Eager as usual to stir the pot, President Trump, as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One, implied that either Vice President Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio could succeed him. He teased "I'm not sure if anybody would run against those two. I think if they formed a group it would be unstoppable."
If he is still alive in the summer of 2028, Trump either will be the presidential nominee or the vice presidential nominee with the understanding that if elected, the other guy would resign after the inauguration in 2029. Still, Vance is not taking any chances and referred to Rubio as his "best friend in the administration."
And why not?
During the last presidential campaign, Vance responded to concern about the impact of illegal immigrants (or asylum seekers) on Springfield, Ohio by tweeting/Xing "reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who should not be in this country." After - not before- five or six or 33 bomb threats and claim debunked, Vance was interviewed by CNN;s Dana Bash and rationalized
The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do.
Proud to be a liar, Vance settled into this modus operandi. Vance made up the story about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, then boasted about having made it up, and now is repeating the myth. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Disgusting, for sure. However, the Vice President hears footsteps. No doubt he took on the role of running mate to the presidential nominee, as most offered the position do, in order to be positioned to be heir apparent to the President if the ticket is victorious. And now, Trump mentions Marco Rubio and Vance in the same breath, even though the vice-president is clearly more MAGA than the neocon Rubio.
Vance has the inside track on the Secretary of State for a few reasons, including what seems to be an effective effort to shore up his Christian bona fides. Moreover, Trump may recall that President Obama supported Secretary of State Clinton over Vice President Biden for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and Clinton went on to lose to Trump. Four years later, Biden defeated Trump, though the circumstances of both elections were far different than they have been since. (It's also likely that Biden would have lost to Trump in 2016 and Clinton would have beaten him in 2020. So it's a weak precedent, but precedent.)
On an unrelated matter, suitable for Mischief Night: it was exactly three years ago that our twice-elected President typed
And that makes it three years to the day that the far and away most consequential public figure of any sort of our time called his, and our, country "evil." At some time, in some faraway land, a Democrat may notice.
One of these, a columnist with The New Yorker, and the other, a prominent anti-Trump GOP lawyer, is right and the other is wrong.
First, the journalist:
Perhaps question is better rephrased — Why do you keep suggesting that you would seek to remain in office for a third term despite the Constitution’s clear ban? Why are you misleading your supporters and the American public that this is a possibility? https://t.co/1LOr4pfUkz
To summarize: Why is President Trump suggesting it is a possibility, despite the Constitution, that he would seek to remain in office for a third term?
Now, the ex-husband of Kellyanne Conway:
He doesn't care about law. He doesn't care about rules. He doesn't care about the country. He doesn't care about truth. He doesn't care about right or wrong.
He only cares about himself. And most importantly—what he can get away with. Regardless of whether it is… https://t.co/IHy9wwf9uB
This is not a close call. Glasser obviously is referring to Section 1 of the 22nd Amendment to the USA Constitution, which reads
No person shall be elected to the office of the President
more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted
as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was
elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than
once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of
President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent
any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President,
during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the
office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
The pertinent portion of Section 1 is
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Thus, the only portion of this section, or of this amendment, or of the Constitution is "no person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." J. Michael Luttig, bless his heart, can argue as effectively as possible and stand on his head, but it is clear what these fourteen words mean, and what they do not preclude.
Constitutionally, Donald cannot run for a third term. He can run for Vice President and if on the winning ticket, ascend to the presidency anytime after January 20, 2029 at 12:00 noon. That would, of course, depend upon the 48th President stepping down, which would be his part of the deal.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump does not care about law, rules, the country, truth, or right and wrong. He does care about himself and is always probing to determine what he can get away with.
That's one of the President's motives in militarizing the nation's streets. He is " federalizing some members of the Oregon and Illinois National Guard withing those states," sending Texas National Guard soldiers to the Chicago area, and planning to send California National Guard members to Portland, Oregon. Portland today, Chicago tomorrow, other major cities thereafter depending on whether he can get away with this.
Additionally, Trump is now doing what he can to shove some cash to soldiers: a $130 million dollar "donation" from Timothy Mellon, heir to the Mellon family fortune, which is almost certainly illegal; and tax revenues diverted from research and development appropriations, also almost certainly illegal. However, when planning a coup against a nation, it's always helpful to have the military on your side.
And why not send American tax dollars wherever the President wants to, notwithstanding Congress' sole authority to do so? Trump suggests he should be awarded $230 million in damages for investigations of him conducted by the Department of Justice in the immediately preceding Administration. Though not sure, he can get it because the decision on paying him "would have to go across my desk" while "it's interesting, 'cause I'm the one that makes the decision, right?"
Well, not constitutionally, but laws and rules are not things he's concerned with. And if he orders his subject, Pam Bondi to pay, she will. And if in the future, he demands $500 million or more for, perhaps, a "bonus" for exemplary work as President, a precedent will have been set.
As approved by Bondi's Daddy, election "monitors" are being sent to polling sites in New Jersey and California after "requests" by the Republican Party in those states, eager to please Donald. Next year, there will be more in order to ensure GOP victory at the polls.
If still alive, Donald Trump will do whatever he can to remain as President or become President again. He may declare a national emergency and claim the right to cancel the election. He could challenge the clear and obvious meaning of the 22nd Amendment. Perhaps he will de facto install himself as the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee and if successful in the general election, take over the office of the presidency soon after his running mate is inaugurated. However, he has said that he would not do that and as we know, Donald Trump never lies.
Yahoo!news has posted the transcript of the exchange. (And what's with the exclamation point!?):
Baier: Why does Chicago have the highest murder rate of all
the big cities?
Pritzker: Well, we are not in the top 30 in terms of our
murder rate. Indeed, Our murder rate has been cut in half over the last four
years and every year it's gone down by double digits and if you look at all of
the violent crime over the last four years...they've all gone down
Baier: Here's a map most populous US cities 17.47 per
100,000 population Chicago's number one over Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, San
Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York, and San Diego.
Pritzker: What I'm explaining to you is
Baier: Now, you're talking about violent crime.
Pritzker: Look, you can pull statistics up; I can, too.
Baier: No, no, these are murders
Pritzker: I'm explaining to you that our murder rate has
been cut in half and very importantly Brett, and you gotta hear this very
importantly we've been doing the things that are necessary to bring crime down
right we've invested in community violence interruption we've invested in
police
According to Yahoo! News, the FBI Crime Data Explorer for 2024 "shows Chicago with the worst murder rate of U.S. cities bigger than 1 million population. Lead Stories calculated the same rate per 100,000 that Baier cited to Pritzker: 17.47. However, the "2024 Homicide Statistics for 24 U.S. Cities" compiled by the Center for Public Safety Initiatives of Rochester University listed Chicago as having the 8th highest murder rate.
For what it's worth, USA Facts, a non-partisan government data publisher found that per capita, Cook County- which includes the greater Chicago metropolitan area, per capita "ranked 17th among 63 large-central metro US counties with reliable data." Given that those numbers include municipalities other than the city itself, this should be of little solace to the mayor of Chicago but significant to the governor of Illinois.
The map provided Fox News viewers was headlined "Murder Rates in Most Populous U.S. Cities." It was technically correct because the city of Chicago in 2024 had the worst murder rate of cities over one million in population. It was misleading, however, because there were seven major cities with a higher rate in the same year.
There were, according to the Chicago Police Department, 797 homicides in Chicago in 2021 and as the RIT study indicates, 573 homicides in the city in 2024. It appears they're down further in 2025 and it's possible that when Pritzker contended the rate has been cut in half, he was including the statistics- incomplete- for 2025.
Admittedly, though, any statistics which Pritzker might mention are of little interest to viewers. Moreover, few viewers care that Illinois has "invested in police" which, presumably, means an increase in officers but no one knows. And people don't know what "community violence interruption" is unless it's explained, and then most of them wouldn't care.
With the rise of social media and of Donald Trump, the only defense now, unfortunately, is a good offense. The goal should be to indict by argument the President for being not only unconcerned about crime, but for being pro-crime.
The black lives matter movement is over and the public has signaled repeatedly that it doesn't find imprisonment offensive. The Illinois governor could have started by criticizing the President for cutting funds to states and localities for law enforcement. Police recruitment is curtailed and fewer judges can be hired to lock people up. Throw in the January 6 argument and emphasize that, unlike Trump, Illinoisans do not consider criminals who batter and assault police to be "hostages."
The last step should be to make a public offer to the President resembling that made by Maryland governor Wes Moore, who in August challenged Trump to hit the streets of Baltimore with him. "Donald Trump, if you are not willing to walk our communities, keep our name out of your mouth," Moore boldly stated.
A wise and scared Trump turned him down. But that's alright. If Pritzker had urged Trump to take a walk in Chicago with him, he could have spiced it up with "if you're man enough." (That's not the kind of language Democrats usually use but last year, Kamala Harris lost and Donald Trump won, and Democrats should take notice.) Donald probably would reject Pritzker's office but, again, alright. At that point the governor could reacquaint Trump with the term "coward." And in the unlikely event Trump accepted, better yet.
If Democrats such as J.B. Pritzker are going to appear on Fox News, they need to be ready to have stuff- true, false, or misleading- thrown at them. After this interview, Democrats have no excuse. Donald Trump has demonstrated that the media pays attention only to AI stunts, personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, and rhetoric about unrelated issues. Go after the Trump Crime Wave. And don't forget the Epstein ballroom.
"Your hate America rally is over," protested House Majority Whip Tom Emmer on Tuesday.
And so the No Kings rallies of October 18, 2025, rebranded the Hate America rally by Republicans who worship a man who has labeled that country "rigged, corrupt, and evil," indeed have ended. However, the Hate America campaign of President Trump, who has branded Americans "fat, bloated, and disgusting" has picked up pace.
During the actual rallies, it was a video produced by artificial intelligence of the President of the United States of America, adorned with a crown, triumphantly dropping a load of feces upon Americans.
No king, there. Eight months earlier, the President had written on Truth Social "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD, Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED,. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
Not a king, supporters cry. Yet, two or three days after the NK protests we learned
The full East Wing of the White House will be torn down to
make way for President Donald Trump's new ballroom, contradicting the former
New York real estate magnate's pledge that the project would not interfere with
the existing U.S. landmark.
Demolition workers on Monday began ripping down the section
of the White House that holds offices for the first lady and staff. Trump
announced that ground had been broken on the project after images of demolition
circulated in news reports, though the full extent of the tear-down only became
clear two days later.
On July 31, Trump had told reporters "It won't interfere with the current building. It'll be near it but no touching it and pay total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of."
The construction will consume most of the remainder of Donald's current term and, according to a President incentivized to downgrade the eventual cost, will cost approximately $300 million dollars. It will be constructed to Trump's liking and is not a building he's planning to vacate in January, 2029. But not a king.
suggested he’s entitled to compensation from the federal
government over investigations he faced that he claims were politically
motivated. Now, the Justice Department that Trump has exerted control over
could approve a hefty payout in taxpayer dollars.
The Republican president’s comments in the Oval Office on
Tuesday have put a spotlight on a law through which people can seek damages if
they believe they were wronged by the federal government.
But the potential that the president might take taxpayer
money from the same government he leads has raised numerous ethical questions,
especially since Trump has made cutting federal spending a top administration
priority.
If the President wants it, Attorney General Pam Puppet Bondi will turn that money over to Trump in a New York minute. In accepting payment, the President would be violating the domestic emoluments clause, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 7 of the US Constitution, which reads
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period an other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
(The Founding Fathers were not very Good at Capitalization.)
No worries, though, about the Constitution. Donald evidently has that covered because he remarked
It's interesting, because I'm the one that makes a decision, right? And you know that decision would have to go across my desk, and it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. In other words, did you ever have one of those cases here you have to decide how much you're paying yourself in damages? But I was damaged very greatly, and any money that I would get, I would give to charity.
Charity, as in the Trump Foundation or the Trump Wealth Accumulation Fund. That is, however, a little off-point. Accepting money from the federal government would violate the Constitution. "I'm the one that makes that decision" is an acknowledgment, albeit braggadocio, of reality: Pam Bondi exists to serve Daddy.
But this "and you know that decision would have to go across my desk." Not by tradition and not by Constitution would it.
Trump: "It looks like we're gonna have a Communist as the mayor of New York. But here's the good news -- he's gotta go through the White House. Everything goes through the White House. At least this White House it does." pic.twitter.com/bJ5oYlQcd5
"America the Beautiful" was sung in New Orleans, where one female protester held what was undoubtedly one of the best signs anywhere in the country. "My father fought fascism in World War II," it read. "Now I will."
A right-winger favorably posts this excerpt from a Donald Trump news conference, demonstrates that MAGA world is either very delusional, very dishonest, or a little of both.
Trump makes reporter look silly after she asks why he doesn’t just end the war in Ukraine tomorrow.
REPORTER: “You have within your power, the most powerful man on Earth, why don’t you just enable Ukraine to finish this war tomorrow?”
The reporter begins this exchange by asking "Would you support Senator Lindsey Graham's bill to declare Russia a terrorist state? And you have within your power, the most powerful man on earth. Why don't you just enable Ukraine to finish this war tomorrow?"
Constitutionally- and this is a constitutional republic, or has been- the President of the USA is constrained by Article 1 (Congress) and Article 3 (courts). This President believes that he is not so constrained, or is legally but that might makes right.
Still, it's a legitimate and appropriate question, to which Donald responds
But it sounds easy. We're in the process of trying to make deal. If we make a deal, that's great. If we don't make a deal, it'll be, uh, a lot of people are going to be paying a big price.
Part of the MAGA world is, at least recently, Batya Ungar-Sargon, who has disappointingly scored a show of her own on News Nation. She also appears periodically on CNN's News Night with Abby Phillip, though on Monday with substitute Sara Sidner. She stated
I support white Boomers using their First Amendment rights
to hold a mass therapy session about the fact that Trump won! But to call him a
king is utterly preposterous. He won the popular vote. He is enacting the exact
agenda he promised he would. They are actually protesting American democracy.
The only appropriate response is to laugh!
There is much wrong with this comment, including the bias against whites and the elderly and the bizarre notion that protestors of a dictatorial regime are protesting American democracy. Additionally, the remark ties in with the President's remarks about Ukraine.
Ungar-Sargon claims Trump "is enacting the exact agenda he would," an agenda which in her mind evidently does not include Project 25, which candidate Trump stated he hadn't read and didn't like- and is now enacting.
On the campaign trail in 2023 and 2024, Trump said on dozens
of occasions, in an entirely serious tone, manner and context, that he would
end the war in Ukraine either within 24 hours of his return to the White House
or even sooner than that. He said over and over again, including at both
presidential debates of 2024, that he would have the war “settled” when he was
president-elect, before his inauguration.
A Friday search of the Roll Call Factba.se database that
catalogues Trump’s public remarks turned up at least 53 examples of Trump
making such comments.
In the latest effort by the leader of the most powerful military on earth to appease a dictator bent on restoring an empire
Russian President Vladimir Putin has "won certain
property" during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and should be expected
to take Ukrainian territory as part of a peace deal, U.S. President Donald
Trump said in an interview with Fox News that aired Oct. 19.
The interview was taped a few days earlier, directly
following his phone conversation with Putin on Oct. 16. The call came ahead of
Trump's White House meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky — talks that
ended in disappointment for the Ukrainian delegation, with no promise of
Tomahawk missiles.
Donald's modus operandi for ending the Russo-Ukrainian war-is to put pressure on our ally to capitulate to an anti-American aggressor and tyrant. He promised to end the war immediately after becoming President or even before becoming President.
But a king? Preposterous. Oh, wait:
The morning of the No Kings protests, Trump protested "They're referring to me as a king. I'm not a king," the only possible response when confronted by millions of dissenters noting that he is a king. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
It turns out that Ungar-Sargon, as with the vast majority of Donald's supporters, will believe him over the stark, naked evidence that Trump continually supplies us with. That's true of their evident faith that Donald Trump is not a king and is simply enacting an agenda everyone in the country voted for.
The UK's decision to recognise Palestinian statehood helped
to bring about the ceasefire deal in Gaza, Sir Keir Starmer has told MPs.
Speaking after a summit in Egypt, the PM stressed that the
agreement signed there belonged to US President Donald Trump, telling MPs:
"This is his deal."
But he said the UK had been in a position to work
"behind the scenes" for a ceasefire "precisely because of the
approach this government takes," including its recognition of a
Palestinian state.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said recognising Palestine
without setting a condition for the release of hostages was "rewarding
terrorism" and accused the PM of "diminishing" UK influence in
the Middle East.
The British Prime Minister should be excused for believing that this deal represents a step toward the establishment of a Palestinian state and that his government's recognition of such an entity played a role in bringing the warring forces together. Over 140 of the 193 nations in the United Nations already had recognized "Palestine" as a state when on September 21, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations (separately but aware of the impending action of the other) announced their support.
Saudi Arabia will not normalize relations with Israel unless
a Palestinian state is established and the war in Gaza ends, the kingdom’s
foreign minister said Monday, signaling Riyadh’s clearest stance yet linking
recognition to progress on a two-state solution.
Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan made the remarks
at a press briefing with his French counterpart Jean-Noel Barrot in New York,
following a high-level international conference on implementing the two-state
solution, co-hosted by Saudi Arabia and France.
“For the kingdom, recognition is very much tied to the
establishment of the Palestinian state,” Prince Faisal said when asked whether
Saudi Arabia could relaunch the Abraham Accords recognition for Palestine as a
prerequisite for normalizing relations with Israel.
“We certainly hope that the clear consensus shown today –
which will be shown tomorrow as well – and the clear momentum towards
establishing that Palestinian state can open the conversation about
normalization,” he added.
Faisal emphasized that normalization with Israel cannot be
discussed while Israel’s genocide continues in Gaza.
On October 17, the Times of Israel noted "Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that it will not normalize relations with Israel unless Jerusalem agrees to establish a credible, time-bound, irreversible path to the creation of a Palestinian state."
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Many of us were sucked in by the line that Arab nations were focused on this.
In September of 2020, the Abraham Accords, presumably negotiated by President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, were signed at the White House. They led to a peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explained six months ago
From the United States’ perspective, the Abraham Accords
served a dual purpose of solidifying the U.S. role as regional security
guarantor while bypassing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By presenting
itself as a patron and guarantor of these accords, Washington also sought to
counterbalance China’s rising regional influence, particularly in advanced
technologies. The Joe Biden administration endorsed and tried to carry over the
accords, with Saudi Arabia emerging as the focus of its expanded normalization
efforts. However, this process came to a standstill after the Hamas attacks of
October 7, 2023, prompting Israel to invade Gaza.
This process came to a standstill after the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023.
The attack of 10/7/23 came about for a few reasons, most of all because Hamas is an evil organization which revels in killing and raping Jews. Secondly, there was a failure on the part of both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israeli intelligence services..
Nonetheless, there was a tertiary factor- the likelihood of an impending agreement between Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. If Hamas were to attack, October of 2023 promised the greatest opportunity for success. Tragically, that promise was fulfilled.
Two years ago, Riyadh's alleged interest in a Palestinian state was no obstacle to its interest in joining the Abraham Accords. The nation did not care about creation of that entity back then, and it does not care now. The professed concern for the Palestinians was a sham then and is a sham now.
A former television executive, LaCorte notes long-time animosity between Kuwait and the Palestinians and remarks (at 6:55 of the video below)
Other countries have less violent but similar stories- Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia. Palestinians were often welcomed, at least to some extent, then expelled, either quietly or through mass expulsions. Each of these episodes showed Arab states and their ambivalence toward the Palestinians. They're publicly supportive of their cause but privately suspicious of integrating them into their societies. Keeping Palestinians separate and stateless became, in part a political strategy and maintaining their refugee crisis as a leverage against Israel rather than permanently solving it.
Wish for a Palestinian state is the company line. But the notion of Palestinian statehood does not appear in the Trumpian 20-point plan until point #19, which reads
While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
In an agreement which, aside from a ceasefire (already broken) and exchange of hostages held by Hamas for prisoners held by Israel, is largely aspirational, the Palestinian state thing doesn't show up until 90% of the conditions are laid out. And there it is "the conditions may finally be in place for a "credible pathway," whatever "credible" means and however long, arduous, and eventually unsuccessful that "pathway" may be.
You can take that to the bank- not. It is no more guaranteed than most promises from Donald Trump and relies on actions taken by other entities. And yet, Saudi Arabia and others oh, so devoted to the idea of a Palestinian state signed the agreement.
This is not to suggest that they did so in order to sell the Palestinians out. They came to an agreement because, in a strike Israel claimed was directed toward Hamas officials meeting in Doha, bombed Qatar. Qatar had been Hamas' strongest ally but had remained safe from Israeli retaliation. The attack failed to eliminate any Hamas but did allegedly kill six Qataris. No more would it be so, and other Arab states had to wonder if they themselves would remain off-limits. They wanted the war to end because it now posed a threat to them. Israel now was the Big Man on Campus.
Consequently, the agreement did not receive widespread endorsement in the Middle East in order to deny Muslim Palestinians their own state. However, the Arab nations probably realized that at most, it makes realization of that long-held dream no more likely than without an agreement. Whatever else has changed in the region, one thing has not: their fellow Muslims dream of the day when the Palestinians no longer exist.
Great Democrat and former U.S. Representative from New Jersey asks an excellent rhetorical question:
What does it say about you if you think tens of millions of Americans, and the majority of people in many of our biggest and most productive states, are "terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals?" https://t.co/iPPA7IcVrq
Democratic strategist and CNN contributor has a pretty good idea while realizing that Leavitt, Mike Johnson, and others who have expressed similar bile should be given the opportunity themselves to answer Malinowski's question.
Every single Republican elected official needs to be asked if they agree with this insulting, completely outrageous description of the Democratic party. Every single journalist and reporter who is interviewing any Republican elected official needs to ask them if they stand with… https://t.co/HnTJIQxPBI
It's remarkable that even journalists representing NBC and/or MSNBC, the latter our "liberal" cable news network, has not asked this question of a GOP official. Media organizations will give such vile Republicans a de facto platform by showing video of the individuals making the claim. They may even criticize the propagandists spewing the nonsense. However, they will not confront them with their statements.
Few people will read this before the No Kings protests of October 18 are held. However, the remarks are not a one-off but will get more incendiary while there is no price to be paid. Keeping a representative democracy will only get more difficult if the media is unable or unwilling to pose questions to Republicans when they imply that roughly half the country is subhuman.
At a news conference presided over by House and Senate GOP leadership on Friday, October 10, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise remarked
...even during the time when the contrast of Chuck Schumer throwing a temper tantrum here at home just to pose the more radical elements of his base so that on the 18th, when they have the "Hate America" rally that everybody knows is coming and that everybody knows Chuck Schumer needs to deliver a shutdown of government to them, or appease them, well, what about you think about us, think about those families.....
If the GOP bill to fund the government is passed, over 21 million individuals will lose the enhanced tax credit they had received for purchasing health care in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Ad that to the approximately 15 million people who will lose health care because of the Trump Megabill enacted on Independence Day, and that's a lot of families which will suffer while taxes go down for the wealthy.
At the same news conference, House Majority Whip Tom Emmer declared "this is about one thing and one thing only: to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold- as Leader (Steve) Scalise just commented on- a 'hate America' rally in D.C. next week."
Emmer: "This is about one thing and one thing alone -- to score political points with the terrorist wing of their party, which is set to hold a hate America rally in DC next week." pic.twitter.com/FKnIpFMSUY
slammed the No Kings protest
march scheduled to take place at the National Mall next week, describing the
planned protest as the “hate America rally” that would draw “the pro-Hamas
wing” and “the antifa people.” His characterizations, however, drew
condemnation from some Democrats who defended the protest movement, whose first
big demonstration was overwhelmingly peaceful.
“They’re all coming out,” Johnson said Friday in an
interview on Fox News. “Some of the House Democrats are selling t-shirts for
the event. And it’s being told to us that they won’t be able to reopen the
government until after that rally because they can’t face their rabid base.”
Cancun Ted Cruz claims "follow the money. You look at this No Kings rally- there's considerable evidence that George Soros is behind funding these rallies, which may well turn into riots." And presidential press secretary Karoline Leavitt weighed in for Donald with "The Democrat Party's main constituency is made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals."
The Democratic Party's main constituency? Black women would like a word. Johnson weirdly alleges "House Democrats" are selling t-shirts for the event,"
Or rather, they would have a thing or two to say about it if Democratic leadership understood what these prominent Republicans are saying. Leavitt, whether she realizes it or not, is taking a shot at black women, who are the core of the Democratic Party, or its "main constituency," as Trump's spokesperson put it.
Scalise says Senate Democratic Leader Schumer is "throwing a temper tantrum," a boldly dishonest remark from a very loyal supporter of Donald Trump, who never, ever throws a temper tantrum. Emmer says Democratic leadership aims "to score political points with the terrorist wing of the party," presumably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others who would like Americans to be experience universal health care.
The Speaker, again:
SPEAKER JOHNSON on the "No Kings" rally: “If you think about what’s going to happen here tomorrow, you’re going to bring together the Marxists, the socialists, the Antifa advocates, the anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing of the far-left Democrat Party—that is the modern… pic.twitter.com/UYRVFSspvv
Asked about the Republican crusade against the upcoming No Kings rally, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries responded
.... Republicans are not serious about solving problems for the American people. They're creating problems. And so the efforts to mischaracterize the rallies that are gonna take place all over the country is part of the right-wing disinformation machine that is failing to persuade the American people as to what this shutdown is all about and as a result, Republicans are falling apart.
Republicans "mischaracterize," are "not serious;" are " creating problems" and "failing to persuade the American people." This is typical of Democratic "condemnation" of Republicans, who are aligning themselves with kings and against anti-fascist sentiment.
Yet, according to Republicans, Democrats are harboring Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals, and some are terrorists themselves. One of their two leaders is throwing a "temper tantrum" and others are "selling t-shirts to promote a hate America agenda.
Houston, we've had a problem here. These are not parallel messages. Democrats generally are saying "Republicans are saying bad things. Republicans generally are saying "Democrats are bad people, and that includes the people they elect."
These are not the 1980s with genial Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill tipping a few and hashing things out. They also are not the period of 2000-2015, with occasional hyperbolic flushes intermingling with a shared acceptance of common values, mores, and procedures.
It is now the Age of Trump, where the loudest voice prevails. That voice is not of the Democratic National Committee, Party leaders, or its elected officials.
Those individuals seem not to understand two things about their GOP colleagues. While some are intimidated by the President, many others actually agree with his extremist rhetoric and actions.
And also: they don't like you. Friends don't let friends label colleagues Antifa, illegal immigrants, criminals, terrorists, anarchists, socialists, Marxists.
From Trump on down, the Republicans who matter are out to destroy the Democratic Party and its officials. Democrats accuse them of not being "serious about solving problems" because Democrats still believe most of these Republicans are friends and responsible colleagues temporarily beholden to President Trump. If Democrats don't begin to retaliate in kind, Republicans no longer will be bringing a mere gun to a gunfight. It will be an AR-15.
A guy evidently tweeting under a creative pseudonym can't really be serious.
Do people say #NoKings because they really believe Trump will try to claim the Presidency for a third/fourth/fifth term? Is everyone really that stupid?
President Donald Trump had "Trump 2028" hats on
display when meeting with Congress' top Democrats in the Oval Office ahead of
the government shutdown.
Photos posted to Trump's Truth Social account show the hats
set out on his desk when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer met with Republican leaders on Sept. 29 as the
two sides tried to come to an agreement on spending to stave off a shutdown.
The meeting was unsuccessful, and the shutdown began Oct.1.
"They just randomly appeared in the middle of the
meeting on the desk. It was the strangest thing ever," Jeffries said on
CNN on Sept. 30. He said he turned to Vice President JD Vance and asked him,
"don't you got a problem with this?"
"And he said, 'no comment,' and that was the end of
it," Jeffries recounted.
And as the fact-checking website Snopes reminds us
Trump, who was elected to a nonconsecutive second term in
2024, is constitutionally ineligible to run as president in 2028, when his
second term concludes, due to the 22nd Amendment.
However, rumors about him considering running for a third
term have swirled for some time, and the official retail website (archived) of
the Trump Organization was selling (archived) red hats reading "Trump
2028." The product description read: "Rewrite the rules with the
Trump 2028 high crown hat."
Such rumors predated the commencement of Trump's second
stint in the White House on Jan. 20, 2025. At different points, Trump has both
suggested and ruled out the idea of a third term.
Although the 22nd Amendment does not preclude an individual from serving a third term as President, it does in fact preclude him from running for a third term. However, Steve Bannon has an answer for that, calmly telling Batya Ungar-Sargon
I think that there are many different alternatives that at the appropriate time after the midterms, uh, in '26, uh, we will roll out. But I think there are many different alternatives, uh, to make sure that President Trump is on the ballot and if he's on the ballot, he'll win.
Having chosen previously not to rule out a third term, Donald in March claimed that he "probably" would not run again. This false show of ambivalence allows Trump the luxury of ambiguity, thus empowering CNN and other mainstream media to ignore his apparent interest in circumventing the Constitution. It encourages him eventually to seek the office again because of (alleged) public demand and permits supporters such as tweeter Bundy to accuse critics of the President of being deranged or stupid..
It is clever strategy for someone who does not intend to walk away from the Oval Office on January 20, 2029. And he shouldn't go quietly because if Donald Trump is above the Almighty, there is no reason he should be, or could be subservient to the U.S. Constitution. And if we ever doubted the supremacy of the King of America, we cannot do so now, after the interview of one of the President's sons with Trump influencer Benny Johnson.
Eric Trump: "We're saving Christianity. We've saving God. We've saving the family unit. We're saving this nation. I mean, DEI is out of the window…” @atrupar pic.twitter.com/0s1Q1Z0J2q
We're saving God. There is no way around it- if President Trump's supporters, the Administration generally, or the President specifically is the "we" who are saving God, they are superior to God. And if "God is good" or "God is great," then saving God is an unsurpassed act of divine mercy, a deed beyond anything imaginable. Undertaking such an enterprise must not be questioned.
Donald Trump did not leave the presidency gracefully in January of 2021. He now has a great deal of power, which is increasing weekly, as is likely to continue with creative use of the military. How he will decide to hang on beyond January 20, 2029 us unknown. However, given his mortal existence- which, despite what Eric and some others believe is his nature- he will try to do so somehow.
If the Vice President is asked a question and does not answer that question, is it okay to keep asking him that question? Is that "rude" now? pic.twitter.com/Ql08DzcnTF
Here is another pro-Trump (much more so, actually) individual whose feelings were hurt because a reporter asked Donald's vice-president a couple of follow-up questions:
Stephanopoulos responds by defaming Homan again and then cutting Vance off completely.
On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the host began the Homan segment (host's question in italics; Vice President's words in bold) by asking the Vice President "The White House border czar, Tom Homan, was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September, 2024 accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money or give it back?"
Vance said "Tom Homan did not take a bribe. It's a ridiculous smear." but didn't answer the question, whereupon the host responded "But wait, you said he didn't take a bribe. but I'm not sure you answered the question. Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?" Vance replied
George, this story has been covered ad nauseam. He did not take a bribe. Did he accept $50,000? I am sure that in the course of Tom Homan's life he has bee paid more than $50,000 for services. the question is, did he do something illegal, and there is absolutely no evidence that Tom Homan has ever taken a bribe or done anything illegal.
No, that is not the question. The question is what happened to the money. Vance goes to the matter of legality because the Department of Justice dropped the case, which it may have done simply because Homan- then a private citizen- was at the time unable to provide service. And as of now, the video has not been released by Kash Patel's FBI or Donald Trump's personal Department of Justice, though refusal may run afoul of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Dissatisfied with Vance's bobbing and weaving, Stephanopoulos notes "No, I'm asking- I'm asking a different question, I'm asking you did he accept-" and a moment later, "I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was caught on the surveillance tape? Did he accept that $50,000 or not?" Vance asked
Accepting $50,000 for doing what, George? I am not even sure
I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services?
The FBI has not prosecuted him. I have never seen any evidence that he's
engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime,
even the far-left media like yourself. So I'm actually not sure what the
precise question is. Did he accept $50,000? Honestly, George, I don't know the
answer to that question. What I do know is that he didn't violate a crime.
Ever persistent, Stephanopoulos asked "So you don't- what was caught on the tape, you're saying right now, you don't know whether or not he kept that money?" Vance maintained
I
don't know what tape you're referring to, George. I saw media reports that Tom
Homan accepted a bribe. There is no evidence of that. And here's, George, why
fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility,
because you're talking for now five minutes with the vice president of the
United States about this story regarding Tom Homan, a story that I have read
about, but I don't even know the video that you're talking about.
The Vice President comments "and here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility." Meghan McCain doesn't find that rude. Vance continues
Meanwhile, low-income women can't get food because the Democrats and Chuck Schumer have shut down the government. Right now, we're trying to figure out how to pay our troops because Chuck Schumer has shut down the government. You're focused on a bogus story, you're insinuating criminal wrongdoing against a guy who has done nothing wrong, instead of focusing on the fact that our country is struggling because our government shut down.
The GOP controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives but it's the Democrats who are powerful enough to shut down the government. If so, that would be one heck of a weak President.
Stephanopoulos was insinuating nothing. He merely was stating a fact. By obvious contrast, Vance was characterizing Homan as "a guy who has done nothing wrong." However, he never answered whether Homan had kept the money- or even whether he had taken the cash, only giving his opinion that Homan had done nothing wrong. Continuing to duck the question, the Vice President remarks
Let's talk about the real issues, George. I think the American people would benefit much more from that than from you going down some weird left-wing rabbit hole where the facts clearly show that Tom Homan didn't engage in any criminal wrongdoing.
It's possible that Homan, who at the time was in no position to do anything for the money, did not break a federal law. However, we still don't know whatever became of the payoff- uh, er, gift.
Shockingly- because this sort of thing is rarely done on network news or cable news- Stephanopoulos proceeded to defend himself, and facts. The interview ended with:
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole. I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you whether Tom Homan accepted $50,000 as was heard on an audiotape recorded by the FBI in September 2024, and you did not answer the question.
Thank you for your time this morning.
VANCE: No, George, I said that I don't --
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- is up next.
We'll be right back.
It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole, Stephanopoulos didn't insinuate anything, Homan does appear to have accepted a $50,000 bribe (legally or otherwise), and J.D. Vance did not answer the question. The host ended the interview as it emerged that the only rabbit hole was plumbing for J.D. Vance's honesty or integrity.
This is how journalism is supposed to be done. The interviewer asked a plain, simple question three times, each time the interviewee was given a chance to answer that question. He did not. George Stephanopoulos himself committed what is evidently a crime nowadays: he asked more than one follow-up question and when it didn't get answered, pointed out that it wasn't.
Along with everything else loathsome, conservatives have turned so utterly sensitive during the Trump era. Their feelings are hurt, even when no accusation is actually made beyond what is in the public record. George Stephanopoulos did not call antagonists "vermin" and "enemies from within," suggested they be prosecuted, or call for a prominent General to be executed.. Worse: he has accused an interviewee of not answering a question. Lock him up!
The tweeter was responding to the news from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on October 10 that
“Today we’re signing a letter of acceptance to build a Qatar
Emiri air force facility at the Mountain Home Airbase in Idaho,” Hegseth told
reporters. “It’s just another example of our partnership.”
Hegseth said that the facility would host a contingent of
Qatari F-15s and pilots.By June of 2017, there already were more than 11,000 USA and coalition forces at an airbase in Qatar, described here as "the center for US air operations over Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan." Nonetheless, President Trump, in the very uncharacteristic role as truth teller, decided "the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding.... and its extremist ideology."
the Trump Organization has several active projects in the
Gulf region -- including some that have launched in the months since Trump
returned to office -- suggesting that his self-imposed moratorium has
dissipated.
Trump's visit to the United Arab Emirates, for example,
comes just over a week after the Trump Organization announced the development
of an 80-floor residential building and club called the Trump International
Hotel & Tower, Dubai.
At a launch party for the project last week, an executive of
Dar Global, the development firm partnering with the Trump Organization, said
in a highly produced social media clip that the project "is perfectly
positioned to capture Dubai's growth, offering investors the rare chance to be
part of a global success -- powered by the Trump name and Dar Global's
expertise."
And last week, the Trump family's cryptocurrency venture,
World Liberty Financial, announced that an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm
would be making a major $2 billion investment in the firm.
USD1, World Liberty Financial's so-called
"stablecoin" -- a digital asset designed to maintain a stable value
-- is expected to be used to complete Emirati investment firm MGX's $2 billion
investment transaction in crypto exchange Binance, ABC News reported.
In Qatar, Trump will arrive just two weeks after his son
Eric Trump inked a deal to develop a $5.5 billion golf club just north of Doha,
called the Trump International Golf Club, Simaisima, which will include
"an 18-hole golf course, exclusive clubhouse, and Trump-branded
villas," according to plans.
And in Saudi Arabia, three Trump Organization projects are
currently underway, including two residential projects and a golf course. The
development firm they've partnered with for many of these regional projects,
Dar Global, reportedly has close ties to the Saudi government.
Trump also recently hosted a high-profile golf tournament
for the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour at his Trump National Doral resort near
Miami.
The President bought a great deal of criticism from his MAGA base for having inked a deal which some interpret as being a base for Qatar in the Mountain West. Perhaps that was the intention of the Administration, because it has diverted attention from this:
President Trump this week signed an executive order vowing
to use all measures - including the US military - to defend the Gulf state of
Qatar.
The text says Washington will view any armed attack on the
tiny energy-rich nation as a threat to the Unites States itself and will
"take all lawful and appropriate measures - including diplomatic,
economic, and, if necessary, military - to defend the interests of the United
States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability".
The order amounts to an extraordinary security pact between
America and a key Arab ally, almost mirroring aspects of a NATO alliance.
Between the security pact and the air force facility, the President suddenly and radically changed his attitude toward a nation he once noted sided with terrorists and which he launched a punitive embargo against. There is method behind his madness because
Trump didn’t object when Israel attacked Syria, Lebanon,
Yemen and Iran.
That changed suddenly after Israeli fighter jets launched 10
missiles at a residential building in the Qatari capital of Doha in early
September. Hegseth said that the facility would host a contingent of Qatari
F-15s and pilots.
The building in Doha housed Hamas political leaders and
their families who at the time were engaged in peace talks with the Qataris
serving as mediators. While the Hamas officials survived the attack, the strike
killed six people, including a Qatari security official, and injured several
others, including civilians.
Trump immediately took to Truth Social to say he was
“unhappy” with the Israeli operation and denounced the strike on Qatar, which
he called a “close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and
bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace.” Suddenly, Trump was facing
pressure from his allies in the Middle East.
When Israel bombed Qatar, the pro-Palestinian crowd predictably blasted Tel Aviv while the pro-Netanyahu crowd generally remained silent, in part because their lord and savior was displeased with the operation. It was an unpopular move in the USA.
A few weeks later, a peace agreement, with leadership from Washington and Doha, abruptly arises. That was no coincidence. The leaders of all Muslim nations (Arab plus Persian Iran) stood up and took notice. We are not safe. If Israel believes it needs to strike terrorists anywhere, the country will strike anywhere. That could be in Doha or any other town in the Middle East, and their leaders have welcomed the peace plan.
These nations wanted to stay involved. Now with the attack near Doha, they are involve, and waiting on the sidelines- or what they believed were the sidelines- is no longer an option. They've come to the stark realization that there is only one side in the Middle East to tilt toward, and that is not Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or Hezbollah, which Israel continues to target in Lebanon.
The Israel-Hamas peace deal may not stick- probably won't, but it wouldn't even exist were it not for the Jewish state's failed effort to kill Hamas negotiators in Qatar. Such are the ironies of Middle East conflict.
“You voted to shut the government down,” Bondi said in
response to a question from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the panel’s top ranking
member, about the legal basis for sending National Guard troops into Chicago.
Bondi described hundreds of homicides in Chicago and argued
Trump’s decision to send in the Guard was aimed at addressing violent crime
that local police had not been able to contain. She noted that her deputy, Todd
Blanche, and FBI Director Kash Patel were en route to Chicago Tuesday morning.
“I wish you loved Chicago as much as you hate President
Trump,” Bondi said. “If you’re not going to protect your citizens, President
Trump will.”
Though Bondi’s appearance was expected to generate intense
sparring with Democrats, Durbin seemed surprised by the intensity of Bondi’s
posture in response to a relatively mild question about the work of the
department.
Durbin, a lawyer by trade, opted to explain rationally and logically
I've been on this committee for more than 20 years. That's the kind of testimony you expect from this Administration. A simple question as to whether or not they had a legal rationale for deploying National Guard troops becomes grounds for personal attack. I think it's a legitimate question. It's my responsibly.
It is a legitimate question, it is his responsibility, and no one cares, not in this environment. In a decision totally predictable, the news media ran with Bondi's attack on Durbin as someone who hates Trump and Chicago and doesn't want to protect the city's citizens as the President does. Durbin's response? Boring.
"There’s been public reporting that Jeffrey Epstein
showed people photos of President Trump with half naked young women. Do you
know if the FBI found those photographs?" Whitehouse asked.
Bondi responded: "You sit here and make salacious
remarks once again trying to slander President Trump left and right when you’re
the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants, I
believe.”
NBC 10 News asked Whitehouse about Bondi's claim.
"Contrary to what the Attorney General said multiple
times today, nobody by the name of Reid (or Reed) Hoffman has donated to any of
my campaigns – not in 2018, not in 2024, not ever," a statement from Whitehouse said.
The junior senator from Rhode Island at least made an effort to refute Bondi's incendiary claim insofar as
Whitehouse left the room during Bondi’s testimony but then
returned toward the end of the hearing in an effort to correct the record and
dispute the attorney general’s claim.
But the presiding chair, Republican Sen. Ashley Moody
(Fla.), refused to grant Whitehouse’s request for a point of personal privilege
to correct the record, even though he’s the second-most-senior Democrat on the
panel.
Of course, there is no video widely circulating of Whitehouse's post on X or press release refuting Bondi's claim, probably because they were boring. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. But no one hears it. and therefore no one cares.
It's uncertain whether an aggressive response would have made it to local, network, or cable news, or even onto social media. But Bondi's intemperate, false claim did.
The Attorney General's performance, as well as the refusal of the Senator Moody- a colleague of Senator Whitehouse- to give him the chance to expose Bondi's lie, should be a reminder to Democrats of the different, and perverse, environment we're now in. Democratic strategy must adjust from defense to offense, facts to accusation. Do a pivot.
When Durbin was confronted by Bondi, he could have pivoted to Bondi's own checkered past, reminding everyone that her office was investigating Trump University when her Florida state A.G. campaign received a $25,000 bribe and her office dropped the investigation. It was not she herself who got the money, but rather a PAC associated with her campaign; and it was not necessarily a bribe, instead generally characterized as a "donation." No matter; make the charge- more truthful than most of her allegations- and let her do the explaining.
Or the Illinois senator could have addressed the loving Chicago charge by noting that he loves Chicagoans much more than Donald Trump loves Americans. In 2022, it was the USA as "rigged, crooked, and evil." In February, 2025, it was that Americans are "bloated, fat, and disgusting." She might then denied- falsely- that Donald had ever used those characterizations. However, tens of millions of Americans would have been learned of contemptuous remarks they were never aware of but which Trump has made.
Senator Whitehouse also might have pivoted toward the illegal donation- which should have been termed "bribe" in order to get attention- from Trump to Bondi. Better yet, Whitehouse could have referred to Bondi's pivot from Epstein and refusal to deny that Epstein showed Trump pictures of half-naked women. Her refusal to answer that question, he would have noted, indicated that these acknowledging the salacious claim. For emphasis, he could have commended, or congratulated, her for finally answering a question.
Instead, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Durbin reacted in a calm, professional, and relatively traditional manner (below, Whitehouse from 4:19-5:01, confident that courts are acting by the old rules). By contrast, Bondi was putting on a performance, one which comes across as fairly compelling when not aggressively challenged by her questioners.
Democrats have allowed the narrative of Trump as a patriotic American go unchallenged for years and currently there is evidence of racy photos which delighted the current President. They have the opportunity to paint a realistic portrait of Donald Trump, which they have thus far avoided and probably won't do now. Unfortunately, most prominent Democrats do not fully comprehend the changed cultural and communications landscape. They should publicly assert unequivocally that there are racy photos while informing voters of the contemptuous attitude the incumbent attitude has toward them. Expose him.
