Blaming Political Opponents For Murder

Senator Markwayne Mullin always has been a classy guy, ever-ready to bridge differences.

 

And now there is this:

Democrats warned of “illegal” orders with zero proof, and insinuated our military would shoot civilians. Days later, two national guardsmen were brutally attacked in Washington, D.C. pic.twitter.com/RxYyDkG64d

— Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) November 29, 2025

In the video posted to this tweet of the Oklahoma Republican, Democratic senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan can be seen commenting

It makes me incredibly nervous that we're about to see people in law enforcement, people in uniform military get nervous, get stressed, shoot at American civilians. It is very, a very stressful situation for these law enforcement and for the communities on the ground, So it was basically a warning to say, like, if you're asked to do something, particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back.

Mullin says Slotkin "owes every single person in uniform an apology" and

That's such an insult to nearly every man and woman that has ever served this great nation other from law enforcement or into, or into the military to say that you're gonna get nervous and you're gonna shoot at citizens, U.S. citizens. That is not happening. We know that's not happening. I know that's not happening. 

She's saying that they're not trained well? Is she saying that we don't have the best men and women in serving this great nation?

We may have the best men and women in the Armed Forces but, judging from this video, the best are not serving the Democratic Party, and far worse are serving the Republican Party.

Slotkin erred in referring to "people in law enforcement, people in uniform military" because she was speaking exclusively of military personnel. Her point, as would have been obvious to Mullin, was that National Guard soldiers legitimately face a very stressful situation when called to perform law enforcement.

It's understandable that they would  As explained in the two-month old video below, "the problem is that soldiers are trained to see people as possible threats while police officers are supposed to protect citizens and soldiers, as they say, are warriors and police officers are guardians."  The perspective most soldiers hold, as well as insufficient or inapplicable training, render them unlikely to engage in community policing, however that's understood by officials and police officers in urban environments.

   

When members of the National Guard were activated for deployment to Chicago, they and Marines were given two weeks of training. They received a brochure produced by the Department of Defense, as well as a slide presentation which (pursuant to the Posse Comitatus Act) forbade them to be involved in security patrols, traffic control, crowed control, or riot control. However, they were told verbally that they could perform those tasks. 

Slotkin inadvisedly conflated police officers with military personnel while she obviously was referring strictly to military. This is unfortunate because as Mullin very likely understands, her point was that members of the Armed Forces are not trained in community law enforcement, which is clearly accurate and relevant. The Oklahoman can choose to misunderstand the Michigander, and even to be ignorant about the training the National Guard receives. 

But Senator Mullin went beyond that in strongly implying that Democrats were responsible for the shooting in Washington, D.C.- in which one individual has now died- of  the two members of the National Guard. If Democrats were willing and able to confront directly that appalling insinuation, they would not only refute that charge. They also would emphasize that Markwayne Mullin has relieved the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, of responsibility in the shooting.

It's par for the course. Many Republicans believe the greatest threat to the USA is not terrorism, Russia, or China, but the Democratic Party. Democrats should make this clear to the American people, no matter how much their GOP friends and colleagues squeal from being called out. Moreover, the six Democratic members of Congress who patriotically produced the controversial video must recognize that Elissa Slotkin, who obviously has been nervous defending the ad, is not their best spokesperson.

.

Share |

All Biden's Fault, As Usual

In a major upset, the Trump Administration has said something truthful. NPR notes

Two West Virginia National Guard members deployed to Washington, D.C., remain in critical condition after being shot while on patrol just blocks from the White House on Wednesday afternoon.

"Two families are shattered and destroyed and torn apart as the result of the actions of one man," said Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

"Two families are shattered and destroyed and torn apart as the result of the actions of one man," said Pirro, in what should be obvious but, judging from most of the response from the Administration, apparently is not.

Immediately after a report (not substantiated at the time) that an Afghan national was responsible for shooting two members of the National Guard deployed to Washington, D.C,. the X right got into action politicizing the crime.. One was Bo Loudon, of whom during last year's campaign it was reported

Despite barely being old enough to vote, 18-year-olds Bo Loudon and Barron Trump were unofficially recruited onto team Trump to help the oldest presidential candidate in history tap into the manosphere and capture the “bro vote.”

Earlier this year Trump, 78, began experimenting with the new audience by engaging with YouTubers and podcasters, many of whom are sympathetic towards the MAGA movement....

 Loudon, a conservative content creator, and the youngest Trump heir were apparently tasked to help Trump navigate the complex web of internet celebrities and influencers.

“The strategy is reaching an audience that maybe isn’t being recognized,” Loudon told Piers Morgan on Thursday.

Much to the distress of the vast majority of the world not named Javier Millei, Viktor Orban, or Vladimir Putin, we know how that turned out. The 19-year-old maintains his influence in Trumpland. Therefore, he promptly amplified Donald's stridently partisan and anti-American response to Wednesday's shooting:

🚨BREAKING: President Trump just revealed the Biden admin. extended the stay of the foreigner "animal" who shot our National Guard.

Follow: @BoLoudon pic.twitter.com/UJzsF8dGuh

— Bo Loudon (@BoLoudon) November 27, 2025

Before we even knew the suspect's motive(s), Trump had decided the real culprit was not American policy or the (presumed) offender himself. It was a former President. And that is turning out to be less than the entire truth.

🚨 BREAKING: The Trump administration is suddenly blaming Biden for the D.C. shooter’s asylum approval…

…but CNN just confirmed the shooter applied for asylum in December 2024 and was approved in April of THIS YEAR, under Trump. pic.twitter.com/bUe5iJzJSF

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) November 27, 2025

Nor could we have been surprised that the Trump rot has seeped even into the Central Intelligence Agency, where in an e-mailed statement Director John Ratcliffe claimed

In the wake of the disastrous Biden Withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden Administration justified bringing the alleged shooter to the United States in September 2021 due to his prior work with the U.S. Government, including CIA, as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, which ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation.

This individual — and so many others — should have never been allowed to come here. Our citizens and servicemembers deserve far better than to endure the ongoing fallout from the Biden Administration's catastrophic failures.

In such cases, it's customary to say "before the bodies are even cold...."  Yet, the the Administration quickly not only decided, but proclaimed, that Operation Allies Welcome was a grave error ("and so many others") but that the primary culprit was not Rahmanullah Lakanwal but Trump's immediate predecessor.

Those "so many others" slandered by Donald's C.I.A. director served as partners to the C.I.A. in Afghanistan and deserved exceptional consideration by Washington when the war in Afghanistan ended. They sacrificed in their capacity for the USA and had they remained in Afghanistan, would have been targeted by the new Taliban government. The program has been imperfect but that was not the message of either the President or the C.I.A. director, who slammed the program itself and the President who created it.

And that Taliban government did not come about magically when the USA withdrew from Afghanistan in spring of 2021. Rather

The Trump Administration February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the tAliban tha t excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021 for the final withdrawal.

And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.

The withdrawal, though chaotic in execution, was planned and orchestrated by the first Trump Administration, negotiated with the Taliban and behind the back of the Afghan government. As we now see with the Russia-Ukraine war, it is Donald's style figuratively to pull the rug out from under our allies and shoot them in the back.

Very few other Democrats, liberals, or progressives are doing what tweeter Allen is doing, indirectly defending the Biden Administration by explaining that the Trump Administration does not have clean hands in the case of Rahmanullah Lakanwal. Notably, his bio reads "America FIRST," in contrast to the MAGA crowd which inaccurately portrays itself as "America First."  

At the very least, though, the Trump Administration should be held responsible for caring less about the Guardsmen or the nation they were representing than they do in condemning another American President. Donald speaks for the America Last crowd or, perhaps, the Hate America gang. 

In either case, more Democrats need to realize that a narrative has quickly formed and a counter-narrative, that President Trump has put our soldiers in harm's way, must arise. It will be hard to motivate Democrats to do that. Here is a suggestion: pretend Donald Trump is blaming Barack Obama, not Joe Biden, and Democrats will do something about it. 

Share |

Illegal Orders No Obstacle

On ABC's This Week without George Stephanopoulos, Senator Elissa Slotkin told Martha Raddatz

This president in the last administration, his last administration, asked his secretary of defense and his chairman of the Joint Chiefs to, quote, "shoot at their legs” at unarmed protesters in front of the White House that he wanted moved.

Raddatz responded "Actually, I know- I know you're talking about Mark Esper's book," to which Slotkin replied "yeah" and Raddatz commented "He didn't exactly say that. he said the president suggested that, but they were never ordered to do that."

Well, Martha, you got us there because in Esper's book 

"The president was enraged," Esper recalled. "He thought that the protests made the country look weak, made us look weak and 'us' meant him. And he wanted to do something about it.

"We reached that point in the conversation where he looked frankly at [Joint Chiefs of Staff] Gen. [Mark] Milley and said, 'Can't you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?' ... It was a suggestion and a formal question. And we were just all taken aback at that moment as this issue just hung very heavily in the air."

It was not an order, but a mere "suggestion." Raddatz also asked "Do you- so- so, let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?" Slotkin responded

To my knowledge, I -- I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes and everything related to Venezuela. And I think that's why --

A few questions later, Raddatz maintained

And with these service members calling you, couldn't you have done a video saying just what you just said? If you are asked to do something, if -- if you are worried about whether it is legal or not, you can do this. It does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.

The Michigan senator noted that when a member of the armed services with a concern approaches her, he or she is told "go to your JAG officer, ask them for explanation, for top cover, for their view on things."

That's fine but inadequate, thus giving rise to this objection from Utah's senior US Senator:

Why would one encourage troops to ignore orders from the commander in chief—based on an apparent presumption the he issues illegal orders—in the absence of illegal orders?
pic.twitter.com/A3YZ0RqPs2

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) November 24, 2025

It's hard to blame Lee for being opportunistic by jumping on a mistake by omission by a Democratic colleague, who might have mentioned that three days earlier

that President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops in Washington D.C. was likely unlawful and inflicted serious harm on the District’s right to govern itself.

 U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, appointed by former President Joe Biden, found that the Trump administration overstepped the law when it deployed more than 2,000 Guard members into D.C. streets for routine patrols.

This wasn't the last word because

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb put her order on hold for 21 days to allow the Trump administration time to either remove the troops or appeal the decision. The ruling marks another flashpoint in the months-long legal battle between local leaders and the president over longstanding norms about whether troops can support law enforcement activities on American streets.

Nonetheless, the moral of the story remains that President Trump issued an order which probably is illegal and at least could raise in the minds of Armed Services personnel a question about its legality. Yet, Senator Lee claims there has been "an absence of illegal orders." 

This wasn't an isolated order given that ten days before Judge Cobb determined that the Administration had violated the law with deployment of Guard members to the District of Columbia, free speech organizations had filed a friend-of-the-court brief 

in the Supreme Court in Trump v. Illinois, the state’s lawsuit challenging President Trump’s attempt to federalize National Guard troops and deploy them into Chicago and surrounding counties. Both the federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have so far blocked this deployment. The case is at the Supreme Court on the Trump administration’s emergency application seeking to stay or temporarily lift the lower courts’ orders blocking the deployment.

Most recently are the strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean. Call the victims "narco-terrorists-  as does Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth- they still are very likely extrajudicial killings. 

Never issued an an illegal order, my foot.  If no illegal order is contemplated, someone inform the President, who asked in a post on his ironically named Truth Social (emphasis his)"LOCK THEM UP???" and reposted someone else's "HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD!" He neglected to say "I haven't issued any illegal orders and wouldn't."  Credit him with uncharacteristically not lying.

On November 24, Hegseth labeled the video "despicable, reckless, and false." It is unclear what was "false." Was it "you can refuse illegal orders" or "it's a difficult time to be in public service" or "Americans trust their military?" Hegseth doesn't say, yet now has initiated against Senator Mark Kelly, retired U.S. Navy captain, a "thorough review" to "determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures." Still no claim that the President has issued no illegal order nor that he will not in the future..

In March, US District Judge James Boasberg ordered aircraft taking accused gang members to Venezuela to return to the USA. Instead, they landed in Venezuela and the detainees were held in what is considered a "notorious prison." Boasberg found probable cause to hold the Administration in criminal contempt of court and a hearing is scheduled for December 1. One expected witness is "a former U.S. Justice Department attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint that claims a top official in the department suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members."

Not only have illegal orders been issued by this regime, the President's reaction on November 23 to the video by the Patriotic 6 contains a glaring omission. He contended

The traitors that told the military to disobey my orders should be in jail right now, not roaming the fake news networks trying to explain that what they said was OK. It wasn't, and never will be. It was sedition at the highest level, and sedition is a major crime. There can be no other interpretation of what they said.

Funny it is that Senator Lee and other Trump sycophants are claiming on behalf of the President what the latter won't claim himself- that no illegal order has been issued.

Terrorism is the go-to term today to rationalize any illegal action. Our future may include "gambling terrorists" or "shoplifting terrorists" or even "Democratic terrorists." (Trump himself already has gone there.).  The possibilities are endless. When the Administration more brazenly ignores court orders, we probably will hear of "judicial terrorists," especially if we don't oppose illegal actions as boldly as have those six members of the House Democratic caucus.

   

Share |

No Holds Barred

No doubt you remember

George Floyd's murder in Minneapolis in May 2020 sparked the largest racial justice protests in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement. But the movement went far beyond this nation's borders — it inspired a global reckoning with racism.

This time last year, countries across the globe had some of the largest Black Lives Matter protests in their history, all inspired by the video of Floyd brutal death in police custody on May 25, 2020. Crossing continents and cultures, Black activists saw Floyd's death as a symbol of the intolerance and injustice they face at home.

Some of these countries had their own George Floyd — a Black person whose death by police brutality or racial violence created national outrage. Everywhere, activists knew there was no going back to the way things were before they witnessed Floyd's final moments.

President Biden said that when he met with Floyd's young daughter Gianna, she told him, "Daddy changed the world." These worldwide protests show how right she was.

Chauvin was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned, as he should have been. However, contrary to Biden's enthusiasm, the movement the crime spawned did not change the world, and it changed the nation in an unexpected way. Exactly one month before the 2024 elections, Chris Stein of The Guardian reported

Since Floyd’s death in May 2020, Republican-led states have enacted laws expanding the definition of rioting to encompass protesters who stayed peaceful when others did not, protecting drivers who run over demonstrators that block roads and enhancing penalties against protesters who target oil and gas infrastructure and deface monuments. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL), which tracks the legislation, has found that hundreds of proposals have been made by state and federal lawmakers nationwide, and more than two dozen signed into law.

The push comes as the GOP’s standard bearer, Donald Trump, campaigns for the presidency on a platform that includes suppressing protests. He has vowed to deploy the national guard “where there has been a complete breakdown of law and order”, while simultaneously promising pardons for people convicted over the January 6 insurrection. As president, Trump reportedly encouraged the military to shoot protesters, and, this year, allies such as the speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, have said the national guard should be used against college students demonstrating over Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

And then Donald Trump was elected President for a second time. Arguably, the Black Lives Matter protests were a miserable failure, having created relatively little change and sparking a major backlash. Inarguably, the rationale for the movement was grossly exaggerated.

While police overreach against black males no doubt has continued, nothing since has compared to the grotesque murder of George Floyd. None has been reported and in the age of Everyone a Photographer, we would know it if it had.  Ben Crump would have been at the scene of the crime, surrounded by the distraught family of the deceased. MSNBC, CNN, NewsNation, and possibly even Fox News would run video footage repeatedly. Social media, obviously, would be all over it.

Despite other incidents which shock the conscience and are emblazoned on our minds, other events of abuse have transpired which are not only much more common but cast a light on a very dark side of law enforcement, circa 2025. In a video released by U.S. Representative Herb Conaway (D-NJ)

A Ring camera recording appears to show masked federal immigration agents at the doorstep of a Burlington Township woman’s house. The jackets read “POLICE,” and one patch reads “ERO,” but they never identify which agency they represent. They present no badge and no warrant.

“Can I help you?,” the woman is heard asking the men at her door.

“Good morning, this is the police, can you come to the door? Is anyone home right now?,” one of them says.

The woman, who tells the officers she is out of town dealing with a family death, repeatedly tells them no one is inside. But the knocking intensifies. The officers insist they are looking for a man, his name redacted in the recording, and demand to know whether he lives there. The woman says she doesn’t know him. The questioning continues.

“Do you have a warrant? Show me a warrant,” she says. “What kind of problem are we going to have?,” one of the men says.

“No, there’s no one home … why do you have a mask on?,” she says. “It’s cold out here,” comes the response.

The woman, who tells the officers she is out of town dealing with a family death, repeatedly tells them no one is inside. But the knocking intensifies. The officers insist they are looking for a man, his name redacted in the recording, and demand to know whether he lives there. The woman says she doesn’t know him. The questioning continues.

“Do you have a warrant? Show me a warrant,” she says. “What kind of problem are we going to have?,” one of the men says.

Lacking a warrant but wearing a mask, they are what we once called "armed intruders," though presumably they are agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Of course, that's not to suggest there aren't opportunists roaming neighborhoods while wearing a mask and sporting a jacket with a "POLICE" patch.

In a foreboding observation, Representative Conaway remarks "there was another incident around the same time. It appears they are stepping up operations here in New Jersey." They are in jurisdictions in the nation without the apparent approval or even knowledge of state or local authorities, in what in the past we'd call a national secret police force. Combine that with the the declaration by White House Deputy Chief of Staff that ICE agents have immunity from federal or state prosecution (of questionable legality) and the President Trump's assurance "they can do whatever the hell they want" and masked men can act with virtual impunity.

As far as anyone has noted, we've never had a situation in which local, state, or federal authorities have said law enforcement "can do whatever the hell they want" and would be protected from prosecution.  Yet, now we have the President and one of his top advisers saying what even the most inhumane and racist southern sheriff of the 20th century would have avoided saying about blacks. 

It's unlikely that a murder as unjustified as that of George Floyd will happen any time in the next several years. And if it does, we will hear of it, see it, and watch as the offender is prosecuted and probably severely punished. Meanwhile, stealth agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are on the move in much of the country, doing as they wish with no Brown Lives Matter movement on the horizon.

Share |

Refusing to Be Silent

Excellent:

                

Forget the Republican Party, whose members- aside from Representatives Massie, Mace, and Boebert, and Greene- were set to vote against the release of the Epstein files until the latter resisted pressure from President Trump. This is the real Republican Party:

This is sickening. Democrats started by encouraging attacks on law enforcement. Now they’re urging officers to violate the chain of command and ignore the law—a direct attack on our constitutional republic. pic.twitter.com/X2YCof82BT

— Senator Ashley Moody (@SenAshleyMoody) November 20, 2025

"They" must be a chapter name in the GOP playbook. As was the case with many conservatives, such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah, it was "they" who killed Charlie Kirk. Now, Florida's Senator Moody says, in the video below, "They were hinting at it when they were encouraging people to attack our officers in the middle of cities." Seen in the context of the Senator's response to the question, the "they" clearly does not refer to the six Senators. It refers to, well, "them." 

Nonetheless, nothing says "Republican" more these days than "lie." Moody claims Democrats are urging officers to "ignore the law." 

But the ad speaks only of illegal orders. Senators Slotkin and Kelly assert "you can refuse illegal orders." Representative Crow- legally correctly notes "you must refuse illegal orders." 

It's ironic that presidential press secretary Karoline Leavitt would weigh in as she did on the same day as the funeral service for former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney was (still is) the public official most associated with the unitary executive theory, in which the President commands total and personal control over the entire executive branch.

And so it was that Lying Leavitt, asked about President Trump's threat against the Democratic congress members, would maintain at the news conference on Thursday

Why aren't you talking about what these members of Congress are doing, to encourage and incite violence? They are literally saying to 1.3 million active duty servicemembers to defy the chain of command, not to follow lawful orders.... Every single order that is given to the United States military by this Commander in Chief and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War, is lawful. And the courts have proven that.

BREAKING: Karoline Leavitt got brutally fact checked in real time, accusing Democrats of telling the military not to follow lawful orders. Reporter: Actually they said illegal orders.

More live fact-checks, please.pic.twitter.com/s38g4qwNvY

— Really American 🇺🇸 (@ReallyAmerican1) November 20, 2025

Nevertheless, the lies keep coming because that's the way the President wants it and the assorted enablers and sycophants pay no price.  Yet, if Donald Trump is to accomplish his goal of complete despotic control, he'll eventually need the support of the military. That would require officers and enlisted men and women to comply with one or more illegal orders and there are at least six Democratic Senators and Representatives who are sounding the alarm.

Share |

The National Embarrassment

People, at least those not taken over by PTDS (Pro-Trump Derangement Syndrome) are justifiably perturbed by this:

 SHOCKING: In a disgusting moment, Trump shouted personal insults at a reporter asking him about incriminating evidence in the Epstein files, shouting "Quiet! Quiet Piggy."

The President of the United States is a disrespectful, unfit creep. pic.twitter.com/u5VLgGlnBf

— Really American 🇺🇸 (@ReallyAmerican1) November 18, 2025

Facing little blowback, it was time to pick it up a notch.

Trump suggests Khashoggi had it coming: "You're mentioning someone that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen. But he knew nothing about it. You don't have to… pic.twitter.com/uhh8VjFy20

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 18, 2025

At a news conference/photo-op on Tuesday at the White House, ABC News' Mary Bruce posed a question to President Donald Trump and the former Crown Prince, now Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia:

MB: Is it appropriate, Mr. President, for your family to be doing business with Saudi Arabia while you're President. is that a conflict of interest? And Your Royal Highness, US intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9/11 families are furious. Why should Americans-  

DT: Who are you with?

MB: ABC News, sir.

DT: Fake News. ABC News, one of the worst in the business. But I'll answer your question.

After lying about is involvement in the family business, Donald added

As far as this gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job. You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about, whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen but he ne knew nothing about it and we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.

After the Saudi autocrat feigned concern about Jamal Khashoggi's "death," Trump

criticized Bruce for asking the prince a “horrible, insubordinate and just a terrible question.” He laced into her after a third query, about why the White House is waiting for congressional action to release more details about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s correspondence. “Why not just do it now?” Bruce asked.

“It’s not the question that I mind,” Trump said. “It’s your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. It’s the way you ask these questions.”

After addressing the Epstein question, he returned to Bruce, saying that “people are wise to your hoax.”  

In October of 2018, The New York Times reported

Saudi agents were waiting when Jamal Khashoggi walked into their country’s consulate in Istanbul two weeks ago. Mr. Khashoggi was dead within minutes, beheaded, dismembered, his fingers severed, and within two hours the killers were gone, according to details from audio recordings described by a senior Turkish official on Wednesday…

American intelligence officials say they have growing circumstantial evidence that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved in the disappearance of Mr. Khashoggi, who entered the consulate in Istanbul more than two weeks ago to obtain a document for his coming wedding and did not emerge.

Despite leading Saudi officials denying involvement in the murder, they "reiterated their conclusion that a team of 15 Saudi agents, some with ties to Crown Prince Mohammed, was waiting for Mr. Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate the moment he arrived, at about 1:15 p.m. on Oct. 2." 

The following month, the C.I.A. concluded that the murder of Mr. Khashoggi was ordered by the man whom Trump on Tuesday praised for having "done a phenomenal job." Khashoggi needed documents to prove that he was divorced in order to marry his fiancee.  Mohammed bin Salman, according to the C.I.A., told his brother, the Saudi ambassador to the USA, to tell Khashoggi to go to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul the following day to obtain the documents, There he was assassinated.

 

Khashoggi was a citizen of Saudi Arabia and resident of the USA, in voluntary exile from the Kingdom while writing columns for The Washington Post urging moderate reform of the monarchy.   Although not an American citizen, the journalist was a graduate of Indiana State University and at least two of his adult children are citizens of the USA.

He deserved better from the President of the USA. Yet, so did Mary Bruce and Catherine Lucey, the White House correspondent for Bloomberg labeled "piggy" by the leader of the Free World, who much prefers the noun to the object of that preposition. They deserve much better. We deserve much better.

Yet, the American press proceeds as usual, as if it is unaware that the President is determined to suppress not only dissent, but only questioning. "Don't embarrass our guest," says the guardian of the most powerful military in world history, who asserts power and influence over American citizens while frightened even to question heads of state of large dictatorships. He is both aggressively domineering and, when national interests demand strength, a pathetic coward.

 

Share |

Anti-Transparent Transparency

As Politico notes

Capitol Hill Republicans are rapidly falling in line behind a bill that would force the disclosure of Justice Department files concerning Jeffrey Epstein after President Donald Trump signaled Monday he would sign it.

Two prominent House committee chairs said they planned to support the bill compelling the release of materials related to the late convicted sex offender, and GOP leaders are exploring whether to advance the measure under special fast-track rules later this week.

The French say, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."  The more things change, the more they stay the same. The President advocated release of the files, then continually called the documents a "hoax" and lobbied House Republicans to oppose their release, and now has called for their release.

Chris Cillizza (video below) understands Republicans are thinking "it's time to move on" and "there is a recognition by Republicans that the more time they spend talking about Jeffrey Epstein, the worse." 

He understands that Trump can count votes, realizes that the vote in the House and then in the Senate will pass, and doesn't want to be on the losing side. Additionally, there is this from The Bulwark's anti-Trump veteran GOP strategist:

When you’re getting run out of town, jump in front and call it a parade. https://t.co/YzSX5n0FgA

— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) November 17, 2025

That is Trump's M.O. Recall that in in 2022

Former President Donald Trump on the eve of the Missouri primaries gave his much-coveted endorsement in the Republican primary for Missouri's open Senate seat, but there was some confusion about who had been selected.

"I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!" Trump wrote in a statement Monday night.

And with that, Trump apparently rejected anyone in the field of 19 who is not named Eric. There are two leading candidates who share the first name: Attorney General Eric Schmitt and former Attorney General Eric Greitens, and one candidate trailing them.

(Eric won.)

Cillizza fears, realistically, that (emphasis his) "even if he signs this into law and says "the Department of Justice needs to release all its files on the Epstein investigation, I think the DOJ could come back and say "well, we're in the midst of some ongoing investigations- we can't release all that stuff."

Unfortunately, there probably is another, more sinister and dangerous, reason, first divulged by Illinois senator Dick Durbin.  The Times of India reports

An old report has brought back a question Donald Trump's team hoped would disappear: did the FBI work through the night to remove his name from the Jeffrey Epstein files before saying there was nothing left to release? The timing is important as Trump has suddenly reversed his stance on making the documents public.

Trump announced on Truth Social: "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide." It marked a sudden U-turn after months of resisting pressure from both parties. His shift only came once it became clear that the house was preparing to move forward without him.

The move was surprising given that Trump had previously dismissed the Epstein issue as a  Democratic "hoax" despite having campaigned on transparency in 2024. Bloomberg reported in August this year that an FBI FOIA team had already blacked out Trump's name from the documents during an exhaustive internal review. 

Sources familiar with the process told Bloomberg "We know from news reports that Trump's name was in the Epstein files. But what hasn't been reported is that an FBI FOIA team redacted Trump's name and the names of other prominent public figures from the documents."

The review involved up to 1,0000 FBI agents and staff working through more than 100,0000 documents.

The White House referred questions about the redactions to the FBI. The FBI declined to comment and the Justice Department offered no response. In July, DOJ and the FBI said they had collected more than 300 gigabytes of Epstein-related evidence but concluded that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."

In a fitting choice of words, the publication observes "downplaying the gravity of the situation, Trump has now pivoted...."  

As is the case with most organizations and individuals, public officials need to be nimble and there is no one more skilled than Donald Trump at pivoting from one side to the other and back again. Democrats must adjust to the new reality that the files, in one manner or another, are likely to be released.

 Presumably, there will be little mention of Donald Trump other than to highlight his unequaled humility, manly dedication to women and girls, and existential greatness.  How Democrats respond to the release and their contents may define the remainder of President Trump's second term. They need to devise a strategy to address the false narrative which will be depicted because, whether the impact is direct or indirect, nothing less than democracy's future is at stake.

 

Share |

J.D. Vance, Again Feigning Ignorance

A podcaster who is running for the US House of Representatives from Missouri is right about immigrants and investors and wrong about a remark being complete nonsense.

This is complete bullshit. Immigrants aren’t buying houses. Investors are. They are admitting it quarterly. https://t.co/0EuTJKJ9mq

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 14, 2025

The Cato Institute, which is as a libertarian organization is wrong about almost everything

On the blog of the Cato Institute, as a libertarian organization wrong about almost everything, points out

As a libertarian organization, the Cato Institute is wrong about almost everything. However, one of its bloggers notes that a disproportionate percentage of immigrants works in the construction industry but

all immigrants demand housing. Even immigrants who work in construction increase housing demand first before they can construct more housing. That increase in demand drives up prices and incentivizes new supply through further construction, renovation, or increasing the supply of rental units through other means. However, the marginal immigrant increases housing demand more than he increases housing supply.

Thus, immigrants do place some upward pressure on housing prices. However, the tweeter without a first name is correct:

         

a) Blackstone & other groups that are gobbling up all the housing inventory, to perpetually rent out;
b) AIRBNB;
c) legal immigration from high net-worth folks who buy, often cash.

The illegal imm working as a landscaper is not outbidding… https://t.co/CeNOYaAVlO

— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) November 14, 2025

These, and several other, are the reasons for our chronic shortage of housing. Please inform J.D. Vance. 

JD Vance: "A lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens." pic.twitter.com/3zWrklTNR8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 13, 2025

Name-checking Springfield, Ohio, Vance argued also during the presidential campaign that the demand for housing by illegal immigrants is pushing upward the cost of homes. Nobody asked him how those individuals without a Social Security card were able to obtain a home mortgage loan. Nor is it likely they'd be able to pay for a house with cash, no matter how much they were saving on food bills in Springfield with their cat-focused diet.

Share |

Americans Last

I suppose tomorrow I need to destroy m unexpired D size Duracell batteries manufactured in the USA.

There is a split in MAGA land, one aside from disagreement over Israel, the high cost of living, and release of the Epstein files. Though less visible and contentious, it goes to the heart of what Donald Trump is.:

Incredible exchange on H1B visas.

Laura Ingraham: “We have plenty of talented people here.”

Trump: “No you don’t.”

Sometimes I love Trump. He’s in many ways so much better than the movement of resentful losers that he leads. pic.twitter.com/K4hveTDoY9

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) November 12, 2025

That segment from Laura Ingraham's interview of President Donald Trump on Fox News on November 12, 2025 illustrates a difference in attitude toward the American people.

DT: No, you don't have- you don't have certain talents and people have to learn. You can't take people off an unemployment line and say "I'm going to put you into a factory where we're going to make missiles or I'm going to put you into-

LI: Why did we ever do it before- when you and I were growing up?

DT: Well, I'll give you an example. In Georgia, they made it because they wanted illegal immigrants, uh. They had people from South Korea. They made batteries all their life. You know, making batteries is a very complicated- it's not an easy thing to- it's very dangerous, a lot of explosions, a lot of problems. They had like five or six hundred people, early stages to make batteries and to teach people how to do it. Well, they wanted them to get out of the country- you don't need that here, Laura. 

I know you and I disagree on this. You can't just say a country's coming in, they're going to invest $10 billion to build a plant and you know, take people off an unemployment line who haven't worked in five years and they're going to start making their missiles. It doesn't work that way.

Bless her heart. Laura Ingraham apparently was under the misapprehension that Trump's trade policy, characterized by off-and-on, bobbing and weaving tariffs has had something to do with expanding the USA's manufacturing basis.

It never was. The "what's in it for me" President may have varied motives for the games he has played with trade, including blackmailing or rewarding some businesses. Less than a month into the tariffs, Pro Publica reported 

.... the White House released a list of more than a thousand products that would be exempted.

One item that made the list is polyethylene terephthalate, more commonly known as PET resin, the thermoplastic used to make plastic bottles.

Why it was spared is unclear, and even people in the industry are confused about the reason for the reprieve.

But its inclusion is a win for Reyes Holdings, a Coca-Cola bottler that ranks among the largest privately held companies in the U.S. and is owned by a pair of brothers who have donated millions of dollars to Republican causes. Records show the company recently hired a lobbying firm with close ties to the Trump White House to make its case on tariffs.

Whether the company’s lobbying played any role in the exemption is unclear. Reyes Holdings and its lobbyists did not respond to questions from ProPublica. The White House also did not comment, but some industry advocates say the administration has rebuffed requests for exemptions.

Perhaps Trump has been eager to impose a high tariff against a nation and then after negotiations, lower them, proving again that he's the awesome dealmaker he always claims to be. The President does see the world as a zero-sum game, in which everything begets a winner and a loser. If a leader elsewhere is hurt or harmed, Donald believes, he is helped by the same degree.

But it has nothing to do with a country Donald clearly doesn't like. Whether he's calling the USA "evil," its people generally "fat, bloated, and disgusting," or dishonoring deceased or active members of the Armed Services, he has made contempt for Americans clear. 

And now, while millions of Americans- with Trump's help- are losing access to food they can afford:

Just a little confused. Why would you take an 'America First' Oval Office and redecorate it in a very obvious European style? It's 18th-century French Rococo, a style born in Paris during the reign of Louis XV (1715–1774). Nothing American about this at all. This is for a king. pic.twitter.com/3ueFuD2RmZ

— Now The End Begins (@NowTheEndBegins) November 11, 2025

Maybe the key is in "nothing American about this at all."  Donald makes policy based on what helps him and his family., with extra points if it hurts others. Tariffs never had anything to do with rebuilding the country's manufacturing base because Donald Trump has about as much regard for American workers as, well, nations of the Middle East have for Palestinians.

Share |

The Right Enemies

Finally, common sense.

No, not Karoline Leavitt, press secretary of President Donald Trump, but one BBC reporter who notes a not-odd couple.

BREAKING 🚨 Karoline Leavitt just said President Trump OFFICIALLY SUES the BBC for doctoring his Jan 6th speech. Sue them into bankruptcy

"This is a leftist propaganda MACHINE”

MIC DROP 🔥

pic.twitter.com/Nqkwxf01R1

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) November 12, 2025

The London Economic reports

Broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby has defended the BBC by pointing to who the most vocal critics of the corporation are.

On Sunday, director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness both announced their resignations, following criticism over a the way a Panorama documentary edited Donald Trump’s infamous January 6 speech in 2021.

A leaked 19-page memo on impartiality by Michael Prescott, a former external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, ruled the broadcaster gave the impression that he told supporters he would march with them to the US Capitol to “fight like hell.”

Trump has subsequently threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn in damages if the corporation doesn’t issue a full apology and retraction of the programme.

America isn’t the only foreign power to have attacked the BBC.

A statement from Israel’s London embassy on Monday stated: “For years, we have repeatedly warned about the BBC’s consistent failures to uphold the standards of accuracy, impartiality, and integrity expected from a public broadcaster.”

Wait for it; wait for it-

Meanwhile, the Russian embassy shared a post on X on Tuesday which said BBC journalists “manipulate facts & censor information that does not align with their partisan editorial stance.”

It added: “Ideological dogma has replaced journalistic ethics there, distorting the very principles of media independence & freedom of information.”

Following all this, former BBC journalist Jonathan Dimbleby has suggested criticism from states run by Putin, Trump and Netanyahu might be the perfect defence for the corporation.

Speaking to LBC, he said: “If you’ve got the combination of Netanyahu, Putin and Trump denouncing the BBC, there must be something quite good about it.”

He continued: “The one salvation of the BBC will be that as we gain a little bit more perspective, people will recognise that it is actually the most trusted and impartial broadcasting institution in the world.”

As to Israel, your mileage may vary. However, it's only appropriate that Donald Trump and the government of Vladimir Putin hold a similar view of press freedom. The enemy of both is the free press. In few instances has the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" been more applicable. 

Share |

Dangerous Misconception(s)

Oh, yes. Sure, Joe!

Joe Rogan: "It's not that Trump doesn't have faults. He most certainly has faults, but we all have faults. But they had control of the media and they turned him into something that he wasn't just 10 years ago to them."pic.twitter.com/f0Hj1noLzJ

— Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) November 9, 2025

As the saying from last decade goes, that (comment) didn't age well.

A disgrace that FOX gives what is basically free political advertising to Trump during an NFL game. https://t.co/svliG7e2ax

— Congressman Brendan Boyle (@RepBrendanBoyle) November 9, 2025

Trump was offered a platform to repeat, and reinforce, some of his go-to lies. He was set up with the non-question "We'd love to hear your thoughts about where we are as a nation, how we're doing."  The President replied

Well, we're doing  great and recruitments is doing phenomenally and, uh, people have spirit, the stock market hit an all-time high, prices are coming down. We inherited a mess, prices are coming way down, and I'll tell you, our country has over $17 trillion they have invested, which is a record. So we're doing great.

So great that his party, north, south, east, and west, was pummeled on on Election Day. Military recruitment in fact has been on the rise, since before Trump was re-elected. Prices are increasing, not decreasing. And the $17 trillion figure Trump has cited periodically is far larger than the $8.8 trillion claimed in the White House website, which itself is a gross exaggeration. Even the rise in the stock market is shaky, with most economists believing it is built on a foundation of sand, with the artificial intelligence craze leading the way. Things are not "great" or even good.

Nonetheless, the danger is not in what Trump says but that the media generally has been fine with it, notwithstanding Rogan's imagination. 

For what seems several years but has been far less, we have heard "Russia. Russia. Russia." as a dismissive reference to the investigation of Donald Trump for the interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election.  Yet, in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Special Counsel Robert Mueller identified

accounts of dozens of contacts between senior members of the Trump campaign and several Russians, including those who said they were Russian government agents, for the purpose of electing Donald Trump and defeating Hillary Clinton. It includes reports of secret meetings with campaign officials, including two members of the Trump family, which Mueller concludes violate campaign finance laws.

Mueller did not accuse anyone of "collusion" because "collusion" is not a legal term and is not in itself a federal crime.

Moreover, Mueller remarked "(I)f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment." That sounds a lot like "we suspect he did but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in court would be uncertain."

Approximately 17 months after the Mueller report was released, the Senate Intelligence Committee- chaired Marco Rubio of Florida- revealed, as explained here

how the Trump campaign willingly engaged with Russian operatives implementing the influence effort. For instance, the report exposes interactions and information exchanged between Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. According to the report, campaign figures “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.” (Manafort was later convicted of tax and bank fraud.)

Yet, Trump would continually refer to the controversy as a "hoax," His acolytes consistently followed suit. As recently as twelve months ago, a statement by the Ohio Senate majority referred to "the same Democrats who pushed the Russia collusion hoax" and claimed- dishonestly- that the Steele dossier "was debunked by the Mueller report."  It did no such thing.

And still it goes on. However, broadcast media still allows Republicans of all sort to go on the air, call "Russia, Russia, Russia" a hoax, assert that the Mueller report found there was no collusion, and that the Steele dossier has been debunked.

Only one item in the Steele dossier- a collection of uncorroborated intelligence reports intended to be just that- has been shown to be false. Trump attorney Michael Cohen did not meet in Prague during the 2016 campaign.

And yet, even the august New York Times ran an article in 2021 entitled- inaccurately- "why the discredited dossier does not undercut the Russia investigation." Cut to 2025 and President Trump is blaming Ukraine for defending itself against aggression by Moscow, but somehow the Steele dossier is routinely slammed as "debunked" or "discredited," and the media goes along as if the critic has remarked something as innocuous as "it's hot in Miami in August."

This is not old news or moot. Much of Donald Trump's political success and power stems from his claim that he was cheated out of becoming your, and my, President by Democratic shenanigans, assisted by the media, in 2016. Add to that refusal of the media to label as a "lie" Trump's obviously false statements. And his rapidly declining health (video below from Australian television). Further, there is the conventional wisdom that Mr. Trump was hit by a bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania in July, 2024.

    

As of this past April, Donald was prescribed two medicines for cholesterol reduction, one for a skin condition, and aspirin.

Well, yes, aspirin, a de facto drug which prolongs bleeding time and inhibits platelet aggregation. And yet, struck by a bullet or a bullet fragment- the FBI's conclusion- the victim did not even require stitches. It is unknown exactly how long he bled because hospital doctors did not issue a statement or hold a news conference, nor was a medical report ever released.

Nonetheless, an AP article nearly two weeks after the crime was entitled "FBI says Trump was indeed struck by bullet during assassination attempt." In the minds of most Americans, that reads "bullet," not "bullet or bullet fragments."  

Aware of all that- more likely, not aware of all that- Joe Rogan appears convinced that the media has ceaselessly victimized Donald Trump. This self-delusion, shared by the vast majority of Trump supporters, will continue while Republicans uniformly embrace the President, Democrats don't question the zombie lies, and the media has no incentive to own up to their pro-Trump, pro-GOP bias.

Share |

Don't Hold Your Breath

Free money! You can't beat that.

That will fix inflation, great plan. Very strong plan. pic.twitter.com/6vra7Uzc6U

— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) November 9, 2025

Not so fast:

Bessent: “The $2,000 dividend (that Trump just promised Americans) could come in lots of forms. It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing.”pic.twitter.com/DBbYIjg9K6

&m

As the discussion on ABC's This Week turned to tariffs, Bessent stated

And then, finally, in terms of the general tariffs, we are doing these trial deals that would not be possible. We were at a tipping point in terms of the economy, in terms of our trade balance, and we are re-balancing successfully.

When Stephanopoulos responded "Do you have a proposal, a formal proposal, to give a $2,000 dividend to every American?", the Treasury secretary replied 

I haven't spoken to the president about this yet, but, you know, it could -- the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways, George. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president's agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security. Deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions that, you know, are being financed in the tax bill.

Investopedia describes "dividends" as "a percentage of a company's earnings paid to its shareholders as their share of the profits. Dividends are generally paid quarterly, with the amount decided by the board of directors based on the company's most recent earnings."

A tax decrease, a tax credit, or a tax deduction is not a "dividend." However, the media is less likely to question a "dividend" than "free money" because "dividend" sounds, well, so Republican. It also bears a resemblance to the $2,000 which President Trump recommended, and Congress approved, as COVID relief funding during Mr. Trump's lame duck period.

So Bessent is lying. Trump is, also, but in a major upset, not about everything. Tariffs revenue is approximately $350 billion, not "trillions of dollars," at an annualized pace. However, Trump's estimation of a national debt of $37 trillion is reasonably accurate. Credit where credit is due.

Consequently, on November 9, 2025, President Trump made one honest statement.  It was truly a wondrous day even though, as we learned again, the Treasury secretary is a pile of green slime.

Share |