Finally Friday Reads: Only the Very Worst People
Posted: August 15, 2025 Filed under: #FARTUS, Putin Alaska Summit, Trump's worst hires at work | Tags: #PresidentPussyAssBitch, Alaska Summit, FARTUS, Jeanine Pirro, Kristin Noem, Pam Bondi weirdo, Putin: International Man of Crime, Trump's worst hires, Weirdo 8 Comments
“I feel safer already,” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
While we’re waiting for Putin to take what’s left of Yam Tits’ scalp in Alaska, let’s focus on what he’s trying to pass off as serious hires for all levels of the Federal Government. I’m going to start with the last target of South Park’s wonderful new season, ICE Barbie. This is from the Washington Post. “Kristi Noem is living free of charge in Coast Guard commandant’s home. A DHS spokesman said Noem must live on the military base because she had been “so horribly doxxed and targeted that she is no longer able to safely live in her own apartment.” I find it more than slightly ironic that the head of “Homeland Security” doesn’t feel secure in her own home.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem is living for free in a military home typicallyreserved for the U.S. Coast Guard’s top admiral, officials familiar with the matter said. The highly unusual arrangement has raised concern within the agency andfrom some Democrats, who describe it as a waste of military resources.
Noem recently moved intoQuarters 1, a spacious waterfront residence at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Southeast Washington where the Coast Guard commandant typically resides. She did so because of concerns over her safety after the Daily Mail, a British tabloid, published photographs in April of the area around Noem’s residence in Washington’s Navy Yard neighborhood, DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin described Noem’s time at the commandant’s residence as temporary. She did not specify how long thesetup would last or how long Noem has lived there.
Noem pays no rent to live in the commandant’s house, according to an official familiar with the matter granted anonymity to speak candidly. That’s a departure from how other Cabinet secretarieshave handled similar arrangements. Other Cabinet officials, including during both Trump administrations, have paid to use military housing that otherwise would be occupied by top generals and admirals.
Noem’s housing has raised eyebrows from current and retired Coast Guard officials, as well as Democrats, who warn that Noem risks creating the perception that she is exploiting the perks of her position as DHS secretary, in which she supervises the Coast Guard. They say her decision could set off a chain reaction that could displace other senior members of the service in a situation with limited housing.
Current and former Coast Guard members have also cited Noem’s frequent use of a Coast Guard Gulfstream aircraft as a point of tension. Agency guidelines require the DHS secretary to use a plane with secure communications for both personal and professional business, though they are required to reimburse the government for personal travel. McLaughlin said that Noem had reimbursed “tens of thousands of dollars” for the air travel, after publication of the story.
Noem faced scrutiny for her expenses when she served as governor of South Dakota. She spent $68,000 in taxpayer funds to refurbish the governor’s mansion with a sauna, chandelier and other amenities, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader reported in 2021. And South Dakota picked up the tab for at least $150,000 in campaign and personal travel for Noem related to her security when she was governor, the Associated Press reported this year.
Noem’s housing arrangement could create the impression that she is exploiting her position of authority over the Coast Guard to accrue perks for herself, said Cynthia Brown, senior ethics counsel at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning watchdog nonprofit.
“What are the optics?” Brown said. “And is this taking advantage of your individual position as a government official to benefit unduly?”
So, I wonder if her neighbors hide their dogs? It’s amazing to me that the law and order crowd can’t seem to actually figure out either. Let’s continue with people who don’t know how to do their jobs. “US Attorney Pirro’s office admits grand jury refused ICE interference charges — twice. Federal prosecutors told a judge they had failed twice to secure an indictment against Sydney Lori Reid for allegedly assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE arrest.” I have to confess that I can’t listen to or watch any interviews with her. Her voice is disturbingly grating. She also looks like something out of a horror film. I pity the poor jury that has to deal with this. This much body dysmorphia in one administration is a sign of something. You may discuss that amongst yourselves. The story comes from the local news station at WUSA9.
Federal prosecutors twice sought a grand jury indictment against a D.C. woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer — and were twice rejected, the U.S. Attorney’s Office admitted in court Thursday.
Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey revealed the denials to attorneys for Sydney Lori Reid and later granted their request to remove all bond conditions and release her on her own recognizance over prosecutors’ objections. He will resume a preliminary hearing on Friday afternoon to determine whether to dismiss the case entirely.
“Two presentations to the grand jury returned no bill both times,” Harvey said. “Suggesting the evidence is wanting, given the standard for indictment is probable cause. Suggesting the government may never get an indictment.”
Grand juries are tasked with deciding only whether there is a reasonable basis to support charging someone with a crime – a much lower burden for prosecutors than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard of criminal juries – and typically make their decisions after hearing evidence only from the government. At the federal level, grand juries return indictments, or “true bills,” in the vast majority of cases.
Reid, 44, was charged last month with an enhanced felony version of an assault charge that requires inflicting bodily injury on a federal officer and carries a maximum sentence of up to eight years in prison. The charge is the same offense filed this week against a former DOJ employee accused of throwing a sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent.
In a press release last month, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office accused Reid of trying to impede the transfer of two alleged members of the 18th Street gang who were being arrested by ICE outside the D.C. Jail prior to transfer to the custody of the FBI.
Federal prosecutors declined to call the injured FBI agent or any of the ICE officers involved in the incident during Thursday’s hearing, however. Instead, they had an investigator with the U.S. Attorney’s Office testify about his review of video of the incident and brief conversations with the officers. The investigator, Special Agent Sean Ricardi, said he’d had no involvement in the case until he was asked to prepare for testimony Thursday morning.
Video played by prosecutors shows Reid approaching the ICE officers while holding up her phone, which she says is for her protection. She is then later seen being held by multiple officers against a wall while she asks, “How do you feel about stealing f***ing people?”
Even the first soft porn star is getting into the headlines. You know, I really hate to slut slam or pick on woman for their looks. I love Stormy Daniels. She’s as sweet as pie, and she helped feed the neighborhood animals during our last hurricane. I’m always happy to see her when she visits. But, there’s a crossed Rubicon at some point with some behavior. Melania whiffed with this one. This story is from The Guardian. “Melania Trump demands Hunter Biden retract comments linking her to Jeffrey Epstein. First lady threatens to sue Joe Biden’s son after he said sex offender Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. I can’t wait to read the testimony on the Trumps explaining their relationships with Epstein, frankly.
Melania Trump has demanded that Hunter Biden retract comments linking her to the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and has threatened to sue if he does not.
Biden, the son of the former president Joe Biden, alleged in an interview this month that Epstein had introduced the first lady to Donald Trump.
The statements were false, defamatory and “extremely salacious”, Melania Trump’s lawyer, Alejandro Brito, said in a letter to Biden. Biden’s remarks were widely disseminated on social media and reported by media outlets around the world, causing the first lady “to suffer overwhelming financial and reputational harm”, he added.
Biden made the Epstein comments during a sprawling interview with the US journalist Andrew Callaghan in which he lashed out at “elites” and others in the Democratic party who he said had undermined his father before he dropped out of last year’s presidential campaign.
I’m sorry, but I just keep laughing at the “reputational harm” part. It’s not like you were “modelling” for some wannabe Picasso. We’ve seen the pictures, honey.
“Epstein introduced Melania to Trump. The connections are, like, so wide and deep,” Biden said in one of the comments that the first lady disputes. Biden attributed the claim to the author Michael Wolff. Donald Trump has accused Wolff of making up stories to sell books.
Biden responded to the lawsuit on Thursday, speaking again to Callaghan, this time from a holiday location, and in effect doubled down on his unsubstantiated claim.
Asked if he wished to apologize, Biden said: “Uh, fuck that, not going to happen.”
“What I said is what I have heard and seen reported and written primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back to 2019.” He cited a number of publications, including the New York Times and Vanity Fair, as sources of his information.
The first lady’s threats echo a favoured strategy of her husband, who has aggressively used litigation to go after critics. Public figures such as the Trumps face a high bar to succeed in a defamation lawsuit.
The president also responded to the issue, accusing Biden of fabricating stories to denigrate the first lady. Trump told Fox News Radio host Brian Kilmeade on Thursday morning that he had encouraged her to sue.
“I said go forward. You know, I’ve done pretty well on these lawsuits lately … and Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with Melania and introducing,” he told Kilmeade.
“But they do that to demean, they make up stories. I mean I can tell you exactly how it was and it was another person actually … but it wasn’t Jeffrey Epstein. “I told her go ahead and do it.”
Yes, my goodness, Yam Tits! You never tell tall tales or make up stories! I bet it hurts your virgin ears to hear that kind of talk! I mean, it must’ve been so challenging to sneak around with her behind your second wife’s back, even though you had all that practice sneaking around behind your first wife’s bank. Pete Hegseth would be so proud of you! This Guardian article on Trump begging the Norwegian Finance Minister for a Nobel prize just had me spitting out my morning tea with laughter. “Trump reportedly called Norwegian minister ‘out of the blue’ to ask about Nobel prize. The US president told Norway’s finance minister he wants the Nobel Peace Prize, according to the Norwegian press.” He just can’t stand that former President Obama got one! “Trump reportedly called Norwegian minister ‘out of the blue’ to ask about Nobel prize. The US president told Norway’s finance minister he wants the Nobel Peace Prize, according to the Norwegian press.” What? Ruining the Kennedy Center honors and wrecking the U.S. economy wasn’t enough for you?
Donald Trump cold-called Norway’s finance minister last month to ask about a nomination for the Nobel peace prize, Norwegian press reported on Thursday.
The Norwegian outlet Dagens Næringsliv, citing unnamed sources, reported: “Out of the blue, while finance minister Jens Stoltenberg was walking down the street in Oslo, Donald Trump called … He wanted the Nobel prize – and to discuss tariffs.”
The outlet added that it was not the first time that Trump had raised the question of a Nobel peace prize nomination to Stoltenberg.
In a statement to Reuters, Stoltenberg, the former Nato secretary-general, said the call focused on tariffs and economic cooperation ahead of Trump’s call with Jonas Støre, the Norwegian prime minister.
“I will not go into further detail about the content of the conversation,” Stoltenberg said, adding that several White House officials including the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, and US trade representative, Jamieson Greer, were on the call.
Each year, the five-member Norwegian Nobel committee reviews hundreds of candidates before choosing laureates. The committee members are appointed by Norway’s parliament according to the will of Alfred Nobel, a 19-century Swedish industrialist. Laureates are announced in October.
Trump has previously complained multiple times about not receiving the Nobel peace prize, an award which four of his predecessors, including Barack Obama, have received.
In his most recent tirade, Trump took to Truth Social in June, saying: “No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me!”
How about a little whine with that Skrei Yam Tits? So, I just had to put up this article by Mother Jones. It’s about the deluge of propaganda we get daily and its impact. “The Official Voice of the US Government Is Cruel, Gross, and Weird. What Is That Doing to Us? Joking memes about imprisonment, deportation, and death by alligator are designed to radicalize and desensitize.”
In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested a woman they accused of drug trafficking and entering the country illegally. Standing in a parking lot, they photographed her, weeping, eyes half-closed in anguish, her arms cuffed behind her back. And then—in a cruel innovation specific to the Trump administration—the White House’s official Twitter account used an AI tool to make a cartoon illustration of her crying and handcuffed, in the style of the beloved Japanese animation studio Studio Ghibli. The tweet got 155,000 likes, a mix of outraged and delighted responses, and, as it was designed to, a lot of attention: it’s so far been viewed 76 million times. On Twitter, many users posted positive responses declaring that the image was exactly what they had voted for.
This is, at the moment, the official voice of the US government: a rancid mixture of trolling, cruelty, propaganda, and crass jokes about the human suffering they’re creating, an effort, as Wired’s Tess Owen recently put it, to turn actions like mass deportation into “one big joke.” On Instagram and Twitter (their largest audience), government entities including the White House, ICE, and the Department of Homeland Security attempt to surf viral trends to expanded public attention: They twist memes and sounds popular on TikTok, repurpose South Park’s parodies for their own self-promotion, and blend it all with images that draw on or directly reproduce classical art and Americana paintings that are designed to stir nostalgia for an imagined past. (The use of some of this art, as the Washington Post has written, has stirred the ire of the artists themselves or their representatives; it’s not easy to extract a stern condemnation from the estate of treacly pastoral painter Thomas Kinkade, but this government managed to do it.)
A lot of the trends are specifically designed to appeal to young white men, like one that repurposes a 1970s-looking ad for a van to ask, “Want to deport illegals with your absolute boys?” Another ICE recruitment effort asks, “Which way, American man?” in front a befuddled-looking Uncle Sam gazing at a crossroads post labeled with signs including “INVASION,” “CULTURAL DECLINE” pointing one way, and, pointing the other, “SERVICE,” “OPPORTUNITY”; in Uncle Sam’s hands lies “LAW AND ORDER.” The phrase “Which way, American man?” is a barely altered reference to the phrase “Which way, Western man?,” the title of a book by white nationalist author William Gayley Simpson that’s been popularized by the far right as a meme. In this case, the white supremacist undertones are more like overtones.
While the government uses social media to bolster its philosophical choices on issues like mass deportations, it also deploys it to prop up support for deeply unpopular aspects of its plans, like “Alligator Alcatraz”—an immigration detention camp, trolling opportunity, marketing bonanza for amoral swag-sellers, including Florida’s attorney general. Before the tent prison was even officially open, Trump administration officials and their proxies in right-wing media bragged about the camp, joked about escapees dying by alligator and python, and made AI-generated images of President Trump standing alongside alligators wearing ICE hats.
Disinformation researchers and experts on propaganda have followed the sludge and bile emanating from these governmental accounts with alarm.
“What you have is this desire to get people to buy into the fun of sadism,” says Jason Stanley; he’s a philosopher, author, and professor at University of Toronto who’s in the process of leaving the United States because of, as he baldly puts it, “concerns over fascism.”
You may read more at the link. So, everyone knows that Pam Bondi is in over her Miss Clairol Fox Blonde dye job head. She’s also doing things not in keeping with the role of the Attorney General. This is from Law Dork‘s Chris Geidner. “NEW: D.C. officials sue Trump admin over Bondi order claiming D.C. police powers. D.C.’s A.G. asserts that Bondi’s order — purporting to make the DEA administrator D.C.’s “Emergency Police Commissioner” — is “unlawful.” A lawsuit followed.”
A Thursday night order from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi caused the Washington, D.C. officials — who have responded cautiously to the Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over D.C. — to declare that the administration had gone too far.
[Update, 11:00 a.m.: The D.C. government sued the Trump administration on Friday morning, asserting that the administration was violating the Home Rule Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and separation of powers. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb is seeking a temporary restraining order to block Bondi from enforcing her order.]
[Update, 11:30 a.m.: The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, and she has scheduled a hearing for 2 p.m. Friday to address D.C.’s TRO request.]
In the order, Bondi purported to have significant control over the Metropolitan Police Department — D.C.’s police force. Most significantly, she claimed that she had the authority to announce that “Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terrence C. Cole shall serve as MPD’s Emergency Police Commissioner.”
She also purported to rescind a Thursday morning order from MPD’s chief of police, in addition to suspending three other MPD orders, all relating to immigration enforcement.
She also announced that D.C. police are to enforce D.C.’s law against crowding streets or sidewalks “enforce, to the maximum extent permissible by law.“
In a final section, Bondi purported also to rescind “any existing MPD directives” that conflict with her order.
You may read this along with the associated part of Bondi’s order. We’ll see how that jives with the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act. It is also known as the Home Rule Act. Meanwhile, everyone not associated with Putin is hoping that FARTUS will not give away the farm in Alaska today due to his advanced dementia, his Putin Fan Girl status, and his basic ignorance of history and diplomacy. This is from the New York Times. “Russia and Ukraine Agree: A Trump Summit Is a Big Win for Putin. The talks on Friday in Alaska pull the Russian leader out of diplomatic isolation from the West, and Ukrainian and European leaders fear it gives him an opening to sway the American president.” Andrew Higgins and Nataliya Vasilyeva share the byline.
President Trump has spent the week setting the bar extremely low for his high-stakes U.S.-Russian summit on Friday in Alaska. Hardly anyone expects him to make much progress in halting the fighting between Russia and Ukraine, given how far apart their views of the conflict are.
But those two warring countries do seem to agree on at least one thing. Merely meeting with Mr. Trump is a big win for President Vladimir V. Putin, bringing the Russian leader out of a diplomatic deep freeze and giving him a chance to cajole the American president face to face.
“Putin’s visit to the U.S.A. means the total collapse of the whole concept of isolating Russia. Total collapse,” Kremlin-controlled television crowed after news of the hastily arranged summit broke last weekend.
For Russia, “this is a breakthrough even if they don’t agree on much,” said Sergei Mikheyev, a pro-war Russian political scientist who is a mainstay of state television.
President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, iced out of the Alaska talks about his own country’s future, has come to the same conclusion, telling reporters on Tuesday: “Putin will win in this. Because he is seeking, excuse me, photos. He needs a photo from the meeting with President Trump.”
But it is more than a photo op. In addition to thawing Russia’s pariah status in the West, the summit has sowed discord within NATO — a perennial Russian goal — and postponed Mr. Trump’s threat of tough new sanctions. Little more than two weeks ago, he vowed that if Mr. Putin did not commit to a cease-fire by last Friday, he would punish Moscow and countries like China and India that help Russia’s war effort by buying its oil and gas.
This editorial cartoon is by Michael de Adder .
This is another fine mess that #FARTUS (Felon Adjudicated Rapist, and Traitor of the United States) has gotten us into. The world is expecting Putin to eat him for lunch. My favorite magazine, The Economist, has this headline. “The real collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It may be scarier than their critics long suspected.”
To DEFY Donald Trump is to court punishment. A rival politician can expect an investigation, an aggravating network may face a lawsuit, a left-leaning university can bid farewell to its public grants, a scrupulous civil servant can count on a pink slip and an independent-minded foreign government, however determined an adversary or stalwart an ally, invites tariffs. Perceived antagonists should also brace for a hail of insults, a lesson in public humiliation to potential transgressors.Vladimir Putin has been a mysterious exception. Mr Trump has blamed his travails over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election on just about everyone but him. He has blamed the war in Ukraine on former President Joe Biden, for supposedly inviting it through weakness, and on the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, for somehow starting it. Back when Russia invaded in February 2022, Mr Trump praised Mr Putin’s “savvy”.
For months, as Mr Putin made a mockery of Mr Trump’s promises to end the war in a day and of his calls for a ceasefire, the president who once threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea and tariffs as high as 245% against China indulged in no such bluster. He has sounded less formidable than plaintive. “Vladimir, STOP!” he wrote on social media in April. His use of the given name betrayed a touching faith that their shared intimacy would matter to his reptilian counterpart, too.
When Mr Putin kept killing Ukrainians, Mr Trump took a step that was even less characteristic: he admitted to the world that he had been played for a fool. “Maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along,” he mused on April 26th. A month later, he ventured that his friend must have changed, gone “absolutely CRAZY!” Then on July 8th he acknowledged what should have been obvious from the start: “He is very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” Mr Trump threatened secondary sanctions on Russia but then leapt at Mr Putin’s latest mixed messages about peace, rewarding him with a summit in America.
Why, with this man, has Mr Trump been so accommodating? Efforts by journalists, congressional investigators and prosecutors to pinpoint the reason have often proved exercises in self-defeat and sorrow. The pattern seemed sinister: Mr Trump praised Mr Putin on television as far back as 2007; invited him to the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow in 2013 and wondered on Twitter if he would be his “new best friend”; sought his help to build a tower in Moscow from 2013 to 2016; and tried unsuccessfully many times in 2015 to secure a meeting with him. Then came Russia’s interference in the election in 2016, including its hack of Democrats’ emails to undermine the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Some journalists fanned suspicions of a conspiracy—“collusion” became the watchword—by spreading claims Mr Putin was blackmailing Mr Trump with an obscene videotape. The source proved to be a rumour compiled in research to help Mrs Clinton.
Nine years later Mr Putin’s low-budget meddling still rewards America’s foes by poisoning its politics and distracting its leaders. Pam Bondi, the attorney-general, has started a grand-jury investigation into what Mr Trump called treason by Barack Obama and others in his administration. The basis is a misrepresentation of an intelligence finding in the waning days of Mr Obama’s presidency. Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, has said that because Mr Putin did not hack voting machines, the finding that he tried to help Mr Trump was a lie. The conclusion under Mr Obama was instead that Mr Putin tried to affect the election by influencing public opinion.
The exhaustive report released in 2019 by an independent counsel, Robert Mueller, affirmed on its first page that “the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome.” Mr Mueller indicted numerous Russians, and he also secured guilty pleas from some Trump aides for violating various laws. But he did not conclude the campaign “conspired or co-ordinated” with the Russians.
To wade through the report’s two volumes is to be reminded how malicious the Russians were and how shambolic Mr Trump’s campaign was. It is also to lament the time and energy spent, given how little proof was found to support the superheated suspicions. And it is to regret how little Mr Trump was accorded a presumption of innocence. In the final words of the report, Mr Mueller noted that while it did not accuse Mr Trump of a crime, it also did “not exonerate him”. One might understand his bitterness.
The puzzle of Mr Trump’s admiration for Mr Putin may have been better addressed by psychologists. Certainly Mr Putin, the seasoned KGB operative, has known how to play to his vulnerabilities, including vanity. Mr Trump was said to be “clearly touched” by a kitschy portrait of himself Mr Putin gave him in March.
Indeed, no one expects Trump to prevail in this discussion. I love to follow these things on the BBC. They’re updating live, as are most media outlets. “Will Trump achieve his aims? It remains to be seen.” This news analysis is provided by Gary O’Donoghue.”
It has proved incredibly hard for US President Donald Trump to make any progress on the Ukraine war whatsoever.
Bearing in mind, he’s sent his envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow five times now.
The only real thing that’s come out of that is a few pretty low level meetings in Istanbul, between Ukrainians and the Russians, some prisoner swaps – but really very little progress.
Typically with these sorts of summits, all of the work has already been done – all the preparation and agreements have been ironed out. Usually this would be a ceremonial moment.
But what is happening in Alaska is that the two countries are starting pretty much from a blank sheet of paper.
We don’t know exactly what either side is really trying to achieve here, other than President Trump saying he wants to stop the killing.
That’s a noble aim. These talks are about life and death, war and peace – these things do matter.
But, we don’t know how Russian President Putin and President Trump will get from their positions now to where Trump wants to be.I
I will try to keep the blog feed updated as we move through the day. As usual, Trump has been met with protestors.
What’s on your Reading, Blogging, and Action list today?
Thursday Cartoons: Have a nice day.
Posted: August 14, 2025 Filed under: just because 10 Comments
I spent the day yesterday bathing my six cats…so I have no idea what that orange turd said or did.
So want to read a great thread? Check this one out:
If you are thinking this can’t be real…and it sounds like something that would be on Seinfeld…hey, you aren’t alone. Someone else thought that too:
Cartoons via Cagle:
Oof…that’s a lot of cartoons! Hope some of them gave you a laugh. Stay safe.
Wednesday Reads: How Many Ways Can Trump Fail to Distract from The Epstein Files?
Posted: August 13, 2025 Filed under: just because | Tags: 2001, Big Balls Corsitine, Bureau of Labor Statistics, DC Home Rule Act, DC National Guard, Donald Trump, EJ Antoni, Epstein Files, fascism, January 5, Michael Wolff, Smithsonian Museums, Trump tries to distract from Epstein files, virtual meeting on Ukraine, Vladimir Putin 4 CommentsGood Afternoon!!
Trump’s efforts to distract from his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein are doomed to failure.
It’s just another day under the rule of fascist dictator wannabe Trump. All I can say is whatever is in the Epstein files about Trump must be really damaging, because every day he dreams up one or two new distractions.
Raw Story:
President Donald Trump has reportedly been frantically calling aides and allies seeking a “big thing” to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and he’s purportedly considering a major geopolitical move to turn the page politically.
Trump biographer Michael Wolff told The Daily Beast’s new podcast “Inside Trump’s Head” that the president has been making “relentless” phone calls demanding ideas to get him past questions about his longtime relationships with the late sex offender and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
“Let me go back about a week or so, or 10 days, when Trump started to say to everyone who would listen — and everyone listens to Donald Trump — to staffers and on the phone calls, the relentless phone calls that he’s constantly making, he said, ‘I need a big thing, I need a big thing,'” Wolff told the podcast. ”What’s the ‘big thing?’ And everyone understood that this was code for I need a distraction from Epstein. What’s the thing that will move us beyond that?”
Trump considered turning New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani into a MAGA villain and reportedly called his chief rival Andrew Cuomo to discuss the plan, but Wolff said that option “didn’t get that traction,” so he next moved on to deploying soldiers and federal law enforcement in Washington, D.C., before landing on something else to distract his base.
“That is what he got to,” Wolff said. “‘I’m going to have to do Ukraine.’”
Wolff claims the president will pull the U.S. out of any involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which Trump believes will appease the isolationist MAGA base, after he meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week in Alaska.
“He’s going to sacrifice Ukraine for Epstein,” Wolff said. “Essentially, this is, in his mind, a trade. It is the MAGA people who have pressed this Epstein issue constantly. I mean, they’re the threat.”
Wolff doesn’t think that will work either.
The National Guard began to show up on the DC streets yesterday.
Lisa Needham at Public Notice: Trump’s brownshirts deploy in DC.
On Monday, Trump dropped two executive orders, two fact sheets, and two “articles” (who knew that the White House issues articles?) about his decision to federalize the DC police and deploy the National Guard. Then, he held a bonkers press conference where he gave Attorney General Pam Bondi control of the DC police “as of this moment,” at which point Bondi took the podium to declare that “crime in DC is ending and ending today.”
It’s important to be precise about what’s happening in DC and why. As Chris Geidner explains at Law Dork, calling this a “takeover” of DC itself or the DC police is inaccurate.
DC’s Home Rule Act has a provision that lets the president direct the mayor to provide District police force service for federal purposes if he deems it necessary and determines an emergency exists. He can do that for 48 hours without informing Congress. Once he informs Congress, he gets 30 days. Past that, Congress needs to enact a joint resolution to extend it.
In theory, the legislative branch should act as a check on a lawless president. But given that the GOP majorities in both the House and Senate have willfully abdicated their responsibility to do so, there’s no reason to think lawmakers won’t let Trump’s brownshirts occupy DC as long as he wants.
There are no real impediments to the president calling up the DC National Guard. Unlike state National Guards, which are under the control of state governors, DC’s Guard is commanded by the president. Further, the position of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel is that the DC National Guard can be used for federal work without being federalized, unlike state National Guards. This means it can be used for law enforcement purposes without running afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which otherwise prohibits the use of federal troops for civilian enforcement efforts.
National Guard troops arriving in DC yesterday
So, the DC Home Rule Act, combined with the structure of its National Guard, gives the president a perfectly legal and relatively friction-free way to make local police do his bidding and to have the National Guard roam the streets.
At the moment, there’s a pretense that the DC National Guard will not be performing law enforcement duties. Instead, they have the authority to detain people temporarily until federal agents arrive. But as any first-year law student can tell you, if someone cloaked in the authority of the government has the power to detain you, they are engaged in law enforcement duties. It doesn’t matter that they eventually hand you off to someone else with the proper authority to detain you.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth must be so hyped for this. He can pretend he’s a five-star general in charge of a vast array of troops rather than a doofus civilian whose main achievement currently consists of posting misogynist and eugenicist garbage on his social media accounts — well, and sharing classified military plans in the group chat. He’s pretty good at that. But now, Hegseth gets to do Fox hits and bray about how the DC Guard “will be strong, they will be tough and they will stand with their law enforcement partners.”
Read more at Public Notice.
Asawin Suebsaeng and Ryan Bort at Rolling Stone: Trump’s Military Crackdowns Are Only Going to Get Worse.
President Donald Trump has expanded his military campaign against the United States by deploying armed troops to yet another major metropolitan area, announcing on Monday that he is sending the National Guard into Washington, D.C., to “liberate” the city.
Big Balls before and after attack
The D.C. operation, launched two months after the start of his Los Angeles crackdown, broadens a police-state-style domestic campaign that some senior Trump administration officials describe to Rolling Stone as a “shock and awe” show of force, a reference to the foreign war in Iraq that Trump has pretended to oppose.
It’s only going to get worse.
The president and his top government appointees are publicly stressing that this will not end with D.C. and L.A., that other military options are very much on the table. The facts, the laws, and data do not seem to matter: Trump and his team believe he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, including using the U.S. armed forces for domestic political purposes as well as intimidating his enemies. His team is privately putting together plans for him to do just that.
“Make no mistake, this is just the beginning,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro — a staunchly pro-Trump former Fox News host whom the president tapped specifically to “crack skulls” — said Monday night.
Can you believe Pirro is actually the US attorney anywhere?
At a press conference Monday announcing that the federal government had seized “direct” control of D.C.’s police department and that the National Guard would soon occupy the city, Trump warned that if he and his officials decide they “need to,” he will deploy military forces to other Democratic cities, too. The president named a few, including Chicago, Oakland, and Baltimore. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat whom Trump attacked by name, compared Trump’s use of the military to the Nazis tearing apart Germany’s constitutional republic, per the Chicago Tribune.
Trump has long yearned to unleash the military on American soil for his political agenda, and the D.C. and L.A. deployments this summer are critical stepping stones in his increasingly authoritarian government’s vision for punishing his enemies Democratic area of the country, carrying out his brutal immigration agenda, and making life hell for unhoused people. Trump said on Monday that federal forces will work to remove “homeless encampments from all over our parks,” and that the unhoused will not be “allowed to turn our capital into a wasteland for the world to see.” [….]
In recent months, according to government officials and other sources with knowledge of the situation, administration staff and lawyers have crafted detailed plans and menus of options for Trump to feed his desire for replicating and proliferating his militarized crackdowns — on immigrants and citizens alike — to different Democratic strongholds. National Guard troops are already mobilizing in D.C., and Trump has privately said, according to two sources familiar with the matter, that if he sees something that he feels crosses his line (like if street protests in the city grow too big or if he deems them a threat suddenly), he will gladly order larger numbers of troops to nation’s capital, as he did in Los Angeles earlier this year.
Trump has insisted to administration officials that it’s ridiculous that troops like National Guard members are not allowed to conduct various forms of domestic law enforcement, sources add. The president and his administration to some extent have had their hands tied on this due to the Posse Comitatus Act — which prohibits using the military for domestic law enforcement — though that isn’t stopping them from actively exploring ways around the law. “There are ways things were done, and that’s not always going to be how they should be done now or tomorrow,” a senior Trump administration official tells Rolling Stone.
MAGA mob attacks police line on January 6, 2001.
Luke Broadwater at The New York Times: Trump Deploys National Guard for D.C. Crime but Called Jan. 6 Rioters ‘Very Special.’
The heart of D.C. was in a state of lawlessness.
Roving mobs of wild men smashed windows, threatened murder and attacked the police.
One rioter struck an officer in the face with a baton. Another threw a chair at police officers and pepper-sprayed them. Others beat and used a stun gun on an officer, nearly killing him.
On Jan. 6, 2021, a pro-Trump mob committed a month’s worth of crime in the span of about three hours.
The F.B.I. has estimated that around 2,000 people took part in criminal acts that day, and more than 600 people were charged with assaulting, resisting or interfering with the police. (Citywide, Washington currently averages about 70 crimes a day.)
But President Trump’s handling of the most lawless day in recent Washington history stands in sharp contrast to his announcement on Monday that he needed to use the full force of the federal government to crack down on “violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals” in the nation’s capital.
A bit more:
After a prominent member of the Department of Government Efficiency, known by his online pseudonym, “Big Balls,” was assaulted this month, the president took federal control of Washington’s police force and mobilized National Guard troops. His team passed out a packet of mug shots, and Mr. Trump described “roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people.”
That was nothing like the message he delivered to the mob of his supporters on Jan. 6, when he told them, as tear gas filled the hallways of the Capitol: “We love you. You’re very special.”
“If we want to look at marauding mobs, look at Jan. 6,” said Mary McCord, the director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law and a former federal prosecutor. “If you want to look at criminal mobs, we had a criminal mob and he called them peaceful protesters.”
In one of his first actions upon retaking the presidency, Mr. Trump issued a sweeping grant of clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Capitol attack. The president issued pardons to most of the defendants and commuted the sentences of 14 members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers militia, most of whom were convicted of seditious conspiracy.
He has sought to rewrite the history of the riot and called those arrested “hostages.”
In another fascist takeover attempt, Trump is trying to control what The Smithsonian puts on display.
The New York Times (gift link): White House Announces Comprehensive Review of Smithsonian Exhibitions.
The Trump administration said on Tuesday that it would begin a wide-ranging review of current and planned exhibitions at the Smithsonian Institution, scouring wall text, websites and social media “to assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.”
White House officials announced the review in a letter sent to Lonnie G. Bunch III, the secretary of the Smithsonian. Museums will be required to adjust any content that the administration finds problematic within 120 days, the letter said, “replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate and constructive descriptions.”
The review, which will begin with eight of the Smithsonian’s 21 museums, is the latest attempt by President Trump to try to impose his will on the Smithsonian, which has traditionally operated as an independent institution that regards itself outside the purview of the executive branch.
Kim Sajet, the head of the National Portrait Gallery, resigned in June after Mr. Trump said he was firing her for being partisan. The Smithsonian’s governing board said at the time that it had sole responsibility for personnel decisions.
News of the letter was earlier reported by The Wall Street Journal. It is signed by Lindsey Halligan, a special assistant to the president; Vince Haley, the director of the Domestic Policy Council; and Russell T. Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
A bit more:
In a statement, the Smithsonian said that its “work is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research and the accurate, factual presentation of history.”
“We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind,” it continued, “and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress and our governing Board of Regents.”
Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture
Mr. Bunch did not immediately returned a call seeking comment.
Some historians expressed concern at the political interference in an institution that was long viewed as independent. Annette Gordon-Reed, a professor at Harvard and president of the Organization of American Historians, said the Smithsonian was already doing a “fantastic job of presenting American history.”
“People are voting with their feet,” she said. “It’s a very popular place. The content of exhibits shouldn’t simply reflect any one administration’s preferences. They are the product of a lot of hard work by dedicated and honorable people who want to present the most accurate picture of American history as possible. That includes the triumphs and the tragedies.”
Samuel J. Redman, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has written extensively about the Smithsonian, called the administration’s review “a full assault on the autonomy of all the different branches of the institution.”
Use the gift link to read the rest if you’re interested.
At Civil Discourse, Joyce Vance has a few choice words about this attack on the Smithsonian: Living in 1984.
The headline tonight reads, “White House to Vet Smithsonian Museums to Fit Trump’s Historical Vision.”It’s in The Wall Street Journal, not exactly a bastion of liberal views. “Top White House officials will scrutinize exhibitions, internal processes, collections and artist grants ahead of America’s 250th anniversary.”
Why? The Journal answers that question in the opening paragraph: “The White House plans to conduct a far-reaching review of Smithsonian museum exhibitions, materials and operations ahead of America’s 250th anniversary to ensure the museums align with President Trump’s interpretation of American history.”
Trump’s interpretation of American history? The man isn’t exactly a scholar.
During his first term in office, at a breakfast celebrating Black History Month in 2017, Trump said: “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice.” Douglass, the famous abolitionist, died in 1895. At the time he made that comment, Trump seemed more enthusiastic about our national museums than he does today. He led into the comment by saying, “I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things.”
Perhaps this gaffe explains Trump’s subsequent antipathy to celebrating Black History Month. But he’s not someone who should be defining our history.
In 2009, Trump purchased a Virginia Golf Club. Its beautiful location on the Potomac River wasn’t enough for him—he needed it to have some historical importance. So he, or someone working for him, made it up. He put up a plaque claiming, “Many great American soldiers, both of the North and South, died at this spot…The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as ‘The River of Blood.’ ” According to multiple experts, nothing of the sort ever happened there.
The New York Times reports that when Trump was confronted with the lie, he said, “How would they know that? Were they there?” Trump is clearly not the man to entrust with the telling of our national history. “Write your story the way you want to write it,” Trump told reporters who pressed him for any evidence to support the supposed history he attributed to the site.
In a phone call with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his first term in office, Trump insisted that Canadians burned down the White House during the War of 1812. As every school child knows, it was the British.
And of course, there were Trump’s exaggerated claims about the size of the crowd at his first inauguration.
Read the rest at Civil Discourse.
This morning, Trump met virtually with European leaders and Ukraine’s President Zelensky ahead of his meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday. I don’t really think that anything Trump said can be trusted, but here are some reports:
CNN: EU leaders hold call with Trump and Zelensky ahead of Alaska summit.
A call between European officials, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and US President Donald Trump took place today.
Speaking at a news conference alongside Zelensky afterward, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Europe’s leaders are doing everything to ensure an upcoming meeting between Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin “goes the right way.”
Here are the latest developments:
- Joint meeting: A virtual summit involving US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders took place today.
- Trump support: In comments made after the meeting, Zelensky said that “there should be a ceasefire first, then security guarantees – real security guarantees,” and that Trump has “expressed his support.”
- Renewed calls: Speaking alongside Zelensky after the meeting, Merz reiterated his call for Ukraine to be at the table for negotiations and said that a ceasefire must come first in any deal, as he said Kyiv needed “robust guarantees.”
- “Major decisions:” Merz said there could be “major decisions” made during the Trump-Putin summit as he said Europeans are therefore “doing everything we can in order to lay the groundwork to make sure that this meeting goes the right way.”
- Territorial exchange: Also speaking after the call, French President Emmanuel Macron said any territorial exchange in Ukraine “must only be discussed with Ukraine, as he added that it was a “good thing” that Russia and the US were talking, but it was important that Europe is “heard.”
- Territory: Meanwhile, a Russian foreign ministry official has poured cold water on the idea that both Russia and Ukraine would need to swap territory to reach a peace agreement
Territorial questions that fall under Ukraine’s authority cannot be negotiated and will only be negotiated by the President of Ukraine, Macron said, adding that Trump had expressed the same. Philippe Magoni EPA
The Independent: US and Russia suggest ‘West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine.’
The U.S. and Russia are set to suggest a West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine as a way of ending the war, according to The Times.
Under the proposed plans, Russia would have both economic and military control of the occupied parts of Ukraine, utilizing its own governing body, mimicking Israel’s control of Palestinian territory taken from Jordan during the 1967 conflict.
The suggestion was put forward during discussions between President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and his Russian counterparts, a source with insight into the U.S. National Security Council told the paper.
Witkoff, who also serves as the White House’s Middle East envoy, reportedly backs the suggestion, which the U.S. thinks solves the issue of the Ukrainian constitution prohibiting giving up territory without organizing a referendum.
While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected any notion of ceding territory, the new occupation proposal may lead to a truce following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.
According to the proposal, Ukraine’s borders would remain officially unchanged, similar to the borders of the West Bank, even as Israel controls the territory.
I can’t see how Zelensky could accept that.
One more report from Politico: Trump agreed only Ukraine can negotiate territorial concessions, Macron says.
Finally, at The Wall Street Journal, Paul Kiernan has a profile on Trump’s pick for Bureau of Labor Statistics head: The Partisan Economist Trump Wants to Oversee the Nation’s Data.
Conservative economist Erwin John “E.J.” Antoni sometimes jokes on social media that the “L” in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ acronym is silent.
President Trump this week tapped Antoni to run the agency whose data and methodologies he has long criticized, especially when it produces numbers that Trump doesn’t like. He recently proposed suspending the monthly jobs report, one of the most important data releases for the economy and markets. On Tuesday, a White House official noted that Antoni made the comment before he knew he was going to be chosen and that his comments don’t reflect official BLS policy.
E.J. Antoni was nominated by the president this week to oversee the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Photo by C-SPAN
If confirmed by the Senate, Antoni would run a 141-year-old agency staffed by around 2,000 economists, statisticians and other officials. The BLS has a long record of independence and nonpartisanship that economists and investors say is critical to the credibility of U.S. economic data.
According to a commencement program from Northern Illinois University, Antoni earned a master’s and Ph.D. in economics from that school in 2018 and 2020, respectively, and a bachelor of arts degree from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary. Antoni’s LinkedIn profile says he attended Lansdale Catholic High School outside Philadelphia from 2002 to 2006.
According to the profile, Antoni went to work in 2021 as an economist at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative think tank in Austin that has sued the federal government to overturn climate-change regulations. The following year, he joined the conservative Heritage Foundation as a research fellow studying regional economics. He is now the foundation’s chief economist and an adviser to the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a group of conservative economic commentators.
Past BLS commissioners have had extensive research experience, and many have climbed the ranks of the agency itself. Antoni doesn’t fit that profile. He doesn’t appear to have published any formal academic research since his dissertation, according to queries of National Bureau of Economic Research working papers and Google Scholar. Much of his commentary on the Heritage website praises Trump’s policies and economic record. He frequently posts on X and appears on conservative podcasts such as former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” where he criticized the economy under President Joe Biden and lauds Trump’s economy.
The Heritage Foundation declined to make Antoni available for an interview and didn’t respond to questions about his background.
There’s more at the link. I got past the paywall by using the link at Memeorandum.com.
That’s all I have today. What’s on your mind?
Tuesday Cartoons: Mushrooms
Posted: August 12, 2025 Filed under: just because 13 Comments
That was some shitty day yesterday…
Cartoons via Cagle:
Just, try and take it easy today…be safe. This is an open thread.
Mostly Monday Reads: Are We There Yet?
Posted: August 11, 2025 Filed under: #FARTUS, #MAGAnomics, #We are so Fucked, Economy, FARTUS, Gaza, Homeless, Israel | Tags: @johnbuss.bsky.social John Buss, Genocide, We're Living on the Edge 4 Comments
“He does have a sense of humor.” John Buss, @repeat1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
The top headline today from Public Notice sums it up nicely. “Crime is down. But Trump’s authoritarian power grabs are escalating. Random street crimes are being used as pretexts for repression.” Jackie Kennedy’s Rose Garden is one big tacky cement patio bedecked with tacky patio furniture and yellow umbrellas that look like a field of dildos. The Oval Office is bedecked with gold spray-painted Baroque Cherubs and has the feel of a tacky brothel mimicking Versailles. These changes are about as necessary as tariffs. The worst of it will be a ballroom with the same tacky aesthetic. Meanwhile, the Big Budget-Busting bill will leave people starving, ill, and homeless. I smile at a young black man with a loaded shopping cart, as he heads down Burgundy Street this morning to the various homeless encampments at the abandoned Navy Base bordering the canal and the Mississippi. Once again, VooDoo Economics takes its toll. Then, there are the tariffs and the dearth of tourists this season.
Justin Glawe writes the story behind the headline.
The White House has seized on two unrelated incidents of street crime as a pretext for a federal government power grab at a time when violent crime has, in fact, dropped across the country.
The attempted carjacking of Edward “Big Balls” Coristine in Washington DC and a street brawl in Cincinnati are the latest cause célebrè on the American right, which has long supported Donald Trump’s plans for military and law enforcement crackdowns in largely Democratic cities. Both incidents are being used as anecdotal evidence of out-of-control crime across the country — a narrative that is necessary for Trump and Republicans to maintain their grip of fear on their MAGA base.
And it’s worked: a Gallup poll in October found that 64 percent of Americans believed crime had gone up in 2024, but new data from the FBI shows that is not the case. In fact, 2024 saw the lowest levels of violent crime since 1969, with violent crime down 4.5 percent across the country, including a 14.9 percent drop in murders.
The events being seized upon by the White House and Republicans as evidence of surging crime have little to do with one another save for the fact that the victims are white. In the case of the brawl in Cincinnati, those “victims” may not be entirely innocent: two white men faced off against a largely Black crowd on July 26, with one of the men spewing a racial slur. The other white man involved may have been a willing combatant in the melee, slapping a Black man in the face and squaring off to fight, as seen in videos circulating online. (Police have disputed that the slap was the impetus of the brawl.)
While the exact cause of the brawl isn’t entirely clear, videos of the incident have gone viral, framed by right-wing media as a “Black mob” beating innocent whites. On her show last Thursday night, Fox News’s Laura Ingraham asked a victim in the attack whether it was “racially motivated in any direction.” Neither Ingraham or the guest noted the use of the racial slur.
Vice President JD Vance and other prominent Republicans have politicized the incident, using it as an opportunity to call for everything from replacing judges to increasing funding for police.
At the same time, Trump, Elon Musk, and others have used the alleged carjacking of Coristine as justification for a federal takeover of Washington DC. Last week, Trump threatened to “FEDERALIZE” Washington, sharing a photo of a bloodied Coristine on Truth Social. Later, Trump reiterated the threat and called for juveniles to be charged as adults. He’s holding a news conference this morning to announce some sort of takeover of DC amid reports that hundreds of National Guard troops will be deployed to the city this week.
“Somebody from DOGE was very badly hurt last night. A young man who was beat up by a bunch of thugs in DC,” Trump said last Tuesday. “And either they’re gonna straighten their act out in terms of government and in terms of protection or we’re gonna have to federalize.”
This morning’s Washington Post describes Trump’s response thusly. “Trump orders federal moves on D.C. crime, takes over D.C. police. The president is planning to flex his law enforcement power over Washington, declaring that he would clear the city of homeless people and crack down on crime.” Am I the only one who sees the pandering to power in this headline?” This hardly compares to the violence, destruction, and crimes that happened on January 6.
President Donald Trump announced Monday that he was placing the D.C. police under direct federal control and will deploy the National Guard to the streets of Washington to fight crime, an extraordinary flex of federal power that stripped city leadership of its ability to make law enforcement decisions and could expose residents of the nation’s capital to unpredictable encounters with a domestically deployed military force.
The decision to take over the Metropolitan Police Department and deploy 800 National Guard troops comes as the president has been slamming America’s cities as places where crime is out of control, despite two years of declines that have brought homicide levels in many major cities to their lowest levels in decades.
The administration has already mobilized FBI agents in recent days in overnight shifts to help local law enforcement prevent carjackings and violent crime, officials said. Because the District of Columbia is not a state, the federal government has unusually sweeping powers to intervene over the objections of its residents and leaders, giving the president an opportunity to use it as a laboratory for a militarized approach to urban crime-fighting.
Trump portrayed a sweeping vision of law enforcement on the streets of Washington, declaring that federal agents, D.C. police and the National Guard would use physical force to intimidate
“They fight back until you knock the hell out of them, because it’s the only language they understand,” Trump told reporters at a White House news conference. “It’s a disgusting thing.”
“It’s becoming a situation of complete and total lawlessness, and we’re getting rid of the slums, too,” Trump added. “I know it’s not politically correct.https://www.facebook.com/ You’ll say, ‘Oh, so terrible.’ No, we’re getting rid of the slums where they live.”
Trump has portrayed crime in the nation’s capital as spiraling upward. D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) has noted repeatedly that violent crime has declined for the past two years after a sharp post-pandemic spike in 2023.
I will say this about the WAPO. The fact-checkers checked the crime statistics in the District. “Trump says crime in D.C. is out of control. Here’s what the data shows. Crime in D.C. and nationwide is declining from pandemic-era spikes. But individual incidents can shake residents and capture the president’s attention.”
All this is happening while the majority of Americans are like me. How the hell am I going to buy groceries this week? This headline is from Forbes Magazine. “Almost 90% of Americans Are Worried About The Cost Of Groceries. The story is written by Mary Whitfill Roeloffs.
Almost 90% of American adults say they’re stressed about the cost of groceries, a new poll out Monday shows, as the price of food rises and items like poultry, ground beef and eggs see the biggest cost jumps.
Key Facts
More than half of Americans (53%) see grocery prices as a major source of stress and another 33% see it as a minor source of stress, according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
- More people were concerned about grocery prices than any other financial concern brought up in the poll, but more than half of respondents also said they were at least somewhat stressed about their salaries, the cost of housing, the amount of money they have saved, their credit card debt and the cost of health care.
- The Consumer Price Index shows the price of food has risen 3% in the last 12 months—groceries have risen 2.4% while dining out is 3.8% costlier than it was 12 months ago.
- From June 2024 to June 2025, groceries got more expensive in every category tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: meats, poultry, fish and eggs rose in price by 5.6% (egg prices alone rose 27.3%); nonalcoholic beverages are 4.4% more expensive; fruits and vegetables rose in price by 0.7%; and both cereals and bakery products and the index for dairy products rose 0.9%.
- At 3%, the cost of food is rising faster than the overall inflation rate as measured by the Consumer Price Index, at 2.7%.
- After groceries, the price of housing had the highest number of people reporting it as a major stressor in Monday’s poll (47%), followed by the amount of money saved (43%), salary (43%) and the cost of health care (42%).
81 cents. That’s how much the price of chicken breast increased, per pound, from July 2024 to July 2025, according to NBC News, making it the largest price hike among the six staple items tracked by the outlet. The cost of ground beef increased 67 cents per pound, while eggs grew 64 cents more expensive per dozen.
Are we great again yet?
With American Foreign Policy out to lunch, Bibi Netanyahu has expanded his genocidal and authoritarian attack on Gaza. This is the latest step taken by the accused War Criminal. This is from The Guardian. “Anas al-Sharif, prominent Al Jazeera correspondent, among five journalists killed in Israeli airstrike on Gaza. Israel admits deliberate attack on the journalist, known for frontline coverage, in a strike on a tent outside al-Shifa hospital.” How are we falling back into 20th-century fascism when so many of us have been thoroughly educated on both World Wars?
A prominent Al Jazeera journalist who had previously been threatened by Israel has been killed along with four colleagues in an Israeli airstrike.
Anas al-Sharif, who was one of Al Jazeera’s most recognisable faces in Gaza, was killed while inside a tent for journalists outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City on Sunday night. His funeral was held on Monday morning.
Seven people in total were killed in the attack, including al-Sharif, Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa, according to the Qatar-based broadcaster.
The Israel Defense Force admitted the strike, claiming the reporter had “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation and was responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces”.
It claimed it had intelligence and documents found in Gaza as proof but rights advocates said he had been targeted for his frontline reporting on the Gaza war and that Israel’s claim lacked evidence.
Calling al-Sharif “one of Gaza’s bravest journalists,” Al Jazeera said the attack was “a desperate attempt to silence voices in anticipation of the occupation of Gaza.”
Last month Israeli IDF spokesperson Avichai Adraee shared a video of al-Sharif on X and accused him of being a member of Hamas’ military wing. At the time the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Irene Khan, called it “an unsubstantiated claim” and a “blatant assault on journalists”.
What passes for US foreign policy is the usual lovefest between Putin and Yam Tits. This is from The Bulwark. This story is reported by Cathy Young. “Alaska Summit: Trump and Putin Planning to Carve Up Ukraine. It’s hard to see anything good coming from the meeting of the president and his hero.”
REMEMBER WHEN, A FEW WEEKS BACK, commentators suddenly started talking about Donald Trump’s “pivot” or “dramatic shift” on Ukraine and Russia? The promises of aid to the one and scary sanctions against the other? Trump’s tough talk about the “bullshit thrown at us” by Vladimir Putin and the “nice phone calls” followed by bombings of Ukrainian cities? The fifty-day deadline to make peace or else, which then abruptly became a ten- to twelve-day deadline that expired over the last few days?
Well, guess what. The pivot seems to have fully unpivoted. We’re back to more diplomacy for dummies by Trump’s real estate pal and golf buddy Steve Witkoff, who went on another trip to Moscow and had—as Trump announced with a straight face on Truth Social—a “highly productive meeting” with Putin. So productive, in fact, that it took a while to figure out exactly what sort of deal Putin offered Witkoff, since Witkoff initially reported a garbled—and more attractive—version of the offer. (Witkoff did get to consume a monster-sized cheburek meat pie which greatly excited the Russian media, so it wasn’t a total loss. Oh, and he brought back an Order of Lenin that Putin gave him for a CIA deputy director whose son was killed in the Donbas last year fighting for the Russians. Is Putin trolling Trump at this point?)
And now, Trump and Putin are set to have a summit in Alaska (of all places!) this coming Friday. Trump’s initial proposal for a three-way summit with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has quietly fallen by the wayside; Vice President JD Vance has told Fox News that “we’re trying to figure out, frankly, scheduling and things like that” for the three to meet. So Zelensky may yet get invited to Alaska, but it’s not clear if he will ever be in the same room with Putin. At least for now, it looks like the summit will be a blatant violation of a principle repeatedly proclaimed by Western leaders, from Joe Biden to former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.” Or, in as Russian-Ukrainian political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov, currently a scholar at University College London, put it in an interview: “Two mob bosses decided to sit down and have a chat about the capitulation of Ukraine.”
Of course, we don’t know at this point what the final version of the proposed settlement will look like. Trump has talked about “some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.” Presumably, this means that Ukraine will be expected to cede territory that Russia wants but hasn’t managed to seize in exchange for other Ukrainian territory illegally occupied by Russia. But even that, it turns out, is unlikely to happen: Russia is demanding unilateral land concessions in exchange for a peace agreement or a temporary truce. Zelensky has already rejected such concessions, as he has consistently done since the invasion.
But whatever the outcome of the summit, its mere fact already hands Putin a huge win—unless, of course, Trump should decide that after Zelensky’s disgraceful Oval Office humiliation in February, it’s Putin’s turn for an internationally televised verbal beatdown. (Right. And then he’ll give Ukraine a shipment of alien superweapons from a super-secret vault in Area 51.)
I really don’t know what to make of this headline. Maybe this is how Trump plans to pay for his extensive wrecking of the White House. “U.S. Government to Take Cut of Nvidia and AMD A.I. Chip Sales to China. In a highly unusual arrangement with President Trump, the companies are expected to kick 15 percent of what they make in China to the U.S. government.” And of course, this cost gets passed forward from the businesses to the consumers. This is reported by the New York Times.
Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices are expected to pay the United States 15 percent of the money they take in from selling artificial intelligence chips to China, as part of a highly unusual financial agreement with the Trump administration.
The deal, which was described by three people familiar with the agreement who spoke anonymously because they didn’t have permission to discuss it publicly, comes a month after Nvidia received permission to sell a version of its artificial intelligence chips to China.
While the Trump administration publicly said a month ago that it was giving the green light to Nvidia to sell an A.I. chip called H20 to China, it did not actually issue the licenses making those sales possible.
On Wednesday, Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive, met with President Trump at the White House and agreed to give the federal government its 15 percent cut, essentially making the federal government a partner in Nvidia’s business in China, said the people familiar with the deal. The Commerce Department began granting licenses for A.I. chip sales two days later, these people said.
Though Mr. Huang has led negotiations with the White House, Nvidia isn’t the only company that sells A.I. chips to China. AMD has an A.I. chip called the MI308 and in April the Trump administration also banned sales of it to the Chinese.
There are few precedents for the Commerce Department agreeing to grant licenses for exports in exchange for a share of revenue. But the unorthodox payments are consistent with Mr. Trump’s increasingly interventionist role in international business deals involving American companies. In June, the administration approved investment by Nippon Steel, a Japanese company, in U.S. Steel in a deal that included a so-called golden share in the company, a rarely used practice where the government takes a stake in a business.
The administration is also using tariffs as a stick to bring manufacturing to the United States. Last week, Mr. Trump said that tech companies would have to pay a 100 percent tariff on semiconductors made abroad, unless they invested in the United States.
The deal agreed to last week could funnel more than $2 billion to the U.S. government. Nvidia was expected to sell more than $15 billion worth of its H20 chip to China through the end of the year, and AMD was expected to sell $800 million, according to Bernstein Research.
The Commerce Department, White House and AMD didn’t provide comment on Sunday.
Ken Brown, a spokesman for Nvidia, said that the company follows the U.S. government’s rules for sales abroad. “While we haven’t shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide,” he said.
Okay, so tell me the one about “free markets” again. I’ll end with this opinion piece in the Guardian by Steven Greenhouse. “Trump is losing his foolish trade war. This will cost ordinary Americans greatly. Trump’s trade war has pushed up inflation, slashed US job gains, slowed economic growth and caused the manufacturing sector to sputter.” I started my study of economics back on the cusp of the Carter/Reagan years. I absolutely thought we’d learned the lessons of what not to do by that time. It’s amazing that the “Voodoo Economics” of that period and the resulting stagflation is back here in the future. It’s being replayed by the same, but much older group of idiots.
The ever-bombastic Donald Trump has boasted repeatedly of his trade victories, while White House news releases trumpet his “historic trade wins”. The Wall Street Journal echoed Trump’s triumphalism with a headline saying, “Trump is Winning His Trade War”, and last week the New York Times used the exact same words in a headline. That must have been music to the president’s ears.
Forgive me for being a spoilsport, but I don’t see where the victory is or how Trump is winning. I keep reading how Trump’s trade war and tariff machinations have pushed up inflation, slashed US job gains, slowed economic growth and caused the manufacturing sector to sputter.
The rate of job growth plunged by over 70% in the three months after Trump unveiled his 2 April “liberation day” tariffs that filled corporate executives with uncertainty and dread. Trump is palpably impatient for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, but the higher prices resulting from his tariffs are likely to delay the rate cuts he desperately wants. So can someone please tell me where is the victory here?
Trump further proclaims that his tariffs are wondrous because, he says, they will generate trillions of dollars in revenue for the US Treasury. But those revenues will come out of the hides of tens of millions of American consumers who will pay Trump’s taxes on imports. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the price increases caused by Trump’s tariffs will cost the typical US household $2,400 in 2025. As a result of the tariffs, the budget lab says, apparel prices will soar 37% and shoe prices 39%. What Trump boasts as a win is a loss for millions of typical Americans.
Some economists are warning that Trump’s tariffs will bring back stagflation, a dangerous combination of rising prices and slowing growth last seen in the 1970s. Pointing to signs of stagflation, BMO Economics wrote: “Economic activity and job growth are sputtering under the weight of higher tariffs, increasing inflation and rising economic policy and trade uncertainty.” Doesn’t look as if Trump’s trade war is winning there.
Trump recently said on CNBC’s Squawk Box that “people love the tariffs”, but evidently the people he’s talking about aren’t the American people. A recent Fox News poll of registered voters found that Americans overwhelming disapprove of Trump’s tariff policies by 62% to 36%. Ben May, a forecaster at Oxford Economics, said his tariffs will hurt US families because “they are obviously raising prices … and squeezing household incomes”.
Many days it seems that Trump tries to dominate the news cycle with some tariff announcement or other: 50% on Brazil, double India’s tariffs to 50%, impose a 100% tariff on semiconductors. (Even some Maga folks probably think he uses tariff announcements to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.) This week the White House dismayed the world by announcing that Trump would impose tariffs, ranging from 15% to 50%, on 90 countries effective Thursday. As a result of Trump’s tariff craze, the average effective tariff rate on imports into the US will be 18%, up from 2.3% last year – the highest level since the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930 worsened the Great Depression.
Yes, it’s Make the Great Depression Great Again time!
I need a few stories with a cute baby hippopotamus and a few other cuddly creatures. It’s really hard to face this news daily. I do not understand how this lived experience isn’t hitting more people in the head. Well, the billionaires are getting a tax cut in perpetuity.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
dakinikat
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Recent Comments