Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been cut off from contact, and there is no certainty about his fate, Israeli officials told Walla on Saturday afternoon. Iranian officials promised to release a recording from Khamenei soon after Israeli strikes targeted his Tehran compound.
Saturday Reads: Trump Attacks Iran
Posted: February 28, 2026 Filed under: just because | Tags: Donald Trump, Iran attack, israel, NATO allies, regime change Iran 6 CommentsGood Day!!
A plume of smoke rises after an explosion in Tehran on Saturday.Credit…Atta Kenare, Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
I wish you all a good day, but it’s not a good day for our country. I woke up at around 5AM and was hit with the news that Trump has attacked Iran. He did this illegally, without consultation with Congress or the slightest respect for the clear wishes of the American people. He has only one ally in his war–Israel. I wonder what our NATO allies are thinking right now?
Let’s face it. The “president” is insane. He should have been impeached and removed long ago, but Republicans are too cowardly to do the right thing.
I’m no expert on Iran. I’m just going to share some articles that I think are helpful for understanding what we’re in for. I just want to say that if Trump hadn’t cancelled Obama’s agreement with Iran, this probably wouldn’t be happening. But he just couldn’t let a Democrat–especially a Black man–get any credit.
MSNOW: U.S. launches ‘major combat operations’ in Iran, Trump says.
President Donald Trump announced the largest military intervention of his two terms in the Oval Office, saying the United States is launching sweeping attacks on the Iranian military and calling on the Iranian people to rise up and seize control of their government.
The U.S. military has launched “major combat operations” in Iran, Trump said in a video posted to Truth Social early Saturday, with the goal of stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and protecting American personnel and interests abroad and at home.
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” Trump declared from behind a podium dressed in a navy suit and wearing a baseball cap emblazoned with “USA” on it.
The strikes have killed at least five students at a girls’ school in southern Iran, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. A Gulf regional leader told MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” that one person was killed by debris from missiles fired at the UAE.
Israel announced it was also participating in the military offensive, and The Associated Press reported that Israel had launched a daylight attack on Tehran, Iran’s capital, on Saturday. The Israel Defense Forces posted on X that Iran had launched missiles toward Israel, underscoring the possibilities of wider war in a Middle East already riven with tensions and conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the joint attack with the U.S. was aimed at ending “the threat of the Iranian ayatollah’s regime.”
Trump acknowledged there may be American casualties as a result of the U.S. military intervention labeled “Operation Epic Fury,” but said the mission was necessary to protect America and its allies in the future.
Jonathan Wolfe at The New York Times (gift link): Here’s What World Leaders Are Saying About the U.S.-Led Attack on Iran.
Leaders in Europe and around the world on Saturday urged all sides to exercise restraint after the United States and Israel launched a major attack on Iran, although some officials backed the American-led campaign.
President Trump said the attack was intended to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program and lead to a change in government, after several rounds of nuclear talks involving the two sides failed to reach a deal. Iran’s foreign ministry asked the United Nations Security Council “to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security.”
Here’s what other governments are saying:
Britain: The British government said it had not participated in the strikes and did “not want to see further escalation into a wider regional conflict.” It added that it had recently enhanced its defensive capabilities in the Middle East and that its immediate priority was the safety of British citizens in the region. “Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and that is why we have continually supported efforts to reach a negotiated solution,” the government said in a statement.
Germany: A government spokesman said in a statement that Germany had been informed by Israel in advance of the strikes. Chancellor Friedrich Merz “is monitoring the development closely and is in close coordination with European partners,” the statement said. Mr. Merz is scheduled to meet Mr. Trump in Washington next week.
France: President Emmanuel Macron called for the attacks to stop and asked for a meeting of the Security Council. He also wrote that the Iranian leadership “must understand that it now has no other option than to engage in good-faith negotiations” over its nuclear program, and added that the Iranian people “must also be able to build their future freely.” [….]
Canada: Prime Minister Mark Carney and his foreign minister, Anita Anand, backed the American action. “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security,” they said in a statement.
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia called the reports of retaliatory Iranian strikes on Arab nations, including Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, “a blatant violation” of their national sovereignty. “Saudi Arabia affirms its full solidarity and support for these brotherly nations, pledging all its resources to assist them in any measures they take,” the foreign ministry said in a statement on social media.
China: China’s foreign ministry said on social media that Beijing was “highly concerned” by the strikes. “Iran’s sovereignty, security and territorial integrity should be respected,” the ministry said.That
That is just a sampling. Read the rest at the gift link. I’m surprised how much support there is.
Tom Nichols at The Atlantic (gift link): Trump’s Enormous Gamble on Regime Change in Iran.
The United States has gone to war against Iran. America has only one ally—Israel—in this operation (the Arab states of the Gulf, which fear the Iranian regime, are targets of Iran, but so far are not participating in the attack), and both Washington and Jerusalem are making claims about “imminent” threats that require “preemptive” strikes. But we should dispense with such statements: Iran is not presenting immediate danger to the United States or Israel. Even President Trump, in a recorded address, didn’t bother overly much with such excuses; instead he presented a farrago of charges and accusations going back a half century that included everything from killing American troops in Iraq to terrorism. These indictments are all grounded in truth, but none presents a rationale for immediate attack. Trump ended by calling on Iranians to rise up and overthrow their government.
People watch as smoke rises on the skyline after an explosion in Iran, Feb. 28, 2026.
This is not a preemptive war. It is a war of choice, a discretionary war. It is a war for regime change. Many of Iran’s 92 million people want the regime removed. But it is far from certain that this will be the outcome.
To think about the possible courses of this war, we should start by clearly understanding three realities: First, Iran is a terrible regime that deserves to fall. The regime recently murdered thousands of its own citizens who were seeking freedom from their oppressive rule, and no one should be shedding tears for the mullahs hiding in their bunkers.
Second, “success” is not impossible—if by “success” we mean the fall of the ayatollahs and the rise of a better, more humane, pro-Western government that does not seek to destabilize the Middle East; dominate Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen; and eradicate Israel. But the path to that success is exceedingly narrow and mined with significant hazards. Destroying the regime’s capabilities is relatively easy, but nothing permanent—as Americans learned in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—is achieved by bouncing rubble and piling up bodies. Destroying the regime itself is a far trickier business; dictatorships have a high pain tolerance, especially when the hapless citizens, not the leaders, bear the brunt of that pain.
Third, the president has not offered a strategy, or identified any conditions that would signal that U.S. goals have been achieved. Yes, he has vowed to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, but beyond that, he seems to be arguing for just inflicting military damage on the regime, on the assumption that enough ordnance on enough targets will weaken the grip of the ayatollahs. Once the theocrats are on the ropes, the thinking seems to go, the people of Iran will finish the job of regime change for us.
A bit more:
America twice had its hands full in Iraq, a nation of 37 million, even with the assistance of several countries. The U.S., France, and Britain managed to subdue tiny Libya, a nation of 7.5 million, and left its dictator to be raped and beaten in the streets. This time, conditions are different and more challenging: The target is two and a half times the size of Iraq, America has exactly one openly declared ally in this enterprise, no serious armed rebel force exists in Iran, and no coalition of nations is assembling to march into Tehran.
Trump has boldly told the regime to lay down its weapons and surrender—but to whom? The president in his speech did not rule out American troops on the ground. Does he envision a conquering American general accepting the pistols and swords of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in some sort of ceremony?
Here’s one way, however, all of this can go right: The air campaign is so well designed, so precise, and so thorough that it strips the regime of its major military formations and its security police. Some of the top leaders are killed in at least a partial decapitation, and other forces begin to defect to the side of the people en masse. Rebel groups form quickly and efficiently to seize weapons and set up alternative ruling councils across the country. They cooperate with one another, rather than bicker or actually fight. Outside powers in the region stay away and let the Iranian people sort out their destiny. Peace, of a sort, comes to Iran.
Unfortunately, the ways that all of this can go wrong are more numerous and more likely. Perhaps the Americans, for example, take unexpected casualties, and Trump—who seems to be counting on an easy victory—pulls back. (Trump has spent years decrying American presidents who cost the lives of America’s soldiers; it seems unlikely that he will blithely accept American casualties.) The regime rallies, kills even more of its own people, and survives to fight another day. Or the current regime falls and is replaced by a junta or military regime even more brutal than the one that’s just been destroyed. Or what happens if Iranian retaliation turns out to be more effective than the Americans or Israelis expect, and the region becomes embroiled in repeating cycles of murder and reprisals that leave Americans and Israelis and others dead, but the regime intact?
You can read the whole thing with the gift link.
The New York Times Editorial Board: Trump’s Attack on Iran Is Reckless.
In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them. Over the past year, he has instead ordered military strikes in seven nations. His appetite for military intervention grows with the eating.
A woman stood on a rooftop to get a view of explosions in Tehran on Saturday.Credit…Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times
Now he has ordered a new attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with Israel, and Mr. Trump said it would be much more extensive than the targeted bombing of nuclear facilities in June. Yet he started this war without explaining to the American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. He instead posted a video at 2:30 a.m. Eastern on Saturday, shortly after bombing began, in which he said that Iran presented “imminent threats” and called for the overthrow of its government. His rationale is dubious, and making his case by video in the middle of the night is unacceptable.
Among his justifications is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program, which is a worthy goal. But Mr. Trump declared that program “obliterated” by the strike in June, a claim belied by both U.S. intelligence and this new attack. The contradiction underscores how little regard he has for his duty to tell the truth when committing American armed forces to battle. It also shows how little faith American citizens should place in his assurances about the goals and results of his growing list of military adventures.
Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare.
The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. It has wrought misery since its revolution 47 years ago — on its own people, on its neighbors and around the world. It massacred thousands of protesters this year. It imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own citizens while corruptly enriching themselves. They have proclaimed “Death to America” since coming to power and killed hundreds of U.S. service members in the region, as well as bankrolled terrorism that has killed civilians in the Middle East and as far away as Argentina.
Politico: ‘Acts of war unauthorized by Congress’: Trump’s congressional critics denounce Iran strikes.
Some of President Donald Trump’s Capitol Hill critics were quick to condemn his administration’s military action against Iran early Saturday, criticizing what they described as an unjustified act of war that hadn’t been approved by Congress.
Shortly after reports of the attack against Tehran emerged in the predawn hours, frequent Trump-basher Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) characterized the strikes on social media as “acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are expected to force votes next week on legislation that would curb Trump’s ability to take unilateral military action against Iran without congressional approval. But the U.S.’ Saturday morning strikes came before the bipartisan pair could compel a war powers vote.
One of the first Democrats to respond to the strikes, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), condemned the attack on social media, writing that “we can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die.” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) added Saturday that Trump’s overnight military strikes against “a broad set of targets, including senior Iranian leadership — marking a deeply consequential decision that risks pulling the United States into another broad conflict in the Middle East.”
“The American people have seen this playbook before — claims of urgency, misrepresented intelligence, and military action that pulls the United States into regime change and prolonged, costly nation-building,” Warner said.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called Trump’s military action “a war of choice with no strategic endgame” and said that he will vote for the war powers resolution when it gets a vote next week.
The Jerusalem Post: Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei cut off from contact, no certainty on fate, Israeli sources say.’
The preliminary assessment among Israeli officials was that Khamenei was hurt in the strike. No official confirmation has been received by Israeli, American, or Iranian sources.
The strikes came as Israel and the United States launched an attack on Iran, with Iranian state media reporting explosions heard in Tehran, Qom, Isfahan, Kermanshah, and Karaj.
Iran’s Defense Minister Amir Nasirzadeh and Revolutionary Guards commander Mohammed Pakpour are believed to have been killed in Israeli attacks, two sources familiar with Israel’s military operations and one regional source said.
Israeli and Iranian sources said earlier on Saturday that strikes on Iran killed several senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and Islamic Regime political officials. Iran’s Security Council instructed residents of Tehran, as well as other major cities, to stay in safe, protected locations until further notice.
US-Israeli air strikes killed at least 85 people at a girls’ school in southern Iran, Iran’s judiciary said. The state-run IRNA news agency reported the strike happened in Minab in Iran’s Hormozgan province. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard has a base in the city….
The US and Israel launched an attack early Saturday on Iran, with the first apparent strike happening near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose whereabouts remain unknown. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian was also targeted.
Iranian media reported strikes nationwide and smoke could be seen rising from the capital.
US President Donald Trump said in a video posted on social media that the US had begun “major combat operations in Iran”.
Iran responded to the bombing campaign by launching retaliatory missile strikes at US military bases in the Middle East.
Farnaz Fassihi and Erika Solomon at The New York Times: Chaos and Panic Grip Tehran as Airstrikes Shake City.
Just as Iranians began their workweek on Saturday morning, U.S. and Israeli strikes sent panicked residents of Tehran into the streets and parents racing back to schools where they had just dropped off their children.
Chaos and uncertainty set in as explosions shook the densely populated city, Iran’s capital, according to witnesses who spoke to The New York Times.
Ali, a businessman from Tehran, said in a text message that he was sitting in his office with many employees when they heard two explosions along with fighter jets streaking over the sky. Employees ran screaming out of the building, he said. He, like several other residents who spoke to The Times, asked not to be identified by his full name because he feared for his safety.
From the leafy, upscale district of Mirdamad, Hamidreza Zand, a resident, described seeing at least 10 fighter jets flying overhead as locals ran into the streets and some drivers abandoned cars on streets choked with traffic. With ambulance sirens wailing in the background, other residents scrambled to pick their children up from school.
“I rushed to school to get my daughter from middle school. The girls were hiding under the stairs and crying,” said Ali Zeinalipoor, whom a Times reporter reached on the Clubhouse social media app. “The principal did not know what had happened — everyone was so scared.”
From the roof of her apartment in Tehran’s northern Velenjak district, Golshan Fathi described seeing a second round of fighter jets.
“People are standing on the roof looking at the sky, pointing down. You can hear women screaming. Some of my neighbors are running to their cars,” she said. “It feels like we are in a movie.”
A bit more, because I don’t have any more gift links:
In the Pasdaran area, where a large compound belonging to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards forces is, residents heard multiple explosions that shook their windows.
“My children are crying and scared, we are huddling in the bathroom, we don’t know what to do. This is terrifying,” Esfandiar, an engineer living in the area, wrote in a text message.
As reports of explosions hitting other cities across Iran began to emerge on local media, telecommunications began to falter. A resident named Mahsa said she was fleeing Pasdaran without being able to contact her loved ones to tell them where she was going.
The attacks come at a fragile moment for Iran, whose government launched a brutal crackdown last month to stamp out nationwide protests demanding an end to Iran’s clerical rule.
Not all Iranians were angry as they watched the plumes of smoke rising from the blasts, said Arian, a resident of the Ekteban township west of the capital, who said some of his relatives were cheering the strikes. He said he could hear voices outside his building chanting, “Long live the shah,” a reference to Iran’s monarch, who was deposed in the 1979 revolution that brought the Islamic Republic to power.
As warplanes launched strikes across the country, President Trump released a video statement announcing to Iranians that “the hour of your freedom is at hand,” and urging them to rise up gainst the government once the bombing stops.
I’ll end there. I don’t know how helpful this post will be. Everything is happening right now. We’ll know more later on I guess. Take care of yourselves, everyone.
Finally Friday Reads: He Said, She Said
Posted: February 27, 2026 Filed under: 2026 Elections, Epstein Files | Tags: 2026 polls, @johnbuss.bsky.social, Bill Clinton Testimony, Hillary Clinton Testimony, Rep. Robert Garcia, The Epstein Files 8 Comments
“It might happen sooner.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
It’s one of those days where I really wonder if I should actually get up, even though today Temple and I beat the garbage collectors to the street for a walk. We usually manage to shadow the postman. I saw a question on C-SPAN’s Facebook page that’s really worth asking. “Are you better off financially today than a year ago?” The answer for everyone I know is absolutely no. Our democracy and ability to get justice are getting worse by the minute, also.
So, yesterday, Hillary Clinton testified in a closed session about her complete lack of a relationship with Epstein, which she framed as a basic waste of everyone’s time and money. She stated that, to her knowledge, she’d never even met the guy, then told them to ask Bill. Meanwhile, we’re getting more calls for an investigation into Trump’s obvious associations. This headline from Bill Sher writing at the Washington Monthly says it all. “It’s Time for the Media to Press Trump on Allegations of Abusing a Minor. The president should be scrutinized with the same intensity as others in the Epstein Files.”
I was skeptical that the Jeffrey Epstein files would implicate President Donald Trump in illegal sexual abuse of a minor. It’s not that one cannot imagine Trump being untoward; on the contrary, a jury found him to be liable for sexual abuse. But Trump committing sex crimes against underage girls seemed dubious.
Yet inconclusive but tantalizing evidence exists in a 21-slide presentation, apparently created last summer by two joint Federal Bureau of Investigation-New York Police Department task forces, summarizing four “Jeffrey Epstein Investigations.”
A “Timeline” slide of developments in the case, from July 24, 2006, to July 22, 2025, spanning the initial Epstein investigation through Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction and appeal, indicates that the presentation was created after that date. To put it in context, the allegations against Trump appear to come from a single witness and don’t include physical evidence, such as notes or texts.
One slide titled “Prominent Names” dishes allegations against several famous people and leads with two regarding Trump:
1. [REDACTED] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (date range 1983-1985, [REDACTED] would have been 13- 15)
2. [REDACTED] remember Epstein introduced her to Trump saying “This is a good one, huh” and Trump responded “Yes”. (date range roughly 1984, [REDACTED] would have been 14)
An email thread from July 24, 2025, circulating in the FBI’s New York field office, appears to include a draft of the “Prominent Names” slide text. The Trump text, which has a typo, is identical to what is in a slightly different, probably draft, slideshow.
When the latest Epstein files were released on January 30, the allegations against Trump immediately drew attention. For example, that same day, the progressive MeidasTouch Network posted the email thread on X and CNN’s Jake Tapper, among others, highlighted an email thread covering August 6 and 7, 2025, about “NTOC Names,” which refers to tips collected by the National Threat Operations Center, the bureau’s hub for receiving and vetting public tips regarding federal crimes. The thread includes Epstein-related tips and, in some cases, how federal authorities responded. One emailer notes that in one document, some rows have “yellow highlighting … for the salacious piece,” which appears to refer to the “Prominent Names” slide. (An emailer in July asks for “a sentence or two” for each of the names with “salacious statements.”)
Several tips mention that federal authorities were unable to follow up with the tipsters or verify their stories; those items were not on the “Prominent Names” slide. But one entry on Trump tracks what’s in the slide:
[REDACTED] reported an unidentified female friend who was forced to perform oral sex on President Trump approximately 35 years ago in NJ. The friend told [REDACTED] that she was approximately 13-14 years old when this occurred, and the friend allegedly bit President Trump while performing oral sex. The friend was allegedly hit in the face after she laughed about biting President Trump. The friend said she was also abused by Epstein.
The table’s “Response” column notes, “Spoke with caller who identified [REDACTED] as friend. Lead was sent to Washington Office to conduct interview.”
Some media outlets, including The Mirror, The Telegraph, The Daily Beast, and Mediaite, covered the allegation. But most reporters elided the bit-penis-hit-in-the-face allegation in favor of vague references to multiple unsubstantiated claims while the Justice Department sought to inoculate the president by stating, “Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump.” The media’s attention gravitated to other famous names mentioned in the Epstein files, regardless of whether the files contained evidence of sexual misconduct. Several prominent figures have since resigned from their positions due to their associations with Epstein.
Then, starting on February 15, Roger Sollenberger, the independent journalist, pieced together information indicating that the FBI interviewed the accuser four times in 2019. Sollenberger suggests this means that the FBI found her “credible.” Furthermore, records of three of those interviews were not in the Epstein Files release. He also found a “Jane Doe 4” in a lawsuit against Epstein with similar biographical details, making similar allegations against an unnamed Epstein friend. Jane Doe 4 was deemed ineligible for the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, but the suit nonetheless appears to have led to a settlement for her from Epstein.
Bolstering the case that the FBI found the accuser credible, Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, the independent journalists, noted that, uniquely, her redacted name is routinely followed by the phrase, “PROTECT SOURCE,” which is “typically used for high-risk informants such as mafia rats.”
There is so much more to this story that I hope you take the time to read it all. The Guardian also has more information on the claim. “Epstein files contain explicit but unsubstantiated claim that Trump abused minor. Department of Justice did not release FBI memos when it uploaded millions of pages of files beginning in December.”
Three memos that describe four interviews conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2019 contain explicit but unsubstantiated claims that Donald Trump sexually abused a woman when she was a minor in the early 1980s with the assistance of Jeffrey Epstein, according to a Guardian review of those documents.
The Department of Justice did not release those records when it uploaded millions of pages of files related to Epstein beginning in December. The existence of the missing documents was first reported by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger and subsequently confirmed by NPR, causing outrage in Washington and sparking an investigation from congressional Democrats.
The Guardian obtained the missing FBI Form 302 reports, which memorialize 25 pages of agents’ notes from the four interviews conducted in the summer and fall of 2019. The notes describe how the woman came forward to tell agents she recognized Epstein from a photo sent by a childhood friend. Only the first session, in which she did not name Trump, made it into the public release. The Guardian has chosen not to publish the woman’s name.
All we know about the Hillary Testimony comes from Clinton herself. This is from the New York Times and reported by Annie Karni. “In Tense Deposition, Hillary Clinton Denies Knowing Epstein or His Crimes. After resisting testifying for months, the former secretary of state entered the session defiant and grew irate after a Republican leaked a photo from inside the room.”
In a lengthy opening statement her aides distributed in advance, Mrs. Clinton accused House Republicans of using her as a prop in “partisan political theater” and excoriated their investigation as “designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors.”
“You have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers,” she said.
She added: “You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files,” noting that not a single Republican had attended a closed-door session last week in Ohio to depose Leslie Wexner, the retail billionaire and prolific G.O.P. donor who helped Mr. Epstein build his wealth.
In a day’s worth of questioning that she later called “repetitive” and unproductive, Mrs. Clinton told the committee that she did not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein and “never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices.”
“I don’t know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein,” she told reporters after the session had ended. “It’s on the record numerous times.”
The deposition briefly went off the rails when, as Republicans questioned her, Mr. Johnson’s post of the photograph showing Mrs. Clinton’s testifying while wearing a weary expression prompted an eruption in the room. Her lawyers vociferously objected and called for journalists to be allowed inside to document the proceedings. House Democrats noted that Republicans had refused to grant the Clintons’ request for a public hearing.
“We are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition,” Representative Yassamin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, said, claiming Republicans were “more concerned with getting their photo op” than with holding anyone accountable.
This is from the Washington Examiner. It’s reported by David Zimmermann. “Clinton says she was asked about UFOs and Pizzagate at ‘unusual’ Epstein deposition.”
After exiting her deposition on Thursday, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested some members of Congress were more concerned with UFOs and Pizzagate instead of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell in their questions.
The high-profile witness called the House oversight committee deposition “quite unusual” as it concluded.
“I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate, one of the most vile bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet, that was serving as the basis of a member’s questions to me,” Clinton said in Chappaqua, New York, where the closed-door deposition hearing was held.
It’s unclear why Clinton was questioned on extraterrestrial life, as UFOs have nothing to do with the late convicted sex offender’s crimes. Last week, President Donald Trump said he would start declassifying government files related to the existence of aliens.
The Pizzagate conspiracy theory refers to a child sex ring linked to members of the Democratic Party, and it went viral during the 2016 presidential election cycle when Clinton was running against Trump for president. At one point, a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., named Comet Ping Pong was caught up in the right-wing conspiracy theory.
Clinton did not name the member who asked the unusual questions, nor whether the lawmaker was a Republican or a Democrat.
The hearing was disrupted earlier when Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) shared a photo of Clinton with conservative commentator Benny Johnson, who then posted the image on social media. As a result of the stunt, the hearing was paused for about 30 minutes. Closed-door hearings forbid unauthorized photography as it could violate House rules and confidentiality agreements.
Clinton denied she ever met Epstein and claimed to never have “any connection or communication” with the convicted sex offender, although she admitted knowing Maxwell “casually as an acquaintance.”
She criticized the GOP-led committee’s decision to reject her and her husband’s bid for public hearings.
“It was disappointing that they refused to hold a public hearing, so I wouldn’t have to be out here characterizing it for you. You could have seen it for yourself,” she told reporters. “We had asked for that. We think it would have been better for the committee and its efforts to gather whatever information they are seeking.”
The former Cabinet secretary also slammed oversight committee Republicans for skipping the recent deposition of former Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner, whom the FBI labeled a co-conspirator of Epstein. Chairman James Comer (R-KY) did not attend that deposition due to an already scheduled medical procedure.
Despite her criticisms, Clinton noted the “best exchange” came toward the end of the hearing, when Comer asked a “series of significant questions” related to the investigation’s focus.
Since I’ve already mentioned polls, I think I’ll share the results of an interesting one analyzed by G. Elliott Morris in his Substack, Strength in Numbers. “New poll: Democrats’ real problem isn’t being too liberal — it’s being seen as too weak. Americans, including swing voters, see the Republican Party as 20 points more extreme than Democrats — and the Democrats as weak and ineffective. So why would the *Democrats* moderate?”
In our February poll, we asked voters whether each of 10 adjectives describes the Democratic and Republican parties. Each person was asked to rank how well each word — such as “extreme”, “elitist”, “tough”, and “weak” — described both parties on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating the word described the party very well.
The Republican Party’s defining traits in voters’ minds are extreme (60% agree), elitist (57%), tough, (56%) and cruel (51%). The percentage of Americans agreeing with descriptions of positive traits is comparatively smaller: just 41% say the party is competent, 41% say principled, and only 31% — less than a third — say the GOP can be considered empathetic.
The average American sees Democrats in a much different light. The top descriptors of the party are empathetic (54%) and principled (49%). Comparatively few people think of it as “tough” (31%), and nearly half the country calls the Democrats weak (48%) and ineffective (47%). Democrats’ competence rating is 46% — five points higher than the GOP’s — but it’s the weakness and ineffectiveness labels that dominate voters’ impressions and national discourse about the party.
The chart above is ordered by the gap between the percentage of Americans who say each descriptor applies to each party — and these gaps are revealing. Democrats lead on empathetic by 23 points (54% versus 31%) and on principled by 8 (49% versus 41%). The GOP leads on exactly one positive trait: toughness (56% versus 31%). That’s it.
Being seen as tough is an advantage in a politics where voters want parties to deliver for them no matter what, but it’s likely not worth being called cruel and elitist. In our poll, Democrats lead the Republicans on the U.S. House generic ballot by 10 percentage points among registered voters. At least in the short term, that’s a worthwhile trade.
But the Democrats’ weakness problem stands out as a particularly strong signal of intra-party dissatisfaction. When we look at how each party’s own identifiers rate their own party, the weakness gap for the Democrats really jumps out. Just 53% of Democrats call their party tough, compared to 80% of Republicans. And 31% of Democrats say their own party is weak — almost three times the 13% of Republicans who say the same about theirs.
On most traits, partisans rate their own party similarly. Democrats and Republicans are within a few points of each other on being competent, principled, and cynical. But on toughness and weakness, Democrats are far more self-critical. That matters electorally: a party whose own base doubts its strength will struggle to turn out its base. And in an era of close elections, that is not a loss a party can afford.
Those results were not much of a surprise to me. Today, it’s Bill Clinton’s turn to testify in the Epstein Investigation. NBC News has live updates on its website. “Trump administration live updates: Bill Clinton testifies in House Jeffrey Epstein probe. Clinton is the first sitting or former president to testify before members of Congress in more than 40 years.” This is reported by Rebecca Shabad.
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, said this morning that Democrats have “real questions that deserve serious answers from former President Clinton” during his closed-door deposition in Chappaqua today.
“We have said from day one that Democrats want to talk to anyone, whether they are a Republican or a Democrat, no matter how powerful they are, whatever position that they’ve been in,” Garcia told reporters ahead of the deposition.
Garcia said that they don’t want to see another “sideshow” today like what happened during Hillary Clinton’s deposition yesterday, in which he said Republicans asked her about UFOs and conspiracy theories.
Because “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify,” Democrats are again demanding that Trump testify before their panel about his relationship with Epstein, Garcia said.
Trump appears in the Epstein files “almost more than anybody else,” Garcia said.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and authorities have not accused him of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.
They’re also reporting that lots of Diet Cokes have been brought into the building for the former President. I guess we’ll see what happens.
That’s about all I’m good for today. The entire Epstein show is getting old. I do have a local source from WDSU, the news station I watch here in New Orleans. At least a few of these sick, powerful pedophiles are feeling a bit of justice. “Here’s who has faced fallout from the Epstein files. Since Congress and the Department of Justice released the Epstein files, several high-profile people have been burned by past links to convicted sex-offender.” Please note the word several. I guess that’s a start though.
Several individuals in government, private companies and universities have faced fallout over alleged links to convicted sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The Get the Facts Data Team has created a timeline of reports on individuals who have faced professional or reputational consequences or legal action since Epstein’s arrest in 2019.
Among those who faced professional or reputational consequences were CEOs who resigned or sold their companies, faculty who were suspended and public figures who issued apologies.
You may read the list and the ‘consequences’ at the link.
What’s on your Reading, Action, and Blogging list today?
Thursday Political Cartoons: Too Slow and Too Short
Posted: February 26, 2026 Filed under: just because 9 Comments
Don’t know about you all, but I am completely over the bullshit.
There are lots of Instagram links so reload the page if they are not embedded properly.
It is all just so disgusting.
Cartoons via Cagle:
So, yeah…be safe out there.
Wednesday Reads: The State of The Union Is Awful and Boring
Posted: February 25, 2026 Filed under: just because | Tags: 2026 midterms, angel moms, Donald Trump, hatred of immigrants, Marcelo Gomes da Silva, SAVE Act, Seth Moulton, State of the Union Address 2026, tariffs, U.S. men's hockey team, U.S. women's hockey team 8 CommentsGood Day!!
I actually watched quite a bit of Trump’s “state of the union” speech last night. As expected, it was horrific. He told lie after insane lie, and actually did not report on the state of the union.
He did begin the “speech” by claiming “America is back.” Back to what? I guess we’re back to where we were at the end of his last term as “president”–with Americans dying unnecessarily, the economy going down the tubes, and Americans living in fear about what he might do next. Except it’s even worse now. At least in his last term, he didn’t have a secret police force going around the country attacking and even killing people.
Trump didn’t offer a legislative agenda. He claimed he had designed a health plan in which he would give Americans money and they could use it to find their own health care. He also claimed he had lowered the cost of drugs with his website TrumpRX. He treated these as faits accompli with no need for legislation. He did push for passage of the SAVE act, as his plan for stealing the midterms.
Trump spent most of the “speech” introducing people in the audience, and in one section he sounded like a true crime podcaster, describing ghastly murders committed by undocumented immigrants. After each bloody story, he had the mothers of the victims stand up to be recognized. Much of the “speech” seemed designed to get his fans to hate immigrants more than they already do.
At one point, Trump spoke directly to Democrats, telling them they should be ashamed for not standing and applauding him.
He bragged about the economy, and especially his tariffs, which he claimed have been a huge success. Of course he attacked the Supreme Court for trying to explain to him that tariffs are a tax and must be passed by Congress, not imposed by the “president.” He actually said that maybe tariffs could replace the income tax! So maybe he does know that tariffs are a tax that puts the heaviest burden on the poorest Americans.
Most of all, the “speech” was incredibly boring. It was also overwhelmingly negative, even though he bragged about his imaginary achievements. He made our country sound like a hellhole. Oh, and guess what? He never once mentioned the Epstein files.
Here are some reactions to Trump’s presentation.
Tom Nichols at The Atlantic (gift link): President Trump’s State of the Union Variety Show.
The longest State of the Union in modern history is now over. Donald Trump held court in the House of Representatives and said little of substance, but substance wasn’t the point. This year, he intended to put on a show, with an array of guest stars and special appearances. He was happy because he was playing the roles he clearly loves: game-show host, ringmaster, emcee, beneficent granter of wishes—and, where the Democrats were concerned, a self-righteous inquisitor.
Trump did his usual rote lying about the economy—pity the fact-checkers who tried to keep up even in the first 10 minutes or so of the speech—along with some of his other greatest hits, including the many wars he stopped and the magic of tariffs. (He referred to the “unfortunate involvement” of the Supreme Court on the tariff issue, as if the justices had barged into his office like interlopers.) [….]
Tonight, however, was not about communication—it was about showmanship. Almost every line was a cue for applause from obedient Republicans; they even gave Jared Kushner a standing ovation. Every few minutes, Trump told a story and reached out into the audience like the host of The Price Is Right, telling people to come on down.
He started, of course, with the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey team. Just basking along with Team USA wasn’t enough. Trump soon announced that the goalie Connor Hellebuyck would receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Normally, this honor is bestowed for a lifetime of achievement, but this time it was given as if the young athlete had chosen the right door and found a new car.
And so it went, all night. Sometimes, the guests were meant to tug at the heartstrings, such as when Trump recognized Erika Kirk, the wife of the murdered activist Charlie Kirk. Others were presented as ornaments meant to illustrate Trump’s successes: Enrique Márquez, a Venezuelan political prisoner freed after U.S. forces deposed the strongman Nicolás Maduro, was given a round of well-deserved applause. Trump also gave a shout-out to a woman whose IVF medications were now, he claimed, cheaper because of him.
But no group received more attention than the U.S. military. Trump handed out two Purple Hearts (one posthumously), a Legion of Merit, and not one but two Congressional Medals of Honor. Military awards that should have been treated with dignity and respect were placed on men like prizes, including a moment when Trump’s co-host, the first lady, put one of the Medals of Honor around the neck of a 100-year-old fighter pilot.
Trump even had designated heels in the audience: the Democrats. He called them crazy and accused them of impoverishing the nation. He dared them to stand up if they agreed with him that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” This stunt was obviously meant to force Democrats either to stand or boo or otherwise do something that Trump could exploit; instead, it merely resulted in several awkward seconds of a staring contest between the president and the Democrats in the chamber. Trump managed to bait Representative Ilhan Omar into shouting at him, but for the most part, he seemed genuinely irritated that the Democrats sat through his show in stony silence.
As the whole business dragged on, the atmosphere started to seem less like a game show and more like the late-night Jerry Lewis telethons of the 1970s, in which a tired but pumped Lewis alternately griped at the audience, broke into maudlin emotion, or jumped up to welcome a new guest. The only thing Trump did not do was explain his policies—especially about war and peace—to Congress or the American people.
Use the gift link to read the rest.
The New York Times Opinion Scorecard (gift link): ‘He’s Debased This Country’: The Best and Worst Moments From Trump’s State of the Union.
President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night, celebrating his record on immigration and the economy. “We’re winning so much,” he said. “Inflation is plummeting, incomes are rising fast. … America is respected again.” Here’s what our writers thought of his speech. [I’m just giving you a sampling–you can read more opinions with the gift link.]
The best moment:
Jamelle Bouie The single best moment was when this long, exhausted and repetitive speech finally ended. It was then that I felt true relief.
Michelle Cottle The appearance of the men’s Olympic hockey team. The young guys playing to the crowd and showing off their medals were adorable. Here was an appropriate moment for those “U.S.A.” chants. So wholesome.
Michelle Goldberg The moment when, after setting a record for the longest State of the Union in recorded history, it finally ended…..
Matthew Schmitz Democrats are feeling emboldened on immigration amid Trump’s controversial enforcement push. But Trump effectively invoked what is still one of his strongest issues, while drawing a contrast with Democrats: “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Many Americans agree.
Worst Moment
Appelbaum It was a tedious, tiresome performance. For much of the night, the president seemed to be boring everyone, perhaps most of all himself. Even his efforts to bait Democrats felt well-worn, familiar and strikingly devoid of real heat on either side.
Barro The “everything is terrible in America” section — which lasted roughly from minute 30 through 75 of this interminable and plodding address — significantly undermined the “everything is wonderful in Trump’s America” messaging that preceded it.
Bouie There are just too many bad moments to choose from. Was the worst one of the many instances where he gave lurid descriptions of pain and suffering? Was it when he began to hand out awards like reality television prizes? Or was it when he tried to write Democrats out of the political community? If I have to choose, I’d say the braying racism against Somali Americans — it would not have been out of place in a D.W. Griffith film.
Cottle So many options. The xenophobia. The scaremongering. The lying. The name-calling. The pettiness. But I’ll go with his ongoing mission to destroy faith in the electoral process. “Cheating is rampant.” The Dems “want to cheat. They have cheated.” It’s the “only way they can get elected.” Heavy sigh.
Read more opinions at the link.
I wrote above that Trump didn’t offer a legislative agenda, but NPR found a few things that Trump asked Congress to do:
There were only about half a dozen specific things Trump asked Congress to do:
— “Codify” Trump’s attempts to lower drug prices, though it’s unclear how.
— Pass the “Stop Insider Trading Act” that would restrict the Wall Street trading of members of Congress and their spouses.
— Pass what Trump is calling the “Delilah Law” that would ban commercial licenses for immigrants in the country without legal status.
— Restore funding for the Department of Homeland Security. After the killing of the two Americans in Minnesota, Democrats refused to authorize new funding for DHS, leading to a partial government shutdown.
— Pass the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote. Proven instances of fraud, including by noncitizens, are very rare, but Trump claims there is “rampant” cheating. It’s something he has used to justify his 2020 election loss, and it’s a claim he could use to cast doubt on this year’s outcome — if Republicans lose.
While those are certainly consequential, they don’t add up to a major legislative push. That’s not surprising, though, since Trump has spent the better part of the last year trying to consolidate power in the White House.
Moira Donegan at The Guardian: Trump has lost the ability to entertain. Sadly, he hasn’t lost the ability to offend.
It is one of Donald Trump’s unique talents that he reveals the absurd obsolescence of long-held traditions. In presidential election years, his screaming bloviations on stage make the exercise of gathering the candidates together seem futile. In power, when he divorces facts from policymaking and relies instead on myth and grift to guide his decisions, he renders useless and impotent vast fields of expertise.
When he lies in public, and insists that his fantasies and distortions will dictate the course of government action, he makes those of us in the news business wonder if there’s any point, any more, in gathering and printing the truth.
Likewise, many Americans who watched the State of the Union address on Tuesday night might have wondered what the point of these speeches is any more. The constitution mandates that the president provide periodic updates to Congress on the condition of the country.
But nowhere does the constitution call for the kind of in-person, televised address that has become an annual staple of the presidency in the era of mass media. And certainly none of the Framers could have pictured the speech that Trump delivered on Tuesday night: a rambling, nearly two-hour address that was heavy on falsehoods, ad libs, and digressions that sometimes seemed like bids to kill time – and remarkably light on policy substance.
Throughout the speech, Trump seemed tired. He had difficulty reading from his teleprompter; he gripped the podium with a tightness bordering on desperation, and towards the end of the broadcast, his voice became audibly raspy. He was showing his age. The speechwriters, too, seem to have been exhausted.
The address touched on Trump’s typical themes: the supposed criminality and inferiority of immigrants; the mendaciousness of his opponents; his personal virtues and resentments. But the president offered very few new policy ideas, contradicted himself on crucial issues, misrepresented pertinent facts and substantively addressed few of what polls reveal to be the nation’s most pressing concerns.
A bit more:
He stopped frequently to address veterans in the crowd and to issue them medals as stunts for the television broadcast; he offered a long and strange digression about the gold medal Olympic match recently won by the US men’s hockey team, many of whom paraded into the House chambers wearing their medals. A decade ago, Trump crystallized a longstanding trend in American politics by avowedly fusing governance and entertainment. But Tuesday’s long-winded and boring spectacle showed that he has lost even the ability to entertain.
He has not, of course, lost the ability to offend. Trump lied, saying that he has brought healthcare costs down at a moment when his attacks on Affordable Care Act subsidies have in fact massively increased the premiums paid by many Americans in just the past two months. He made a non-sequitur tangent to attack the rights of trans kids; he claimed, with a kind of vulgar brazenness, that his kidnapping of the Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and his administration’s subsequent economic blackmail of that country, was creating new opportunities for the Venezuelan people.
He claimed that Democrats’ withholding of funding for the Department of Homeland Security over abusive immigration enforcement was causing fallout for areas effected by this week’s east coast blizzard, as the DHS was unable to help clear snow. (The federal agency does not do this.) Even his filler lines reeked with the stench of hypocrisy. “We are building a nation,” he said, “where every child has a chance to build higher and go further.” It was a sentiment that called to mind Liam Conejo Ramos, and all the other children imprisoned in ICE’s concentration camps, whose education, promise, dreams and freedom have been sacrificed to the administration’s racism.
There’s more at the Guardian link.
Davdid Smith at The Guardian: Why the longest-ever State of the Union address was the most inconsequential.
He wanted to give the king’s speech. Donald Trump entered the US House chamber on Tuesday like a medieval monarch, with Republicans lined up eager to touch his royal robes (or, in two cases, grab a selfie with him). But within moments, the illusion was shattered.
As the US president strolled by, soaking up adulation, the Democratic representative Al Green of Texas held aloft a handwritten sign: “Black people aren’t apes!” – a reference to Trump recently sharing a racist video depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama.
When the first State of the Union address of Trump’s second term got under way, Republicans moved in on Green menacingly and tried to tear the sign away. But he persisted until being escorted out for the second year in a row. As he departed, there were more acrimonious exchanges with Republicans, a few of whom tried to start a chant of “USA! USA!”
It was the first but not the last time that a person of color would take a stand during the wannabe autocrat’s record 107-minute speech while others remained silent or raucously egged him on. It was a night where Trump again sought to poison US politics and divide Americans along various fault lines, none more inflammatory than race.
The great salesman, sporting his familiar red tie and orange hue, began with a predictable pitch: “Our nation is back – bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.” In his telling, inflation, mortgage rates and gas prices are falling, while the stock market, oil production and foreign direct investment are booming along with construction and factory jobs.
Luckily for Trump’s speechwriter, the US men’s hockey team won Olympic gold two days earlier. The reality TV president hailed them in the press gallery, prompting applause and roars from both Democrats and Republicans. But while Republicans chanted “USA! USA!” with gusto, barely any Democrats did.
“We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it,” Trump declared. While he didn’t mention his gilded ballroom, it was still a Pollyannish version of America that will not be recognized by people struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. Trump is not the man to offer: “I feel your pain.”
Read the rest at The Guardian.
I don’t know if you remember Marcelo Gomez? He is Massachusetts teenager who was arrested by ICE on his way to volleyball practice. He was invited to the SOTU, but had to leave in fear of ICE.
Marcela Rodrigues at The Boston Globe: Milford teen Marcelo Gomes leaves State of the Union after targeted DHS tweet.
From the visitor’s gallery, Marcelo Gomes da Silva looked down at the House floor, attentively watching President Trump deliver his State of the Union speech. A guest of Representative Seth Moulton, the 19-year-old from Milford was overjoyed to be sharing a room with the nation’s most powerful politicians.
“I truly hope that one day I’ll be here and I’ll be a representative, and then hopefully a senator, as well. That’s the dream,” he said.
Wearing a light gray suit, Gomes looked worlds apart from the day he met Moulton for the first time last June, outside of the ICE holding facility in Burlington wherehe had spent six days detained in volleyball shorts and crocs.
This week, in Washington for the first time, he met with other members of Congress and talked about his experience in detention and his desire to end ICE operations that target people who, like him, don’t have a criminal record.
As he watched the speech, the teen looked for Moulton on the House floor but couldn’t find him among the sea of politicians; he was impressed by Representative Al Green’s protest of a racist video posted on Trump’s social media account recently portraying the Obamas as apes; he didn’t agree with Trump’s statement about low inflation; and he felt dehumanized by being called an “illegal alien.” Still, he planned to stay and listen to the entire address.
Soon after standing up to applaud the US men’s hockey team, who Trump honored during the speech, Gomes was escorted out of the chamber by Moulton’s chief of staff Neesha Suarez.
Suarez and other congressional staff had seen an online post by the Department of Homeland Security, calling out Democrats who brought immigrants as guests to the State of the Union, singling out Moulton and Gomes by name.
“Today, some Democrats in Congress are planning to bring illegal aliens as guests to the State of the Union. Once again, they are putting illegal aliens above the safety of American citizens,” DHS officials wrote. Gomes “is an illegal alien who has no right to be in our nation. We are committed to enforcing the law and fighting for the arrest, detention, and removal of aliens like him.”
DHS officials also named two other guests, invited by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado.
Disgusting.
This article was published before the SOTU, but I’m including it because of Trump’s disrespect for the women’s gold medal winning hockey team.
Tara Sullivan at The Boston Globe: The US men’s hockey team should be celebrated, but the gold medal won by the US women is no laughing matter.
The issue isn’t with a president getting on the phone to congratulate an Olympic gold-medal-winning team. America’s men’s hockey players deserve every syllable of celebration a proud and grateful nation has to give them.
The issue is with a president who got on the phone to congratulate only one of our nation’s two gold-medal-winning hockey teams, and then using part of that telephone call to casually dismiss Team USA’s women, who also won gold in Milan with an overtime goal against Canada.
Amid the beer-chugging, bro-hugging antics inside the men’s celebratory locker room Sunday, it was extra partier Kash Patel, the director of the FBI, who put the president on speaker phone with the victorious players. Part of the conversation was an open invitation from President Donald Trump for the team to visit the White House, and specifically to attend Tuesday night’s State of the Union address. It came with a condition, however.
“I must tell you, we’re going to have to bring the women’s team. You do know that?” the president said.
He was laughing, and as he was, players could be heard laughing, too. It continued as Trump joked he’d “probably be impeached” if he didn’t include the women’s team.
To him, those women were a punch line.
To me, they are American heroes.
Now more than ever. The women politely declined the chance to be afterthoughts at someone else’s party. Officially, a spokesperson for the team said it couldn’t accept “due to the timing and previously scheduled academic and professional commitments following the Games.” The statement made sure to insist, “We are sincerely grateful for the invitation extended to our gold-medal-winning US women’s hockey team and deeply appreciate the recognition of their extraordinary achievement.”
If only that recognition felt more sincere. Instead, the perfect storm of sports forces combined to remind us just how far the fight for respect of women’s sports still has to go, and how much simmering sexism continues to bubble under the surface.
Those are my recommended reads for today. Thoughts?
Tuesday Political Cartoons: Whatever you do, please remember that Donald Trump raped children.
Posted: February 24, 2026 Filed under: just because 6 Comments
As you go through your day, remind yourself…Donald Trump raped children. Because if you don’t, there is no other reason you would guess he was a pedophile.
No apologies from Bafta until Monday evening.
Cartoons via Cagle:
It is all just a bit to overwhelming to post anything else…stay safe out there.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments