attorney, public or private, finding themselves doing Trump's dirtiest normal work.
And Trump's trek of terror through the Constitution is so contingent upon a battalion of willing lawyers that a sudden unwillingness of said lawyers, for fear of their careers, would render that trek less of terror, more just terribly inept.
This means that this loss comes with some bite. This scandal may be quickly forgotten by the public in favor of the next scandal. It will not be quickly forgotten by the lawyers charged with doing Trump's bidding. DOJ's lawyers overseeing the handling of the Epstein investigation will take notice. Trump's White House Counsel, perhaps defending Trump's day trading on inside information, will take notice. Private Trump attorneys doing deals in direct conflict of interest with the government will take notice. And so will attorneys Trump personally ordered to prosecute his political enemies.
To save their careers, they may have to decline to do the job in the first place, or at least explain the situation in its entirety to someone, someday, maybe not even that far away.
This scandal is just a bit different. And needed. This one comes with some bite, even in broad daylight.
Jul 17, 2026
Jun 28, 2026
Jun 20, 2026
Jun 11, 2026
Knives Out
'Chaos' in the White House as Trump has 'knives out' for everyone: report
According to Politico reporting based on interviews with Trump allies, GOP Senate aides, and people close to the White House, the president has become "increasingly frustrated with everyone, from his own team to the Senate."
"He's p---ed, and people are not recognizing the level of p---ed that he is," a MAGA operative close to the White House told Politico's Playbook. The operative pointed to specific grievances fueling Trump's resentment: Senate Republicans' opposition to his "$1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund," resistance to White House ballroom funding, and the refusal to fire the Senate parliamentarian.
"He does not like being put in a box," the operative said. "When you put him in a box, then Trump's going to blow the box up."
One senior GOP staffer characterized Trump's recent moves as "a middle finger to Congress"—a description that captures the president's increasingly erratic approach to governance.
Trump's fury intensified after his first major electoral defeat of the season: Rep. Randy Feenstra's loss in Iowa's gubernatorial primary despite Trump's endorsement. The president has been relentlessly blaming advisers and consultants for pushing him to make the doomed endorsement, according to the report.
"He's really angry about this Iowa endorsement — like really, really angry," a White House ally said. "He's really angry that his consultants and people pushed him to do that."
The chaos is metastasizing inside the White House, according to the report.
Trump is increasingly relying on a small cadre of direct loyalists while the broader operation becomes more understaffed and isolated, according to those close to the president.
"Knives are out in some capacity. I mean, people are stabbing people. Like, it's chaos. The chaos is like creeping back," one ally told Politico, describing an administration fracturing under the weight of Trump's volcanic temperament and mounting political losses.
Jun 2, 2026
Overheard
He pardoned 1,600 violent criminals.
You said nothing.
He bulldozed the East Wing and vandalized the West Wing.
You said nothing.
He broke the law by interfering with the release of the Epstein files.
You said nothing.
He directed DOD to let contracts to companies his family members are invested in.
You said nothing.
He manipulated markets with his war and tariff announcements.
You said nothing.
He manipulated markets with his war and tariff announcements.
You said nothing.
He took over the Kennedy Center and renamed it after himself.
He took over the Kennedy Center and renamed it after himself.
You said nothing.
He accepted a $400 million airplane as a personal gift.
He accepted a $400 million airplane as a personal gift.
You said nothing.
He threatened Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil.
He threatened Canada, Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil.
You said nothing.
He sued his own branch, and then "settled" for $1.8 billion.
He sued his own branch, and then "settled" for $1.8 billion.
You said nothing.
He tariffed just about everyone but Russia, causing inflation and instability worldwide.
He tariffed just about everyone but Russia, causing inflation and instability worldwide.
You said nothing.
He attacked a nation during mediated negotiations.
He attacked a nation during mediated negotiations.
You said nothing.
His ill-conceived war killed 168 children on day one.
His ill-conceived war killed 168 children on day one.
You said nothing.
He alienated and insulted our allies.
He alienated and insulted our allies.
You said nothing.
His army of ICE thugs terrorized and murdered US citizens.
His army of ICE thugs terrorized and murdered US citizens.
You said nothing.
He committed murder on the high seas.
He committed murder on the high seas.
You said nothing.
He co-opted the Justice Department and directed it to prosecute his political enemies.
He co-opted the Justice Department and directed it to prosecute his political enemies.
You said nothing.
PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR SHIT
OVER A TAN SUIT
SOME EMAILS
AND AN AUTOPEN
ARE ODDLY INDIFFERENT
TO THE PROBABILITY
THEIR PRESIDENT
RAPED CHILDREN
May 28, 2026
On The Nature Of Trump
Feb 2025
Trump’s Stated Motives Seldom Reveal Agenda
I know a little something that so many do not appreciate about Donald, but those of us who worked with him in the financial services game have known for decades — long before he ever made a run at politics.
His stated motives rarely reveal his true agenda. His showmanship and charisma bedazzles the uninformed, which is exactly how he likes it. He never signed a contract or met an agreement he wouldn’t violate or wriggle out of if it suited his hidden agenda. He never met an investor whose purse he didn’t consider his own in some strategic way. And he never met a human being he wouldn’t screw in order to advance or satisfy himself.
I know a little something that so many do not appreciate about Donald, but those of us who worked with him in the financial services game have known for decades — long before he ever made a run at politics.
His stated motives rarely reveal his true agenda. His showmanship and charisma bedazzles the uninformed, which is exactly how he likes it. He never signed a contract or met an agreement he wouldn’t violate or wriggle out of if it suited his hidden agenda. He never met an investor whose purse he didn’t consider his own in some strategic way. And he never met a human being he wouldn’t screw in order to advance or satisfy himself.
- If you want to understand his beef with Panama, don’t look at the canal to which he now points. Look at Trump enterprises and their fraught financial and criminal relationship with Panama, and look to the Russian oligarchs who bought condos in his Panama Tower.
- If you want to understand his fixation with Gaza, don’t look at the Palestinian or Israeli people. Look at the real estate value he now perceives that Gaza holds, and that he’d like to unlock.
- If you want to understand his insane, obsessive beef with energy renewable windmills, don’t look at the wind energy aspect. Look at his beef with Scotland over his golf course and the nearby windmills that damaged his idea of its aesthetics.
- If you want to understand his irrational hatred of Obama, don’t look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look to the annual press corp dinner in 2011 where Obama poked fun at him and bruised his ego.
- If you want to understand his demonization of Democrats, look not to Democratic social policy, but to the fact they didn’t want him to run under the color of their party.
- If you want to understand his hatred of immigrants, don’t look to the actual contributions and challenges related to immigration, but his own germophobia and personal disgust for all things “dirty and brown.”
What Trump does so masterfully, as many sociopaths do, is figure out how to align, however temporarily, his own personal agenda with the drives of those he can then use to help him execute it. And the Republican Party fell right in line with that abusive strategy in 2016, and has never deviated from it.
The GOP now looks much like a battered wife who would love to quit Trump, but who also knows their financial security, personal comfort, and social status would collapse if they ran away. And they fear they won’t get much sympathy or support from the people who tried to warn them not to marry the dude — a serial liar, cheater, thief, sadist, and a generally Bad Person.
Many Republican politicians today are busily masking their own abuse from the general public. But at some point, however, as they watch their power continue to erode, their reputations get smashed, and themselves blamed for the extensive abuse they now suffer, something’s going to give.
I don’t know what it is, but every bone in my body feels an energetic convergence heading toward a massive, massive explosion coming soon.
The GOP now looks much like a battered wife who would love to quit Trump, but who also knows their financial security, personal comfort, and social status would collapse if they ran away. And they fear they won’t get much sympathy or support from the people who tried to warn them not to marry the dude — a serial liar, cheater, thief, sadist, and a generally Bad Person.
Many Republican politicians today are busily masking their own abuse from the general public. But at some point, however, as they watch their power continue to erode, their reputations get smashed, and themselves blamed for the extensive abuse they now suffer, something’s going to give.
I don’t know what it is, but every bone in my body feels an energetic convergence heading toward a massive, massive explosion coming soon.
All Together Now
Ew
Notice how the lady puts on some speed to get up those steps, and out of the line of fire.
Those are deep
— Adam Kinzinger (Slava Ukraini) 🇺🇸🇺🇦 (@AdamKinzinger) May 28, 2026
Told ya pic.twitter.com/ZDlI8T0BfR
May 24, 2026
The Slush Fund
I call it that because that's what it is, though it may be more accurate to call it The Brown Shirt Fund.
‘They were pissed’: Republican lawmakers were ‘screaming’ at Todd Blanche during anti-weaponization fund briefing
Ted Cruz said Trump could face a “full-on revolt in the Senate” over the controversial fund
Republican senators erupted behind closed doors this week as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to defend the Trump administration’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, according to a prominent GOP lawmaker.
It was a meeting that Sen. Ted Cruz later described on his podcast as one of the “roughest” he has witnessed during his time in Congress.
“Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said Friday on his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz.” “My guess is there’re probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed.”
The “anti-weaponization” fund was announced Monday after Trump agreed to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Cruz said many GOP lawmakers argued the proposal would be politically impossible to defend because it appeared President Donald Trump had “cut a deal with himself,” NBC News reported.
“There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing,” Cruz said. “I got to tell you, the Republican senators were pissed – people were the entire meeting. They were screaming at the acting attorney general, and he was trying to lay out the legal basis,” Cruz said. Cruz added that “the legal basis is quite sound.”
Cruz said Senate Republicans were on the verge of rebelling over the proposal. Had the Senate moved forward Thursday night with a planned series of votes on the ICE and Border Patrol funding package, he said, roughly half of the Republican caucus was prepared to join Democrats in supporting amendments to restrict the fund.
He discussed “the degree of the jailbreak of Republicans who were bolting, who were saying we’re going to vote with the Democrats.”
Cruz warned the administration could face a major showdown when lawmakers return to Washington if changes are not made to modify the fund.
“If the administration doesn’t fix this,” he said, “they’ve got a full-on revolt in the Senate.”
In response to Cruz’s comments, a White House official told The Independent they appreciated the conversation and feedback and will have additional conversations as needed. The Independent has also contacted the DOJ for comment.
Concerns about the fund have continued to spread among Republicans.
The White House “put themselves in a bad spot. It wasn’t Congress that did it. Congress has had no input. Might be part of the problem,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., criticized it as a “payout pot for punks,” pointing to the possibility that people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot could potentially receive compensation.
Democrats have also sharply condemned the proposal. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote in a letter to Blanche on Wednesday that “the notion of the federal government doling out compensation to rioters” is “absurd and offensive.”
On Thursday, Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the program.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday, making clear that he wasn’t backing down on the fund.
“I could have settled my case…for an absolute fortune,” he wrote. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused.”
The Senate is scheduled to return June 1, which is the same day Trump has said he wants to sign the ICE and Border Patrol funding bill into law.
And I call Trump a dirty, thieving, racist asshole because that's what he is.
He's stealing from us - directly, and out in the open. He's treating the US Treasury like it's his own piggy bank. The Treasury - you know, the place where they keep all the tax money everybody loves to bitch about having to pay.
And don't start thinking Trump won't put himself first in line to receive compensation for having been "so badly mistreated by the government."
I'll say it again:
Trump is a whiny-butt little pussy who does nothing but bitch about how unfair it is that he's expected to play by the rules like everybody else.
TRUMP IS STEALING OUR MONEY
AND PUTTING IT IN HIS OWN POCKET,
OR HANDING IT TO DIRECTLY
TO HIS CRIMINAL FRIENDS
Ted Cruz said Trump could face a “full-on revolt in the Senate” over the controversial fund
Republican senators erupted behind closed doors this week as acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to defend the Trump administration’s controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund, according to a prominent GOP lawmaker.
It was a meeting that Sen. Ted Cruz later described on his podcast as one of the “roughest” he has witnessed during his time in Congress.
“Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said Friday on his podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz.” “My guess is there’re probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed.”
The “anti-weaponization” fund was announced Monday after Trump agreed to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Cruz said many GOP lawmakers argued the proposal would be politically impossible to defend because it appeared President Donald Trump had “cut a deal with himself,” NBC News reported.
“There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing,” Cruz said. “I got to tell you, the Republican senators were pissed – people were the entire meeting. They were screaming at the acting attorney general, and he was trying to lay out the legal basis,” Cruz said. Cruz added that “the legal basis is quite sound.”
Cruz said Senate Republicans were on the verge of rebelling over the proposal. Had the Senate moved forward Thursday night with a planned series of votes on the ICE and Border Patrol funding package, he said, roughly half of the Republican caucus was prepared to join Democrats in supporting amendments to restrict the fund.
He discussed “the degree of the jailbreak of Republicans who were bolting, who were saying we’re going to vote with the Democrats.”
Cruz warned the administration could face a major showdown when lawmakers return to Washington if changes are not made to modify the fund.
“If the administration doesn’t fix this,” he said, “they’ve got a full-on revolt in the Senate.”
In response to Cruz’s comments, a White House official told The Independent they appreciated the conversation and feedback and will have additional conversations as needed. The Independent has also contacted the DOJ for comment.
Concerns about the fund have continued to spread among Republicans.
The White House “put themselves in a bad spot. It wasn’t Congress that did it. Congress has had no input. Might be part of the problem,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., criticized it as a “payout pot for punks,” pointing to the possibility that people convicted in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot could potentially receive compensation.
Democrats have also sharply condemned the proposal. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote in a letter to Blanche on Wednesday that “the notion of the federal government doling out compensation to rioters” is “absurd and offensive.”
On Thursday, Reps. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., introduced bipartisan legislation that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the program.
Trump posted on Truth Social on Friday, making clear that he wasn’t backing down on the fund.
“I could have settled my case…for an absolute fortune,” he wrote. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused.”
The Senate is scheduled to return June 1, which is the same day Trump has said he wants to sign the ICE and Border Patrol funding bill into law.
May 12, 2026
About That Statue Thing
They’re literally worshipping golden statues of Trump now.
— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) May 12, 2026
Because it’s a fucking cult. pic.twitter.com/1NmevWNQlf
May 11, 2026
Because Of Course
Trump said it would be under $2 million, and that it had to be awarded as a no-bid contract to avoid harm to the government.
Reflecting Pool Repairs to Cost $13.1 Million. Trump Had Promised $1.8 million.
A no-bid contract for repairs to the Lincoln Memorial pool now costs $13.1 million, far more than the $1.8 million Mr. Trump initially said it would.
President Trump said that his handpicked contractor would charge only $1.8 million to repair the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and paint it blue.
The actual cost is now more than seven times that, after the Interior Department nearly doubled the size of the contract late last week, federal records show.
On Friday, the Interior Department added $6.2 million to the contract’s previous cost, saying it now planned to pay $13.1 million to a Virginia firm called Atlantic Industrial Coatings. President Trump said he chose that company to repair the landmark because the firm had worked on the swimming pools at his golf club in Sterling, Va.
The government awarded that firm a no-bid contract last month, bypassing the requirement to seek competing offers by saying that the situation was so urgent that any delay would cause “serious injury” to the government. The government has not publicly said what that injury would have been.
Instead, it has cited Mr. Trump’s desire to get the work done before the country’s 250th birthday on July 4.
Public contracting records do not say why the contract’s value increased so sharply on Friday. Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said that the higher price “reflects the effort necessary to expedite the timeline of completing the leak prevention coating project — more people, more materials, more equipment and longer hours ahead of our 250th.”
Atlantic Industrial Coatings did not respond to questions about the increase.
But government documents obtained by The New York Times show that the contract’s current value matches, down to the dollar, an offer submitted to the government by Atlantic Industrial Coatings in the middle of last month. That offer included a 20 percent profit margin, the documents show.
Competitive bidding laws aim to ensure that the government is getting a fair price from its vendors.
- When did Trump start caring about "harming the government"?
- When has he not lied about it?
A no-bid contract for repairs to the Lincoln Memorial pool now costs $13.1 million, far more than the $1.8 million Mr. Trump initially said it would.
President Trump said that his handpicked contractor would charge only $1.8 million to repair the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and paint it blue.
The actual cost is now more than seven times that, after the Interior Department nearly doubled the size of the contract late last week, federal records show.
On Friday, the Interior Department added $6.2 million to the contract’s previous cost, saying it now planned to pay $13.1 million to a Virginia firm called Atlantic Industrial Coatings. President Trump said he chose that company to repair the landmark because the firm had worked on the swimming pools at his golf club in Sterling, Va.
The government awarded that firm a no-bid contract last month, bypassing the requirement to seek competing offers by saying that the situation was so urgent that any delay would cause “serious injury” to the government. The government has not publicly said what that injury would have been.
Instead, it has cited Mr. Trump’s desire to get the work done before the country’s 250th birthday on July 4.
Public contracting records do not say why the contract’s value increased so sharply on Friday. Katie Martin, a spokeswoman for the Interior Department, said that the higher price “reflects the effort necessary to expedite the timeline of completing the leak prevention coating project — more people, more materials, more equipment and longer hours ahead of our 250th.”
Atlantic Industrial Coatings did not respond to questions about the increase.
But government documents obtained by The New York Times show that the contract’s current value matches, down to the dollar, an offer submitted to the government by Atlantic Industrial Coatings in the middle of last month. That offer included a 20 percent profit margin, the documents show.
Competitive bidding laws aim to ensure that the government is getting a fair price from its vendors.
The contractor was hired to repair leaking joints between the pool’s concrete slabs, waterproof the pool’s bottom, and paint it a shade called “American flag blue.” The pool has been troubled for decades by leaks and algae blooms that turn its water green.
On Monday, a nonprofit dedicated to landscape architecture filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington seeking to halt the paint job. The Cultural Landscape Foundation said that the Trump administration had ignored a law requiring advance scrutiny of projects that alter historic landmarks.
The foundation, based in Washington, said in its lawsuit that “every day that the resurfacing continues, the historic character of the Reflecting Pool is being further and fundamentally altered.”
On Monday, a nonprofit dedicated to landscape architecture filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington seeking to halt the paint job. The Cultural Landscape Foundation said that the Trump administration had ignored a law requiring advance scrutiny of projects that alter historic landmarks.
The foundation, based in Washington, said in its lawsuit that “every day that the resurfacing continues, the historic character of the Reflecting Pool is being further and fundamentally altered.”
Apr 28, 2026
Apr 15, 2026
Oops
We all have to know that the Doordash Grandma thing was just a stunt, intended to show off Trump's "genius idea to get Americans out from under their horrendous tax burden" - and it flopped.
Tax season was supposed to bring big refunds. So far they're less than expected
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.
When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.
The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.
"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.
This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."
But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.
So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.
And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.
"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."
Americans who owe taxes could be seeing a bigger slice of the savings
One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.
Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.
"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.
Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."
Refunds are getting eaten up by higher gas prices
Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.
The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.
It flopped in large part because, like I said, it was recognized as a stunt, but also because we found out the lady has to drive Doordash to pay the mortgage and the ridiculous healthcare bills that are piling up from her husband's cancer treatments.
Anyway, speaking of tax burdens, we were told that everybody's tax refunds this year would be nice and plump, and they'd all be rollin' in dough that they could use to buy that new car, or put the kids through college, or take that special vacation, and blah blah blah.
Well - no - not so much.
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.
When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.
The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.
"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.
This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."
But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.
So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.
And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.
"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."
Americans who owe taxes could be seeing a bigger slice of the savings
One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.
"The evidence is stronger that more tax relief is relatively flowing to those who otherwise would owe when they file," said Don Schneider, deputy head of U.S. policy at the investment bank Piper Sandler.
But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.
"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.
Higher-income procrastinators still have to file
But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.
"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.
Higher-income procrastinators still have to file
Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.
"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.
Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."
Refunds are getting eaten up by higher gas prices
Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.
The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.
"The tax refund season might be very good, but it's also being offset by this price in gasoline," said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.
Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.
"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.
Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.
"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.
Apr 5, 2026
It's Us, America
We're the problem.
- We never had trouble with election security before Trump
- We never had trouble with Russian interference before Trump
- We never had trouble with candidates conceding defeat before Trump
- Trump is a liar
- Trump is a thief
- Trump is a cheater
- Trump is a rapist
- Trump is a pedophile
Trump is a criminal and a traitor
TRUMP IS THE ENEMY WITHIN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)