Bulwark Takes

You know you're in a really bad place when the most important profit center driving your business - and your business decisions - is the guy monitoring Trump's social media feeds.

Don't Go Numb

Take a minute. Step back. Catch your breath. Then get back to it. There's a long way to go, and lots of heavy lifting to do.

embrace the suck

stay in the fight

The "Ballroom"

Overheard on a friends FB page (Andrew Kerr):

Here's why the new White House ballroom project is not real. (The demo is obviously real)

Some background - I am a licensed Architect with 20+ years of experience. I have worked on multiple Federal projects with sensitive building programs that required background checks.

1. With a projected size of 90,000 sq ft, and a newly revised budget of $300M, the cost per square foot would be $3,333. No building costs anywhere near that. $1,000/sq ft is astronomical.
2. Let's assume, since we are drawing in the classical, style, that the proportions of the building adhere to the Golden Ratio. A 90,000 sq ft would be a building with a footprint roughly 380' x 235'. Longer than a football field and 1.5 times as wide.
3. The building is projected to accommodate 999 people. 15 sq ft/person is required for a banquet area; 20 sq ft/person is pretty comfortable. What you see in the rendering below is closer to 20 sq ft/person. That's only 20,000 sq ft, or a space that is 200'x100'. It's supposed to be a ballroom, so let's be extraordinarily generous and provide 10,000 sq ft for the ballroom support functions, and another 10,000 sq ft for pre-function. Extraordinarily generous. That's STILL only 40,000 sq ft, not even half of the supposed building. 
4. There are no drawings for the building. The renderings are poorly coordinated - exterior views do not match the interior views. See below - the White House is 70 feet tall, to the roof. The interior renderings show a room that is roughly 100' x 200', with a ~20 foot ceiling. The exterior renderings show a building footprint of 4.5x that amount.

Those are renderings that could be produced by young staff in a week or two, at most. Nothing else exists.

About That Ballroom

White House tours have been discontinued - prob'ly so nobody can see the Russian agents planting their little spy gadgets everywhere.

But on the "bright side", once we're rid of President Yamtits McShitstain, we can gut that stupid monument to one man's fragile ego, and turn it into some useable office space for a legit government.

East Wing

before

East Wing

after

Donald Trump is a one-man plague of locusts.

The Laundry

My contention is that Trump's ballroom is another Laundry for bribe money.

Parnas has a list of "donors", and now we'll have to wait and see what they get in return for their generous "gifts".

Pissed Off Bartender

MermaidMamaMaggie

Trump Sucks

In case you needed more evidence that Trump is pretty, vindictive, and crooked.

FBI seized computers, papers labeled ‘Trump’ during Bolton search

Search warrant records show that prosecutors are seeking to build a case under statutes barring unauthorized removal of classified documents and Espionage Act violations.

FBI agents seized computers, phones and reams of documents — including some in folders labeled “Trump I-IV” and “statements and reflections to allied strikes” — in the search of the home and office of former national security adviser John Bolton, according to court papers unsealed Thursday.

Search warrant records released by a federal magistrate judge in Maryland confirmed prosecutors are seeking to build a case against Bolton for alleged unauthorized removal of classified documents and violations of the Espionage Act involving improper transmission of national defense information. The most serious of those crimes carries potential punishment of up to a decade in prison.

The warrants, signed a day before the Aug. 22 raids on Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, and his D.C. office, authorized agents to seize any documents that appeared “to be classified” or “relate to his former position as national security adviser” in 2018 and 2019 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

The records do not say whether agents found any items bearing classification stamps or other markings indicating that they were improperly in Bolton’s possession. They also do not say whether investigators found any such material on the two phones, three computers and two USB thumb drives that were seized.

“Law enforcement is actively reviewing evidence and interviewing witnesses,” prosecutors said in filings surrounding the warrant material’s release, which came in response to a request in court by a coalition of media organizations including The Washington Post.

Prosecutors said in those filings that they would also agree to unseal a redacted version of the affidavit agents drafted to secure the Bolton search warrants. Such documents typically contain a more detailed accounting of the allegations under investigation.

But as of late Thursday, the government had not filed formal paperwork with the court to unseal that document.

Bolton, a veteran diplomat and security expert who has more recently emerged as one of the president’s fiercest critics, has not spoken publicly about the investigation. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, characterized the probe as one driven by a politicized Justice Department “under pressure to satisfy a president out for political revenge.”

“The materials taken from Amb. Bolton’s home are the ordinary records of a 40-year career serving this country,” Lowell said in a statement Thursday. “Any thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton.”

Law enforcement officials familiar with the probe previously told The Post that the Justice Department is investigating recent accusations that Bolton leaked sensitive material — making him the latest of Trump’s political enemies to find themselves targeted by federal investigators. In recent months, prosecutors have launched criminal inquiries into Trump critics including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California), former FBI director James B. Comey, ex-CIA director John Brennan and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

During Trump’s first term, the Justice Department also pursued an investigation of Bolton for allegedly divulging classified government material in his 2020 book, “The Room Where it Happened,” which offered a withering portrait of Trump as an “erratic” and “stunningly uninformed” leader.

That inquiry did not result in charges at the time. But the officials who described the current probe of Bolton’s activities said its scope included both concerns over Bolton’s book and newer allegations involving disclosures of sensitive material.

According to the records unsealed Thursday, the new investigation is being conducted by prosecutors under Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. attorney for the District of Maryland, as well as lawyers in the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the investigation last month in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” and denied that Bolton is being targeted because of his criticism of Trump.

“We don’t think that we should throw people — even if they disagree with us politically, maybe especially if they disagree with us politically … in prison,” he said. “You should let the law drive these determinations, and that’s what we’re doing.”

Today's Rich

Trump is a fuckin' crook.

Undocumented My Ass

DHS has an extra $150B for their budget, and they've been spending it lavishly on 50-thousand-dollar signing bonuses for new ICE agents, who'll start at $100K a year.

They're buying fleets of cars and vans, helicopters and airplanes and weapons and gear.

All for the purpose of rounding up brown people. And when I say "all", I mean it's a safe bet that some of it is coming off the top and going straight into the boss's pocket.

Anyway, we're spending way more than we should - way more than we need to be spending.

So let's do something radical and make the whole mess a lot more cost-effective.

Let's send those ICE guys out to find all those undocumented people and - uh - you know - document them.

Boston Legal

They Have No Honor

Mike Johnson called for the censure of Alex Padilla yesterday. Maybe he should pay a little more attention to his own guys.

It's The Corruption, Stupid

Trump slaps a heavy tariff on something I have to have for my billion-dollar business, so I go hat-in-hand to the White House to buy an exemption, which I'll pay for by "investing" in his $hitcoin. 

@wepolitics Jonah Goldberg. #politics #politicaltikok #politicalnews #trump #donaldtrump #liberal #conservative #tariffs ♬ original sound - wepolitics

For Sale

If you've got the money, the law doesn't apply to you. Just order up the Million-Dollar Surf-n-Turf and you're good to go.

@mrglobaltoo #viral #foryoupage #foryoupageofficiall #fypage #fyp #fypシツ #fypシ゚viral #trump #@MeidasTouch @Aaron Parnas ♬ original sound - Mr Global

And while we're at it, let's go find some hungry foxes to guard the chickens.

Trump oversight picks include scandal-hit ex-lawmaker, antiabortion lawyer

Several nominees have clearly partisan backgrounds, including two with controversial histories and two with ties to the agency they would be investigating.

President Donald Trump’s pick to investigate waste, fraud and abuse at the Labor Department, Anthony D’Esposito, is a former Republican congressman who lost his New York seat after he was accused of putting his mistress and fiancée’s daughter on his payroll.

The inspector general nominee for Health and Human Services, Thomas March Bell, previously resigned from a government job over an allegation of mishandling taxpayers’ money and has pursued cases against abortion clinics as a GOP attorney.

And Trump’s choice for Veterans Affairs watchdog, Cheryl Mason, said in a Senate questionnaire that she had continued to be a senior adviser to Secretary Douglas A. Collins after she was nominated to become the inspector general monitoring his agency.

After firing inspectors general at 19 agencies in an unprecedented purge, Trump has named six replacements in recent weeks, including three with clearly partisan backgrounds. Two of those have controversial histories and two have ties to the agency they would be responsible for investigating.

Government ethics experts, including some former inspectors general, expressed concerns about the qualifications of several of the nominees, warning that the positions require independence and that installing loyalists would erode public trust. All six will require confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate.

“The cardinal sin for an inspector general is bias,” said Mark Greenblatt, a former chairman of the council of federal inspectors general and the Trump-nominated Interior Department watchdog from August 2019 until Trump fired him Jan. 24. “There will be questions about whether programs under [former president Joe] Biden are getting a fair shake and whether those under Trump are getting unwarranted good reviews.”

Five of the six nominees did not respond to requests for comment.

In response to a query sent to D’Esposito, Department of Labor spokeswoman Courtney Parella said the agency “respects the independent role of the Inspector General, and we look forward to working with the nominee, once confirmed, to uphold that mission.”

White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement that Trump’s inspector general nominees are “highly-qualified and accomplished individuals.”

“It is ironic for The Washington Post — notorious peddlers of fake news — to attack the credibility of President Trump’s highly qualified selections for Inspectors General,” she said. “These so-called experts cited in this story are clearly suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome who hate that President Trump is restoring integrity and transparency to our federal government.”

Congress was explicit when it passed the 1978 law governing inspectors general: They should not be selected based on partisan affiliations. “Each Inspector General shall be appointed without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations,” the law says.

But critics of Trump’s shake-up say several of those nominated seem to fit one requirement: Loyalty to the White House.

Then-Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-New York) speaks during a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 11 to announce the formation of the bipartisan Aviation Safety Caucus on the anniversary of 9/11 terrorist attacks. (Bonnie Cash/Getty Images)
This is not the first time Trump has taken aim at federal watchdogs. In the final year of Trump’s first term, he fired five inspectors general over two months and criticized their oversight.

This time, the fired inspectors general were told by the White House personnel office that they no longer aligned with the president’s priorities, said Hannibal “Mike” Ware, who was watchdog at the Small Business Administration and acting inspector general for the Social Security Administration.

“That means that these nominees will all be expected to align with Trump’s priorities,” Ware said.

Eight of the watchdogs removed at the start of Trump’s second term are fighting their dismissals in federal court, arguing that the White House violated the law by not providing a detailed reason for their termination and 30 days’ notice. They are seeking reinstatement.

Faith Williams, the director of the Effective and Accountable Government Program at the Project on Government Oversight, said that while it was widely expected that Trump would clean house, his choices for replacements are puzzling.

“As diverse as these candidates on paper appear to be, what threads through them is that there are basic thresholds that you need to meet in order to be a good inspector general — have you managed a big office before, have you done investigations before, have you worked in this community — and these folks don’t seem to meet that threshold,” Williams said.

The lack of replacements for other inspector general positions has also worried the government watchdog community, especially as Trump and Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service have dramatically overhauled agencies without oversight. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Michigan), the top Democrat on the committee overseeing governmental affairs, released a report last week showing that the fired inspectors general had effectively rooted out billions of dollars in waste, fraud and abuse before Trump removed them.

The White House did not respond to a question from The Post about when Trump would fill other vacancies.

When President Barack Obama in 2012 delayed filling 10 inspector general slots, then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) joined other Republicans in criticizing Obama, writing at the time that all federal agencies should “have proper oversight through highly qualified, permanent inspectors general.”

D’Esposito, Trump’s choice for labor watchdog, has been the most politically visible of the nominees. A former congressman and ex-NYPD detective, he lost reelection in 2024 after increasing scrutiny over his use of taxpayer dollars for questionable staffing arrangements, including allegations that he placed a mistress and his fiancée’s daughter on his official payroll.

D’Esposito was the subject of several investigations for misconduct, including working as a disc jockey and serving alcoholic beverages without permission, while he was a New York City police detective. Investigators determined the accusations were “partially substantiated.”

Trump has also made the nontraditional choice to select some people who have worked within the agencies they will be tasked with investigating.

Bell, the inspector general nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services, worked in the agency’s Office of Civil Rights during Trump’s first term after serving as an attorney for congressional Republicans. He has previously led House Republicans’ efforts to investigate Planned Parenthood based on heavily doctored videos by antiabortion activists and debunked claims that the group was profiting from the sales of fetal tissue.

Bell resigned as deputy director of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality in 1997 after a legislative audit found he couldn’t justify an almost $8,000 payment to a former employee. He was also previously a special counsel for the Justice Department.

Senate Finance Committee leading member Ron Wyden criticized Bell as “completely unqualified.”

“This action shows how little the Republican Party actually cares about taking on genuine waste, fraud and abuse in the American health care system,” Wyden said in a statement.

Mason, Trump’s pick for VA inspector general, is an attorney who had a role in the agency for years before Trump’s second term, when she returned as a member of Trump’s VA transition team, and then as special adviser in the secretary’s office at agency headquarters. Until 2022, Mason led the Board of Veterans’ Appeals as a political appointee during Trump’s first term after serving as a career official at the board. The board plays a nonpartisan role in adjudicating appeals when a veteran’s claim for benefits is denied. The White House required candidates to disclose their party affiliation and other details about their political leanings and only Republican-leaning candidates were selected, The Post reported at the time.

Mason is likely to face questions from Democrats on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee about her role as Collins’s senior adviser. Leading member Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said in a statement that Mason was “exactly the wrong choice to be the VA Inspector General — a role requiring nonpartisan, independent oversight.”

“This nomination is especially problematic because Ms. Mason has been point person in muzzling VA workers and directing them to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements,” Blumenthal said. “As Special Advisor to Secretary Collins, she’s playing a leading role in slashing the VA workforce by 83,000. Veterans deserve an Inspector General who will conduct investigations free of interference and collusion from Collins and the Trump Administration.”

In response to questions from The Post about Mason’s positions as senior adviser to Collins and nominee to be his watchdog, VA spokesman Peter Kasperowicz pointed to Collins’s testimony before a House panel on May 15, when he noted that she had served in two administrations. Kasperowicz did not respond to questions about whether Mason has stepped down from her role as an administration official since her nomination.

One of Trump’s new nominees does have previous experience in an inspector general’s office: William Kirk, the nominee for inspector general at the Small Business Administration, was in the inspector general’s office at the Environmental Protection Agency from 2022 until recently, when he was detailed to the Department of Education’s general counsel office, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Meanwhile, Peter M. Thomson, nominated as CIA inspector general, is a former prosecutor and white-collar defense attorney. Thomson was previously nominated for the same post in Trump’s first term and cleared the Senate Intelligence Committee.

But Thomson’s nomination was ultimately sent back to the White House after the Senate didn’t schedule a confirmation vote for him.

The sixth new nominee, Christopher Fox, has been tapped to be the intelligence community inspector general and has not yet completed paperwork required of Senate-confirmed positions, according to a Senate aide familiar with the process, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal discussions.

Of course, there's a level of corruption that goes with practically every political office - and every organization in general.

Warren G Harding

Ulysses S Grant

The Florida Finagle

I don't like thinking I'm adding to the problem of the Fire Hose Of Shit, but when practically every day gives us another major grift, I don't know how I can just brush it off, and let it become part of a very ugly process of normalizing official corruption.

So - sorry - here's today's shit.

Overheard

Color me unsurprised.

When will it be enough?

The Trump State Department

tried to sneak $400M to Tesla.

They got caught.

Then, according to

Congressman Greg Casar,

they lied about it.

Reform, my dyin' ass -

that's straight up

bald-faced corruption.

And It Might Be Legal

Trump is the King of SmarmSpace.

The Art Of The Scam

Method & Madness

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Spacie Gracie (@spaciegracie99)

That IG Thing

Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

202-224-4751

TwiXter Republicans: @HSGAC_GOP

TwiXter Democrats: @HSGAC

Hi - my name is ______________, and I'm calling from ______________.

I expect the committee to investigate Mr Trump's illegal firing of the Inspectors General, which was in direct violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.

I need to know if you'll be doing anything about it, or if we just have to sit here and let Trump and the GOP screw us with our pants on - again.

Inspector General Act of 1978

An Act to reorganize the executive branch of the Government and increase its economy and efficiency by establishing Offices of Inspector General within the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and within the Community Services Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Veterans' Administration, and for other purposes.

• Enacted by the 95th United States Congress
• Effective October 1, 1978
• Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1978

The Inspector General Act of 1978 is a United States federal law (92 Stat. 1101) defining a standard set of Inspector General offices across several specified departments of the U.S. federal government.

The Act specifically creates Inspector General positions and offices in more than a dozen specific departments and agencies. The Act gave these inspectors general the authority to review the internal documents of their departments or offices. They were given responsibility to investigate fraud, to give policy advice (5 U.S.C. § 404; IG Act, sec. 4), to handle certain complaints by employees, and to report to the heads of their agencies and to Congress on their activities every six months (5 U.S.C. § 405; IG Act, sec. 5).

Many existing offices with names like Office of Audit, Office of Investigations, or similar were transferred, renamed, folded into the new IG offices.

The core of the law is in 5 U.S.C. § 403 (IG Act, sec. 3(a)): "There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.

Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation."

The Act and the Inspector General role were amended thirty years later by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,[3] which created the umbrella IG agency, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).

In May 2020, after a series of IG firings for questionable causes, several House Democrats introduced a bill, H.R.6984, to amend the original act to protect against political retaliation and require just cause for IG dismissal.

Remember This

The last paragraph from Jack Smith's report:

"The Department's view that the Constitution prohibits the continued indictment and prosecution of a President is categorical and does not turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government's proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Office stands fully behind. Indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the Presidency, the Office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial."