The Personal Rule of Donald J. Trump continues.

The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll strikes again.

(In case anyone wants a link to the full results, they are at the link. This graph is from p.29 of the pdf.)

So on the Wurman view, the governor is not injured by having members of the state national guard removed from his control? And the governor cannot file a lawsuit to obtain an order clarifying who controls the state's guard?

That sounds like a good system.

This is not normal.

One of the reasons the administration is able to engage in this abnormal and unlawful behavior is that the Office of Special Counsel and Merit System Protection Board are no longer independent agencies. As a result, a Trump ally is acting head of OSC and the MSPB lacks a quorum.

There are times when the bad economy is not really the current President's fault (e.g., Obama inheriting Bush's economy, Biden inheriting the COVID economy).

This is not one of those times.

One worries that the theory may need a new name -- "Executive" seems a bit superfluous now.

A truly remarkable development in Unitary Executive Theory: The Vesting Clause gives the President so much power that it no longer even requires him to execute the laws, if he doesn't want to.

This is a ridiculously broad understanding of the President's foreign affairs powers -- that the Executive Branch experiences "harms to [its] conduct of foreign affairs" when it is must spend foreign aid money appropriated in a bill signed by the President. Whither Congress's power of the purse?

That's a big if too. The 2028 Senate map is brutal for Democrats; they'll be defending seats in NV (Cortez Masto), AZ (Kelly), GA (Warnock), PA (Fetterman?), NH (Hassan). If they get very lucky in 2026 and win OH or FL, they'll also be defending that seat.

(That said, if you follow the citation in that First Circuit case, you eventually get to the linked SCOTUS case. Relevant language describes a government concession that excessive pre-indictment delay can violate due process under these circumstances, see 404 U.S. at 324-25 & n.16.)

It's not called laches, but there is caselaw saying that excessive pre-indictment delay can violate due process, even if the indictment is within the SoL, if the government delayed to gain a tactical advantage and it caused substantial prejudice to the defendant. See linked case at 54.

Sounds familiar...

The leftmost flag is not an erupting volcano. It is called "The Blue Hill Banner." There is a full description on the Commission's website.

A lot of people are posting that this EO will destroy various industries. It seems more likely it will be used to harm specific companies and institutions that refuse to bow to the regime.

E.g., the tech CEOs that have donated to and flattered the President will likely see their companies spared.

Sounds like you studied the optimally efficient amount.

Of course it was unconstitutional. The only interesting question is whether any court will ever be in a position to say so (cause of action, immunity, &c.). Just like with partisan gerrymandering, we should understand that public officials are violating their oaths even if a judge never says so.

Referring to this reporting:

Doesn't it matter that reporting suggests his show really is just suspended and ABC is still considering whether and when to bring it back? Seems like Carr's threats are keeping Kimmel's show off the air on an ongoing basis.

When it's convenient, people love to pretend that testimony isn't evidence.

Just realized that the 1996 amendment to 1001 substantially limits its application to false statements to the legislature. It only applies in "administrative matters" or "any investigation or review." If a hearing does not fall into those categories, then the lack of an oath would matter.

You're right: The perjury statute does require an oath. 18 USC 1621(1). But 1001 also seems to apply. Here's a case in which both were charged: perjury for false testimony to a congressional committee and 1001 for false written submission. Nothing in 1001 says it's limited to writing, though.

Does swearing in these witnesses make any real difference? Per 18 USC 1001, it is a crime to make a materially false representation in any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, regardless of whether the person has been sworn in. Is there some other reason it would matter?

The way this year is going, it feels like that day should be coming up pretty soon.

As a result, if Massachusetts law governed Trump's suit and he weren't a public figure, then this paragraph of his complaint might actually be relevant!