Comey violated clear Justice Department policy by disclosing shortly before the election by disclosing that Clinton was under investigation but skewed the impact by failing to disclose that Trump was, too. That could have turned the election. But nothing is ever enough for Trump.
The Comey prosecution is rightly seen as an example of corrupting the Justice Department and Trump's vindictiveness. But it also demonstrates Trump's insatiable desire for appeasement. Comey did as much as any single person to elect Trump president. www.nytimes.com/live/2025/10...
I'm not sure. Trump and Hegseth are already firing top uniformed leaders for perceived insufficient personal loyalty. If they complain about these events, we have no reason to think Trump/Hegseth will back down rather than replace the complainers with politicized hacks.
“Senior military leaders should have stepped in to prevent Trump from turning addresses at Fort Bragg and Naval Station Norfolk into political rallies; the silence of the Army and Navy secretaries, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some top generals and admirals is appalling.”
My latest on why Sen. Thune does not simply end the government shutdown by eliminating the filibuster. Balkinization: The Government Shutdown and the Filibuster share.google/UAYPuhzdrug1...
My latest, on the government shutdown. Turns out it is a lot harder to make a deal when you (a) refuse to negotiate, and (b) openly violated the last deal you made. Balkinization: Shutdown, You’d Better Take Care share.google/EsKosGQkqiyV...
My latest, on the government shutdown. Turns out it is a lot harder to make a deal when you (a) refuse to negotiate, and (b) openly violated the last deal you made. Balkinization: Shutdown, You’d Better Take Care share.google/EsKosGQkqiyV...
I’m becoming more and more concerned that people at high levels of public discussion cannot identify the difference between a genuinely viral conversation vs a bunch of bots making noise.
“Bots or likely bots authored 44.5% of X posts mentioning Cracker Barrel in the 24 hours after the new logo gained attention on Aug. 20, according to research for @WSJ by PeakMetrics. That number rose to 49% among posts calling for a boycott.”
"OMB’s memo amounts to a threat that agencies will simply continue the actions they have pursued for the past nine months. Why this would provide the Trump administration with meaningful leverage in negotiations is unclear."
White House Deputy Press Secretary seen here posting data showing how much more prevalent right wing domestic terrorism is than left wing domestic terrorism... while thinking she's showing the reverse.
Apparently she can only read headlines, but not the actual graph with the data.
WOW. The lead plaintiff is a Latino man who's been here legally for 24 years. He was grabbed off the street by plainclothes federal agents who didn't even ASK about his status.
He was detained overnight and only released once a supervisor realized he had been illegally arrested.
The Court also says it is concerned about whether mandamus is available in this case. If the Court ultimately finds no remedy, it effectively reverses Clinton v. NY, a 6-3 decision in which Justice Thomas (and then-Chief Justice Rehnquist) were in the majority. That would be a huge capitulation./End
All that being said, the Court takes seriously two arguments that are deeply unserious. It says the Administration has a possible argument that the Impoundment Control Act precludes litigation against impoundments, a position initially taken but then abandoned by the conservative D.C. Circuit panel.
That leaves open the result in challenges to domestic impoundments. There is none of the truculence we have seen in other recent shadow docket decisions favoring the Administration. And, again, most of the impounded funds will flow as they are outside the stay.
Appropriations Law is complicated, and S.Ct. appropriations cases in recent years have recognized that. The Court repeatedly emphasizes that this is only a preliminary result, grounded primarily in a balancing of the equities in favor of the President's foreign policy powers.
Deeply disappointing order from the Supreme Court in the USAID impoundment case. The Court grants a stay for something under half of the impounded funds, letting the district court's order stand for the majority of the money. A short 🧵.
So what it is saying it will do has nothing to do with a government shutdown. If it thinks politically it can do without these employees, it will illegally RIF them shutdown or no shutdown. And if it doesn't, this is all a big bluff. Either way, it should change nobody's calculation about a shutdown
In addition, federal civil service law provides procedures for RIFs, including notice, with which this clearly doesn't comply. So these are illegal RIFs. The Administration has illegally RIFed federal employees before, without any threat of an appropriations lapse.
In an appropriations lapse, it is unlawful for the Administration to take any actions not otherwise funded except to shut down the government or to protect life and property. RIFing federal employees is not necessary to shut down the government: furloughs have always proven sufficient.
Some are being misled by OMB memo on RIFs in the event of a government shutdown. It's a pure smokescreen, meant to distract from the Administration's intransigence. It's also almost certainly unlawful. A short 🧵.
People here will rant and rage against the "Democratic Consultant Class" for being too dependent on polling, and then in the next post will cite the most specious possible polls for whatever they're preferred positions are...
