Frontpage news and politics

WV GOP can't remove House candidate after eye-popping racist posts

A Republican House of Delegates candidate in Berkeley County remains on the ballot after authoring several racist posts on social media that targeted Black women and Muslims. He reportedly called the Confederate flag “beautiful.”

Chris Clagett’s social media activity, first reported by West Virginia Watch in September, drew ire from House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, R-Clay.

“If the voters of Berkeley County choose to send that attitude to the House of Delegates, it will be a lonely place,” Hansshaw told MetroNews in an interview last month.

If elected, Clagett could be left off House committees, giving him little input in the legislative process.

Early voting is underway across West Virginia and continues through Oct. 31. Clagett faces Democratic challenger David Michaels in the race.

State law prohibits the West Virginia Republican Party from replacing him at this point if Clagett had chosen to resign.

“The West Virginia Republican Party condemns the language used on social media. It is not reflective of the values of our party nor the values of our candidates running for office,” said Josh Holstein, chair of the West Virginia GOP.

The West Virginia Democratic Party called for Clagett to withdraw from the race “because he is unfit to serve the people of this district.”

Clagett did not return an email for this story nor has he responded to previous interview requests about his social media activity. He confirmed he authored the posts during a radio interview with Eastern Panhandle station WRNR about the social media posts.

In January, Clagett posted on X, “Maybe because black women are the most ill-mannered, ill-behaved, loud-mouthed demographics on the face of the Earth. Does that clarify it for you … ?” He responded to a post that said, “They always think saying I’m not doing anything means they’re not resisting arrest.”

He told WRNR radio hosts that, “context is everything,” then later said the post he responded to with the words “ill-mannered” included Black women “behaving in exactly the manner I described.”

Clagett is running to represent the 91st District in the House, which covers mostly southern Berkeley County. He ran unopposed in the May primary election.

The district is heavily Red.

Clagett’s political platform focuses on medical freedom from vaccinations, immigration enforcement and curriculum reform in public schools.

His fundraising activity has been light, with the latest campaign filing showing he has about $2,800 in cash on hand.

Michaels has $10,307 cash on hand with about a week to go until Nov. 3 Election Day. He has focused his campaign on locality pay for teachers and improving infrastructure in Berkeley County during its population increase.

No candidates with the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party or Mountain Party filed to run in the race.

The 91st district has seen a string of controversies involving its Republican House candidates. Previous candidate Joseph de Soto was arrested after making terrorist threats against sitting lawmakers.

House Republicans in January voted to vacate the seat instead of expelling de Soto, saying it was the correct way to deal with the seat since de Soto was on house arrest and never sworn in.

De Soto switched his party affiliation to Democrat before his arrest, prompting an ongoing legal challenge from the state Democratic Party that the seat should have been filled by a Democratic candidate under state law.

Gov. Patrick Morrisey appointed Ian Masters to the House seat after Republican delegate-elect Joseph de Soto, who won the November 2024 election.

Last summer, Masters denied allegations that he was responsible for an antisemitic comment made by a private Instagram account that used his name and is linked to an organization he recently led.

Masters is not seeking reelection.

Blistering NYT editorial indicts Congress' greed and ‘culture of corruption’

The New York Times Editorial Board issued a sweeping condemnation of congressional Republican leadership on Tuesday, accusing lawmakers of executing an absolute surrender of checks and balances that directly enabled economic instability, an unauthorized foreign war, and systemic government corruption.

Published ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, the editorial frames the upcoming vote as a crucial referendum on a compliant legislative branch. "Americans should be thinking of the Trump administration as they vote for members of Congress and state officials," the Board writes, urging voters to push back against "the Republican Party’s acquiescence to this abuse of power."

The primary weight of the Board's critique falls on a domestic economy groaning under the weight of unilateral executive overreach. By stepping aside and allowing the administration to enact sweeping global tariffs by executive fiat, Congress effectively abdicated its traditional power of the purse. The economic blowback has been immediate and severe for American families.

"On the economy, his policies have raised the cost of living, contributing to a decline in real wages," the Board states. The editorial details how these sudden disruptions to global supply chains forced domestic manufacturers to absorb escalating costs, triggering a wave of inflation that has squeezed household budgets nationwide. Because legislative leadership chose partisan compliance over fiscal stewardship, they left themselves entirely powerless to stop policies that drove up the costs of basic necessities, even as "interest rates are up" and "economic growth and job growth are down."

The capitulation extends heavily into foreign policy, where the Board sounds an alarm over the administration's decision to bypass the legislature entirely and initiate a direct military conflict with Iran. The editorial sharply criticizes congressional leaders for standing by in silence as the constitutional mandate requiring legislative approval for war was treated as a dead letter. By allowing major military actions to proceed on an executive whim, lawmakers placed American service members at risk and destabilized global energy markets, all while treating their own oversight powers as mere commentary.

Beyond economic and military crises, the Times details a profound institutional rot that has systematically dismantled the guardrails against internal abuse. The Board points to a calculated hollowing out of career expertise across essential federal bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Veteran scientists, policy experts, and diplomats were systematically sidelined or replaced by industry lobbyists and political loyalists, transforming public interest agencies into tools for private enrichment.

The editorial reserves its sharpest language for the unprecedented scale of executive self-dealing that occurred under the watchful protection of congressional majorities. The Board explicitly charges that the president "has created a culture of corruption and avarice with no precedent," stating that the executive "has used the levers of power, including regulatory oversight and diplomacy, to bring in billions of dollars of profit for his family business and his closest supporters." Independent watchdogs and inspectors general who attempted to flag this blatant fraud were summarily fired, while congressional committees possessing subpoena power locked their doors and looked the other way.

The Editorial Board concludes with a warning that the institutional damage inflicted by this total capitulation will far outlast any single administration, leaving behind a deeply fractured nation and a permanently weakened legislature.

Psychologist exposes the grim mission driving Trump’s ultimate endgame

Before President Donald Trump took office, there was no widespread movement in America to annex Greenland or Canada. No one thought we should prioritize renaming the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, renovating the East Potomac Golf Links or destroying the White House's East Wing to build a ballroom.

Yet millions of Americans support these things now, for no other reason than Trump wants them. And because these millions of Americans enable Trump's most grandiose whims, the rest of us seem to underplay the fact that those wishes are in fact signs of a profoundly disturbed mind. This is not mere grandstanding; Trump has draped his image over the Justice Department building and slapped it on passports, openly claimed to be America's all-time greatest president and even compared himself to Jesus Christ. Because Greenland is controlled by Denmark, America's NATO ally, Trump's threats of conquest have weakened that crucial international alliance. Similarly, by convincing Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to seek long-term trade agreements with China and the European Union, his public boasts that Canada will become "America's 51st state" (and private meddling in the ultimately-unsuccessful Albertan separatist movement) have led to a trade war loss instead of a victory.

In short, the gusts that blow through Trump's mind send chills through the worlds of global diplomacy and rattle the foundations of American democracy to their foundations. It therefore behooves us to better understand the mind. And few are more qualified to do so than Dr. Alan D. Blotcky, a clinical and forensic psychologist who wrote more than 40 articles for Salon, NY Daily News, and The Independent.

He has written extensively about how we can accurately assess Trump's motives through his public words and actions. In this exclusive interview with AlterNet, Blotcky made it clear that Trump's mind is not literally disconnected from reality. He is simply motivated by something terrifying — a desire to be "the last standing hero."

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity, context and length.

Forensic psychologist's verdict: Trump is not psychotic.

Matthew Rozsa: In 2021, you argued that President Trump was, quote, "not delusional and knew exactly what he was doing." Do you still believe that, or has anything shifted?

Dr. Alan D. Blotcky: Yeah, I still believe that. I don't think he has a psychotic illness. I think he's a malignant narcissist who thinks that if he thinks something or believes something, that he can convince the world that it's the truth. So no, I don't think he has a delusional disorder. I don't think he's psychotic. I think he knows what he's doing.

Matthew Rozsa: It sounds like you're saying that he is so narcissistic, he believes through sheer force of will he can create the world that he wants. Is that correct?

Dr. Blotcky: Exactly.

Matthew Rozsa: How is that not a form of psychosis?

Dr. Blotcky: Well, I think he knows that many things that he believes are not true. It's his narcissistic game that he plays. He sees everybody else as pawns to be manipulated, and so he manipulates the world around him to fit his needs. But I don't think his particular beliefs are so fixed that he does not understand the difference between the truth and not the truth. He doesn't care, but he knows the difference.

Matthew Rozsa: There is a difference, though, between not caring about truth versus fiction and believing one can transform fiction into truth: that one can take a fiction and, by repeating it often enough and getting others to say it often enough and sifting through evidence often enough, you can turn that fiction into the reality in which the rest of us live. Trump seems to have that.

Dr. Blotcky: Yeah, that's exactly what happens, and that's exactly how it works. And he's not a very smart man, but he knows that exquisitely well. He knows that if he repeats something over and over and over again, that a certain percentage of people will begin to believe it. Especially as president, he's this ultimate authority figure, and there's a certain percentage of the citizenry that will believe what he says because, after all, a president wouldn't lie, would he?

Matthew Rozsa: It isn't so much that they don't think the president would lie, it's that they don't think he is lying when his lies are ideologically convenient for them. So for example, when he insults Somali immigrants or trans people, somebody who is already xenophobic, racist and/or transphobic is going to believe those lies because they're already inclined to. That is my take, anyway.

Dr. Blotcky: No, that's exactly right. And that's why those are the people who are his strongest supporters, because they align with his ideology, and they don't care if he's corrupt or criminal or deceitful or morally bankrupt. They don't care as long as it fits their ideology, and so they support him and they will support him to the end.

Matthew Rozsa: If Trump is manipulating the rest of us in a way that I think can objectively be described as malicious, or at the very least unempathetic, is there any way to manipulate him back so that he doesn't cause too much harm to the aforementioned marginalized groups or to democratic institutions or to global security?

Dr. Blotcky: Well, you know, if you go back and look at all of my writings back in 2021, I always believed that ultimately pushing back on the truth with him would ultimately marginalize him and that ultimately he would be rejected. The problem is that all the Republicans in Congress have succumbed, and their silence has enabled him to be the bad president that we have. If they did their job like they were supposed to do, he would be marginalized, and even if he had been reelected, he would've been marginalized, but there's no pushback in Congress. And I did not anticipate that. I guess I probably should have, but I did not anticipate that. But to answer your question, I think the way to deal with him, the only way to deal with him, is to push back, is to keep presenting the truth and the facts to not only him, of course, but to his supporters and to the country as a whole.

The problem, again, is the free press, in my mind, has fallen down, has succumbed to him as well. They have not published nearly as many articles as they should about his false and distorted and inaccurate and harmful beliefs and views. So I think it's been difficult to deal with him because the entities around him have not pushed back like I thought they should or would. I hope that answers your question.

Forensic psychologist's verdict: Trump supporters are motivated by money and fear.

Matthew Rozsa: It does, but it also raises another one, which is the reason they capitulate. Whether you're talking about law firms like Paul Weiss or media outlets like CBS, or you're talking about universities like Dartmouth, whether you're talking about Congress, Senate and House, the reason they capitulate is because the minority of Trump supporters is large enough and wealthy enough that they can bully majorities into submission.

Dr. Blotcky: Exactly. And it ultimately comes back to money and fear, you know. The rich people, the billionaires, the controlling people in these entities have succumbed to him out of fear, and they wanna maintain their financial status, and so they're not gonna buck him because he'll take them to court. He'll file lawsuits against them. He'll stop federal payments. He'll do whatever he can do to damage them, and they're not willing to take the high ground and the morally right ground to deal with him. And so that's part of the capitulation that has gone on in this country.

Matthew Rozsa: My additional concern is that as this movement follows Trump with cult-like devotion, they themselves will display some of the malignant narcissistic behavior that you describe. Before you respond, let me give you two examples: one policy, one interpersonal. The policy example is, before Trump's obsession with conquering Greenland began, I never recall hearing anyone in this country seriously talk as if we were going to break our NATO agreement and invade Denmark to take their territory. The fact that we suddenly, on a dime, adopted this position for no other reason than one man came up with it, to me, is one sign of malignant narcissistic traits spreading. One man's narcissism suddenly infects millions who support him. Maybe not a majority, but a large enough minority that they have an impact. And the other example is, I've had several encounters with Trump supporters who are very violent, emotionally and even physically, because of how strongly they believe in him.

That too, to me, speaks to a tendency that Trump has to make everyone feel as if his problems are theirs. I apologize for being so long-winded, but I wanted to be thorough. Do you understand the question I'm asking?

Dr. Blotcky: Yeah. Look, here's my position about this, and people don't talk about this, and this may sound overly cynical or fearful. I think Trump ultimately wants to destroy everything around him so that he is the last standing hero and rich person in the world. He doesn't care about democracy, he doesn't care about this country, he doesn't care about people. All he cares about is chaos and violence, and he could care less about the destruction of America. All he cares about is the grifting that he's doing so that he can walk away with billion after billion after billion, and he can say to everybody in the world that he's the richest, the smartest, the best, superlative you can find in every area. So he doesn't give a damn about this country. And any of his supporters that think that he does is a joke, in my opinion.

Forensic psychologist's verdict: Forensic psychology helps you understand Trump.

Matthew Rozsa: Now, you are a specialist in forensic sciences. I would argue that Trump is in many ways a literal criminal, from his financial crimes to the allegations of sexual misconduct against him. As somebody who studies criminal minds, what kind of mind does Trump have? Is he more similar to a serial killer or to a conman or to a domestic abuser? How do you typologically understand Trump?

Dr. Blotcky: I would say he's more like a conman. You know, he has the mind of a conman criminal. His position, and I've heard him say it, maybe not in so many words, but he essentially says, "If you don't stop me, then what I do is okay, and it's on you. If I rob a bank and you don't stop me from robbing the bank, then me robbing the bank is fine." That's the way a conman and a criminal think, and that's how he thinks. He doesn't have a moral compass. He's reacting to everybody else, and if you don't stop me, then it's fine that I do it. And if you do stop me, then I'll go on to my next endeavor. And that's what he does.

Matthew Rozsa: So to what extent do you think your professional and academic background gives you a unique perspective on Trump?

Dr. Blotcky: Well, I don't know how far into this you wanna get, but let me just say this. You know, one of the criticisms of these kind of comments is that I've never met Donald Trump, I've never interviewed Donald Trump, I've never evaluated him. So that's an important limitation in our discussion, in any of these discussions. And that's why the Goldwater Rule continues to be a principle that we stand behind as much as we can, because it is conceivable that Donald Trump personally and his personal life is different than his public life and his public persona. I think the chances of that are not strong, but it's possible. And I wanna say that, and I want that on the record.

Matthew Rozsa: I understand that's on the record. Is that all you have to say on the subject?

Dr. Blotcky: Well, I wanna highlight that because I don't wanna be misunderstood. It's conceivable that he's different, but we do have lots of records of him over the last 10 years. We have pictures and recordings and interviews and statements, and so we have a ton of material to try to base our opinions as best we can. But look at his behavior. Look at how many people have been hurt. Look how unempathetic he is. Look at how many lives have been hurt and harmed and even ruined by him. Look at how many people died during the pandemic because of his lies and inaction. So I just say look at his behavior. I urge others to look at his behavior, not just at his claims, because as we all know, he lies more than any public official in the history of America.

Matthew Rozsa: Where I struggle is knowing that he displayed many of these traits even when he was a young man, and now that he is older, there are some who think that there are indications of cognitive decline, but in fact, it may just be the same toxic traits that he had as a young man, but now as an old man. Or it could be both. What are your thoughts?

Dr. Blotcky: Yeah. I mean, again, I haven't interviewed him or evaluated him. He's 80-something years old. I suspect with whatever medical problems he obviously has, there's a likelihood of some cognitive slippage, but I still say it is his personality traits that are causing the problem, not his cognitive slippage.

Matthew Rozsa: I agree to a point. I interviewed someone named Dr. S. Jay Olshansky. I'll pull up the quote. Are you familiar with Olshansky?

Dr. Blotcky: I am not.

Matthew Rozsa: Well, Olshansky is a University of Illinois Chicago emeritus professor best known for developing the biodemographic paradigm of mortality. He studies how to slow aging and help humans reach the upper limits of their potential lifespans. When I interviewed him, he said, "I don't trust audio that I hear. Those can be doctored and altered. I don't trust opinions of others based on video and audio because those are often influenced by politics. Bottom line is, I think very few people have any valid basis for drawing any conclusion about cognitive functioning about the president." He was adamant that anyone who has not personally met Trump is not able to offer an informed diagnosis of his mental state. But at the same time, we can observe that he slurs his words. We can observe that he falls asleep during meetings. We can observe that he engages in odd, obsessive fixations like renaming the Kennedy Center or renovating the East Potomac Golf Course or trying to annex Greenland or starting a trade war with Canada.

And notice how, while the earlier issues are pettier, the larger ones begin to have international implications. At what point does it become necessary to disregard Olshansky's warning?

Dr. Blotcky: Well, that's the ultimate question, and I think you'll interview a hundred different professionals and you'll probably get 100 different answers. I think when democracy is being attacked the way it is, mental health professionals should speak out, but that's my opinion. The APA takes a different view of that, and I think that's why there's so much silence among mental health professionals, and that's why they have virtually been silent during these past two years. But the ultimate question is, at what point is it okay to voice your opinions and to raise issues? And that's why I think it's important to understand our limitations when we do so, the limitation being that I have not interviewed him, I have not evaluated him.

It is possible that he is different personally than he is in his role now. But I think people should speak out, and that's my opinion, but other people's opinions are just as valuable as mine.

Matthew Rozsa: I have gone through my list of questions. Is there anything else you'd like to say about these subjects?

Dr. Blotcky: I wish the people that we talked about earlier, whether it be the mainstream media or members of Congress, would push back more. I think that would be in the service of democracy, and it's what we need, and that is what is failing us.

Psychologist flags 'weird' Trump dementia signs — and they’re getting worse

On Monday, a widely cited psychologist warned that President Donald Trump is displaying “more signs of apparent neurological decline.” According to Dr. John Garrison, the involuntary vocalizations, confusion, motor control problems,and inhibition problems Trump displayed at a string of rallies over the weekend could suggest seizure, dementia or some other neurodegenerative disease — and it’s getting worse.

While watching a recording of the rally, Garrison begins by noting “an involuntary vocalization” similar to other uncontrolled sounds Trump has been making while speaking lately. What’s more, the president simultaneously makes a number of twitching motions with his hands, arms and face that Garrison links to the vocalization, explaining, “I think this was all part of the same event, and in terms of what this event could be, we could be looking at seizure activity. We could be looking at a lesion in the brain related to having a stroke or something like that. We could be seeing effects of dementia. There are a wide variety of neurological possibilities when we're observing something like this.”

Moments later, Trump appears to be “struggling with language production,” and here Garrison refers to another recent rally to emphasize the president’s emerging speech problems. “The quality of his voice was odd,” notes Garrison. “The way he moved his hands was odd. I think he is struggling with motor functioning. These types of unusual behaviors are expected when someone is experiencing a neurodegenerative disease or when they are having neurological dysfunction. But,” he warns, “we're seeing this progress. We're actually seeing it get worse over time.”

This brings Garrison to a glaring example of Trump’s “poor judgment and his inability to inhibit his behavior.” During a Sunday rally in Michigan, Trump made a comment about singer Nicki Minaj’s “beautiful” posterior. According to Garrison, this was a clear sign that the president is displaying increasingly “impaired social judgment. He's always said things that were wild, but now they're more frequent, they tend to be more sexual, and they tend to be more unusual. So something like this is not only impaired social judgment -- it also shows sexual disinhibition." As Garrison elaborates, "Sometimes people with dementia make unwanted sexual statements or observations that can be very uncomfortable, and that may be exactly what we're seeing right here.”

In light of Trump's accumulating symptoms, Garrison concludes with a warning: “It shows impulsivity. It shows a whole host of problems that we're dealing with, and I think have been getting worse for President Trump lately… He seems to be using worse judgment and having a much, much harder time controlling his behavior.”

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Ex-CIA director issues dire warning about Trump DOJ’s 'devious' plot

Former CIA Director John Brennan joined MS NOW on Monday to discuss President Donald Trump’s strategy and the Justice Department’s actions as the midterm elections approach. Brennan served in his role from 2013 to 2017.

Anchor Alicia Menendez explained that DOJ guidance generally cautions against actions that could influence voters before an election, including announcing investigations or charges during the so-called 90-day “quiet period” before federal elections.

The raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) home and the investigation into her citizenship application have raised concerns about potential violations of that guidance. When asked what he’s concerned about, Brennan warned that Trump could use federal agencies to interfere with elections or challenge results.

“Well, the office of the presidency has tremendous authorities that it can use, the executive branch, as we’ve seen, whether it be the Department of Justice or ICE or other elements of the Department of Homeland Security, to disrupt the day of the election or to actually challenge the certifications afterward,” Brennan said.

Brennan also accused Trump of trying to keep the GOP in control, while criticizing Attorney General Todd Blanche for his defense of the administration.

“I think Donald Trump is going to do whatever he can get away with. And unfortunately, we have people like Todd Blanche, who I think is just showing how devious a lawyer he is by trying to defend the indefensible,” Brennan asserted. “Because the things that he’s been saying on the talk shows this weekend, I think, certainly show that he has an unprincipled view and an attitude toward his job as attorney general.”

Brennan believes Trump does not care about fair elections, going as far as accusing elections of being rigged when they do not go in his favor. “These elections are so critically important, and it’s rather curious as to why all the elections that go Donald Trump’s way, he has no problem with, in terms of saying that they were fraudulently achieved,” he explained. “Any time it goes against his way or his preferred outcome, he claims fraud, he claims a rigged election, he claims some type of interference.”

During President Barack Obama’s administration, Brennan was credited with modernizing the CIA, primarily strengthening its digital capabilities to better combat cyber threats. His career at the agency began in 1980, when he served as an analyst specializing in the Near East and South Asia, decades before his promotion as the CIA director.

Psychotherapist says Trump supporter’s bizarre claim reveals a deeper chasm

Twenty-year practicing psychotherapist Elliott Connie, who offers short, easy-to-understand analyses of the brain and how people think, sees a clear example of how words can manipulate people.

The video he highlighted was from the comedy duo known as "The Good Liars," which interviews supporters of President Donald Trump outside of rallies and events. Davram Stiefler asked a MAGA man about Trump handing farmers $8 billion after retaliatory tariffs destroyed their businesses.

The man began by saying he loves that Trump is giving farmers aid, and in the next sentence denounced "socialism," saying that "it sucks."

"What do you think about implementing socialist policies, subsidies and all those things?" asked Stiefler.

"No," the man said. "No, it's bad."

"Are you for the farmers, for the $8 billion to help them? At the time that they need it, to lift them up?" Stiefler asked, and again the man said he is.

"Yeah, they need to help people when they need it, in a time of need," the man said.

"Socialism, though?" Stiefler asked.

"No. Bad."

Connie called the human brain a "fascinating tool" that can be "tricked and manipulated" easily.

"Because if I give you confusion, if I talk to you in a way that I know you don't understand and I talk to you about ideas like in this case socialism and I know you don't know what it is, I can give you the definition for it that I want you to have. The human brain is very fascinating because it actually doesn't look for facts. It looks for comfort. So the more I hear something, the more the brain accepts that repetition as true," Connie explained.

This is why Republicans continue to use words like "socialism" or "communism" when most people don't even know what it means. Even Vice President JD Vance was asked to define socialism and struggled to do so, saying that it was if "you want to replace American workers with foreign workers and you want boys to play in girls' sports."

Connie explained that any politician must lie over and over until it becomes the truth, like Trump, who keeps saying he won the 2020 election.

"So, here's this man who clearly does not understand what socialism is or what it means, but he's been told it's bad over and over and over again," Connie said. "So much so that when a socialist program is initiated to help farmers, he can understand that that's a good thing, but cannot understand that that's a socialist policy. The dissonance, the cognitive dissonance, does not shake him."

It's not a coincidence, said Connie. It's all part of the strategy.

"They're doing this on purpose because they understand a confused mind is a mind that we can upload information that we want into. We can scare them. We can make them anxious. We can give them fear. So that's exactly what you see happening there," he said. "That man doesn't understand socialism at all, but he fears it. He doesn't understand what socialism is, but he knows he doesn't want it. That's based upon his confusion and the MAGA cult telling him what to think about it."

That sense of fear that is generated is similar to another case of a MAGA mom whose children are trying to talk her out of what they think is a cult. Chatting with a cultism expert, it became clear that she didn't support the overwhelming majority of the policies of the Trump administration, but was still voting for them.

Ultimately, the man rejects the word while supporting the policy. Connie called it "concerning" how often he sees this and urged people to "call this out as often as possible."

"The only way to combat this thinking, this ideology is with wisdom and awareness and intelligence and information," he closed.


Trump's bid to hide secret messages faces new court showdown

President Donald Trump’s administration is hoping to keep hundreds of messages about the controversial Kennedy Center takeover a secret as a new federal court showdown over the president’s plan to shut down the landmark continues.

Attorneys for Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio have asked a judge to force the Trump administration to release all the communications, including texts and emails, to determine how involved Trump was in the decision to close the performing arts venue for renovations.

The administration argues that some messages are protected by executive privilege, according to The Daily Beast. However, Beatty’s attorneys argue that withholding the communications will leave the case incomplete.

“These communications directly bear on the issues before the Court, and the claim of privilege cannot stand,” Beatty’s attorneys wrote, also calling the move possible “gamesmanship.”

The court filing shows that there were 19 text messages exchanged between Kennedy Center CEO Matt Floca and Trump’s executive assistant Natalie Harp. Eleven messages were sent on September 15, the same day the center’s Trump-aligned board voted for a third time to shut down the facility.

The disputed records also include approximately 180 messages between the CEO and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, whom Beatty’s lawyers describe as Trump’s “go-between.”

The lawyers argue the communications could show whether Trump was making the decisions, including the planned two-year closure for renovations estimated to cost as much as $257 million.

Beatty’s legal team is also disputing the administration’s argument that Trump’s executive privilege wants U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper to force the disclosure.

Trump has already faced many legal setbacks in his efforts to rename and remodel the building.

In May, Cooper ruled that the president’s name had been illegally added to the Kennedy Center building and ordered its removal.

The board then approved the shutdown of the center again in September, with Floca announcing its temporary closure later that month. However, the judge ordered officials to provide 30 days’ notice before making any major changes to the building.

Trump previously told the press that the building could be demolished if he doesn’t make major changes. “Because frankly, if we don’t do that, it’s going to close; it will end up being ripped down.”

He also made an argument as to why he deserves to have his name on the building.

“For the Trump administration, for me, to get involved, and to take on long term, and to carry it, or to raise money to carry it, I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition,” Trump said in September.

For now, the center remains closed, and the judge is yet to rule on whether the Trump admin will be forced to release the messages.

Judge nails glaring omission in brutal ruling against Trump DOJ

Editor’s Note: This story and headline have been updated.

A federal judge delivered a stinging defeat to President Donald Trump's Justice Department on Monday, ruling that its firing of former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey was illegal and ordering her retroactive reinstatement and back pay.

U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected the administration's argument that the president had the authority to fire Comey, daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, without following normal federal employment protections, according to NBC.

Furman completely rejected the Justice Department's broad legal argument in his 55-page decision, concluding that her removal was a breach of the Civil Service Reform Act.

The judge also rejected the administration's argument that Congress cannot limit the ability to dismiss federal prosecutors, saying it "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent."

Comey was canned from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York on July 16, 2025, after nearly 10 years as a career prosecutor.

Her firing came in the form of an email from Justice Department officials in Washington citing Article II of the Constitution but giving no indication whatsoever as to her performance or conduct.

According to the ruling, Comey got no advance notice and had no opportunity to respond. The government conceded that her firing was not for performance reasons and was not for cause.

Furman said the attorney general has the authority to remove assistant U.S. attorneys but is still bound by the laws that protect career federal employees.

"And Comey's removal indisputably violated the CSRA," he wrote.

The judge ordered her retroactively reinstated from the date of her dismissal through Dec. 20, 2025, with back pay. The reinstatement is limited to the period before she accepted other employment rather than requiring her to walk away from her current job.

Comey had worked on major prosecutions involving Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Sean "Diddy" Combs. Furman observed that both her supervisors and her colleagues had consistently lauded her work.

Trump supporters had publicly called for Comey's firing before she was fired. When she asked officials at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office why she had been fired, she was told only that the decision had come from Washington, according to court records.

The judge took issue with that omission, noting, "Who actually made the decision to remove Comey is not clear from the record and is, at least to some extent, disputed. The Complaint does not identify a decisionmaker."

She took the administration to court following her dismissal, claiming she was the victim of targeted retaliation either because of her father, whom Trump had fired as FBI director in 2017, or because of her perceived political views.

The ruling establishes that her dismissal violated federal law, the constitutional separation of powers, and her Fifth Amendment due process rights. It does not find that she was fired in retaliation for her father.

Furman warned that accepting the Justice Department's broad reading of executive power would upset the constitutional balance of the country.

Fox News offers explanation for Trump’s Bill Maher meltdown

On Monday, Fox News offered an explanation for President Donald Trump’s social media rant against Bill Maher over the weekend. According to one guest and comedy insider, the reason for the president’s outburst – which was the longest post he’s ever written – may have come down to one simple thing: he’d never seen Maher’s show before.

Trump’s weekend post followed a White House dinner he shared with Maher earlier in the month, who the president had previously told reporters was “great,” saying that it "was a very informative dinner.” But then shortly after Maher’s HBO show aired on Sunday, on which former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was a featured guest – Trump’s record-breaking post suggested he’d had an abrupt change of heart regarding the comedian.

"Let’s talk about this complete and total loser, Bill Maher,” Trump railed. “He’s got a Low Rated Show on equally Low Rated HBO, which was once, long ago, a Network of Quality and Excitement — But that’s all gone. It’s not 'HOT' anymore!" He added, “Also, I wanted to tell Bill that he’s a major POTHEAD. He’s got to stop, it’s very bad for his health. He looked like hell this time. Bill was drunk and had alcohol in his hand as he walked through the White House. Stephen A. Smith and Kid Rock came along with him. Overall, I thought it was a good meeting. It didn’t last four hours, it lasted two hours, maybe less, and everybody was happy. We have the timestamps. I learned nothing, and felt it was a waste of time.”

Trump also insisted that Maher’s show had become “worse” since the dinner, ranting, "There were so many other falsehoods Bill spewed, but I won’t waste time in fact checking him. He isn’t worth it. Bill: Don’t call anymore. It’s useless, and tell [producer] Chuck LaBella not to call so much, and say how much you love 'TRUMP,' and want to get together, because you’re a hopeless guy, who is just trying to cater to your small group of 'fans.' You’re also a coward who is afraid to tell the truth about how well our Country is running because of your few 'fans,' and how badly the Dumocrats have done, almost destroying the U.S.A.” He concluded, "You’re not transformative, you’re a Loser! I never watched your show much, but I will never watch it again, because it is nothing more than FAKE NEWS that America, and the World, is unfortunately subjected to."

In an effort to understand Trump’s sudden turn against Maher, Fox News spoke with comedian and media fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, Tim Young. He thought there was only one explanation for the 1,300-word invective. "I watched Bill Maher’s show this weekend and can’t figure out what set off Trump more than usual. Maher always regularly criticizes Trump,” noted Young. "Maybe it’s that Trump watched a full episode for once because Karoline Leavitt was on and realized just how much Maher criticizes him. That’s the only thing I can think happened. The president was friendly and didn’t realize just how much Maher takes cracks at him because he has never seen a full episode until now."

Republicans are furious — and 'Trump’s apocalyptic screw-up' is to blame

Things are so bad in rural America, specifically for farmers, that many long-standing red states are fed up to the point that they are seemingly turning blue. Thanks to fallout from President Donald Trump’s second administration affecting fuel prices and tariffs on agriculture, the impact on farmers has been unprecedented, with many having to file for bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy filings have jumped roughly 85 percent since his reelection. Trump is now making a last-ditch appeal as the midterm elections approach, hoping to win over voters in states with the largest number of farms.

John Tsitrian, a South Dakota business executive who writes about rural America, says Trump is at fault. “Farmers are hurting thanks to Trump’s apocalyptic screw-up,” he titled an article this summer. In the article, he gets right to the point, noting: “I believe that today’s tough farm economy, in regular need of federal cash infusions, is the result of a disaster that has a specific name attached to it: Donald Trump. Unlike most disasters, this one was utterly foreseeable. Rural voters were nonetheless responsive to his rhetoric and supported him solidly in 2024.”

A report from The Guardian reveals that polls suggest that Republican Senate candidates stand a good chance of losing in Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska and Texas, despite Trump previously winning those states in 2024. As for what caused this major shift, it was Trump’s inclusion of the U.S. in the Iran war, which increased the price of fuel by 70 percent. Fuel is a major ingredient in farming, necessary for on-farm operations such as powering machinery and heating buildings, as well as for external uses such as manufacturing. Tsitrian's article is also referenced in The Guardian's report.

Other factors have played a role in rural states’ attitude towards Trump and his administration. His “big, beautiful bill” resulted in major cuts to food assistance and Medicaid, which will cause an estimated 1.8 million rural Americans to lose health insurance and struggle with purchasing food for their families.

“He has sold out rural America with his policies,” said Jon Tester, a third-generation Montana farmer and former US senator. Rural voters previously supported Trump again due to his promises to decrease costs and keep the U.S. out of unnecessary, expensive wars overseas. Those promises were not honored.

John Hansen, president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, said that farmers “are facing the worst economic and financial crisis since the farm crisis of the 1980s” during a recent conference in Washington.

Rural farmers have spoken out in recent months. “Compared to last year, our fuel bill is $50,000 higher,” Vance Ehmke, a Kansas farmer, told the Hastings (Nebraska) Tribune,” explaining that fertilizer has added $20,000 or $40,000 increase, which he attributes to Trump’s war in Iran. “I want to tell you that I am a Republican, and I’m p——."

Things were on much more solid ground before Trump's current stay in the White House. The U.S. and Brazil previously each provided about 40 percent of China’s soybean imports. Thanks to Trump's trade wars with China and China preferring to do business with more stable partners, the U.S. now provides just 23 percent of China’s soybeans, with Brazil giving over 60 percent and Argentina 10 percent, resulting in $10 billion a year in US soybean exports. Trump's response is $8 billion in emergency aid to US farmers, announced recently at a rally in Kansas, which he refers to as the Harvest Fuel Relief Program.

Trump’s West Point gives judge the 'middle finger' after ruling: legal expert

President Donald Trump's West Point faces accusations of openly defying a federal court order, leading one legal expert to call out the prestigious military academy for giving a judge the "middle finger."

A new report shows that U.S. Military Academy officials have continued to enforce speech restrictions on civilian professors even after a federal judge last month ruled the policy unconstitutional.

Documents and emails obtained by The Washington Post show the academy still requires civilian faculty to get approval before speaking at external events, even following the September ruling that effectively prohibited enforcement of its speech policy.

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman gave a very sharp critique of the academy's behavior.

"At a minimum, it is flouting or giving the middle finger to the judge," Litman told the paper.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel ruled in September that West Point's restrictions were a First Amendment violation and permanently prohibited the academy from enforcing them on civilian professors.

The decision came after a lawsuit from Tim Bakken, West Point's longest-serving law professor, who claimed the restrictions amounted to censorship of views that were at odds with those of Trump, the Pentagon and the academy.

West Point introduced the policy in early 2025, following Trump's executive order directing military academies to stop promoting any ideas the administration deemed radical, divisive, or un-American. The policy required faculty to get approval prior to publishing research, speaking at conferences, or appearing on podcasts.

Yet, West Point Dean Brig. Gen. Nicholas Gist subsequently issued a memo to academy personnel requiring them to get approval through their chain of command for any external engagements.

Gist referred to a September 2025 directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that required personnel to get supervisory approval prior to any external appearances. The memo did not reference Seibel's ruling at all.

The Post also obtained an Oct. 1 email from a West Point legal official to a civilian professor stating that speaking at an outside event would require legal review and the dean's approval.

Three civilian professors confirmed to the paper that the approval process was still in place.

Legal scholars who reviewed the documents said citing a different Pentagon directive didn't resolve the apparent conflict with the court order.

Georgetown University law professor David Super said, "I think this is contempt of court." Yale military law professor Eugene Fidell also concluded that West Point was in violation of the injunction.

West Point disputed that, maintaining that it was in full compliance with both the Pentagon's directives and the federal court order.

The academy has until early November to appeal Seibel's decision, with legal experts suggesting that Bakken may well have to go back to court to enforce it.

'Real anger' erupts inside Trump's White House over key US ally: report

President Donald Trump’s close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fueling a civil war inside his administration, as senior officials increasingly weigh the costs of supporting his longtime ally amid the most unpopular war in American history.

A Trump administration official told Semafor Monday that frustration with Netanyahu extends beyond lower-ranking staff and reaches senior levels of the administration.

“At the mid-level and upper levels of the administration, there is not only real frustration, but real anger with Netanyahu’s government,” he said, continuing: “There’s a feeling that they oversold what they could do vis-a-vis Iran, and about how fragile the Iranian regime was. There’s a feeling that we had to bear a lot of the brunt for actually defending Israel.”

Trump has continued to support Netanyahu, even endorsing his embattled reelection campaign. He took it a step further, threatening to withdraw US military support if Bibi doesn’t win.

The next president will face a tough call when it comes to US military aid to Israel, as support for the nation has plummeted across party lines.

Vice President JD Vance also faces a political hurdle as he tries to maintain relationships with traditional pro-Israel Republicans while appealing to populist America First conservatives who are scrutinizing the relationship.

Vance has privately reassured influential supporters of Israel that he does not oppose the country, according to the report. At the same time, he has told the America First crowd that Washington’s relationship with Israel should benefit Americans at home.

Notably, Vance has not endorsed Netanyahu, a sign of his political quandary.

Tucker Carlson, a longtime Vance ally and conservative influencer, has become one of the most outspoken critics of Israel and has publicly split with Trump over the war.

Carlson is among the America First faction that symbolizes the growing civil war over Israel support.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas are regarded as more reliable supporters of Israel by some Republicans, making Vance stuck in the middle.

A May Pew Research Center survey found that young voters are in opposition to the older generation, as only 28% of Republicans aged 18 to 34 viewed the Israeli government favorably, compared with 68% of Republicans aged 50 and older.

This could be down to growing social media awareness of alleged war crimes committed by Israel in its many war fronts in the Middle East.

Netanyahu has himself acknowledged that Israel may not be able to count on US aid in the future, stating in an interview: “Tens of billions of US aid dollars to the defense budget — get used to it — won’t keep coming. Because America has changed. Not because Israel has.”

The growing rift on support for Israel could become a policy referendum in future elections, with a pro-Israel candidate on one side going up against an America-first candidate in the first post-Trump battle in over a decade.

Incendiary new 50-page report revives Trump's worst nightmare

An incendiary new 50-page report has dropped, per a report from MS NOW, making clear that President Donald Trump's least favorite issue is not going away and is primed to haunt him even more after the midterms.

On Monday morning, the House Judiciary Committee Democrats released an unsigned staff report detailing "the case against Donald Trump emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s desperate efforts to cover it up." As MS NOW noted, the content of the 50-page report contained little in the way of new evidence and repeated several "unsubstantiated" allegations against Trump, but nonetheless, it made clear the opposition party's intention to press the issue further in the wake of the midterms.

The report further calls for an "independent special counsel to investigate the president" on his connections to Jeffrey Epstein and the alleged cover-up of the government files related to the deceased sex trafficker, as well as Attorney General Todd Blanche's "conflicts of interest and the Justice Department’s reluctance to share relevant evidence with state and foreign law enforcement."

"The more than 50-page report alleges that Trump was 'an active participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of young women in the mid-to-late 1990s,'" MS NOW detailed. "Although it also contains at least one entirely new allegation against the president, it provides no direct evidence other than the woman’s own conversations with Judiciary Committee staff. For years, Trump has denied that he engaged in any sexual misconduct with any woman connected to Jeffrey Epstein, and he has also said that he knew nothing about Epstein’s crimes. The report also repeats several other longstanding, unsubstantiated allegations against Trump."

The report added: "A Democratic Judiciary Committee source told MS NOW the report draws on publicly available accounts as well as conversations with survivors. The source declined to provide additional details about those conversations, citing concerns for survivors’ privacy. The source also declined to quantify how many survivor conversations they had. The report also compares Trump’s statements about Epstein in recent years to documentary evidence — including emails, deposition transcripts, Trump’s prior public statements, and Trump’s drawings and signatures. Among the discrepancies highlighted in the report are inconsistencies with what Trump has said about his awareness of Epstein’s crimes."

The report further alleged that Trump's Justice Department has been working to keep the public "in the dark" about the true nature of Trump's connections to Epstein. It also suggested that Blanche "may have engaged in criminal obstruction of justice while acting on a mission to protect Trump," as well as potential "witness tampering and obstruction of an official proceeding" as part of his interview with Epstein's incarcerated lieutenant, Ghislaine Maxwell.

"Blanche’s apparent instructions not to discuss a specific Epstein victim, and how that victim could implicate Donald Trump, could easily run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, which forbids hindering or delaying the communication of information relating to the potential commission of a federal offense to a law enforcement officer, as well as corruptly influencing the testimony of any person in an official proceeding — such as a congressional interview and investigation," the report detailed.

'He's going to explode': White House 'moles' claim Trump on the brink

President Donald Trump currently finds that "he is as isolated and as out of it as ever," according to longtime political advocate Robert Reich, who cited "two moles" within the White House telling him what they are seeing, who also warned that "he's going to explode."

Reich — who previously served as secretary of labor under Bill Clinton and has since emerged as a vocal liberal activist and advocate for income equality — made the claim during his latest "Coffee Klatch" podcast with his co-host and former student, Heather Lofthouse, during a conversation about the grim outlook for Trump and the Republicans in the midterms.

Reich argued that voters were beginning to turn on Republicans in a big way as they realized that the chaos and corruption of Trump's second term was having a direct material impact on them, making their quality of life worse. Lofthouse added that the MAGA movement was overcome by "hubris" after Trump's reelection with their claims of a "mandate" from voters, comparing it to a balloon that is now sagging as the air is let out gradually.

All of that despair and negativity, Reich claimed, was reflected in Trump's private demeanor, based on information he was given by sources supposedly in the White House.

"I still have my sources in Washington and I still have a couple of moles in the White House," Reich said. "And these two moles in the White House — I'm not going to give you their names... Donald Trump, you try to get their names out of me, well, you just forget it, you can torture me, I'm not going to give you the names — but here's what I'm hearing. My moles in the White House are telling me that Trump, he is as isolated and as out of it as ever; he's also losing it in the way we all know and we see that he is losing it."

He continued: "But he is steaming... He does begin to understand — he goes out, and the crowds are not as big as they used to be, there are a lot of empty seats — that he knows that he's losing. He hears the pollsters and he knows that he's unpopular and he feels that somehow the Democrats are maybe going to have a blue tsunami. I mean, he is going to, my moles tell me, he's going to explode. He's on the verge of exploding, and they are a little bit anxious in the White House. They don't know quite how he's going to explode."

'Everyone hates him': Insiders marvel at how Trump's inner circle despises him

Two podcasters who specialize in studying President Donald Trump, Michael Wolff and Joanna Coles, marveled on Sunday about how even those closest to America's commander-in-chief do not really like him.

"Will we ever be post-Trump?" The Guardian's Ed Pilkington reported asking The Daily Beast pair behind "Inside Trump's Head" on Sunday.

“We’re going to get to the other side of this, yes,” Wolff told Pilkington. “I absolutely believe that the unique Donald Trump will not come again. When he leaves, everyone is going to sigh with relief, even the Republicans.”

The journalist added, "“It’s a fascinating thing. Nobody, except his fanbase, likes this guy. I mean, Trump is a fat f — — —, even to those closest to him.”

Earlier in the same article, Pilkington broke down the wide breadth of Trump-related subjects that the pair cover for their podcast.

"An average episode will delve into such matters as: the defenestration of senior women in his administration, including the short-lived press secretary Katie Zacharia and ambassador to Greece, Kimberly Guilfoyle," Pilkington wrote. "Trump’s weight (they call him the 'all-you-can-eat president'); Melania’s mysterious disappearing act (Wolff and the first lady have form, having locked horns in a long-running legal dispute); and the outsized role of executive assistant Natalie Harp, whom Wolff flagged as an issue well before the White House correspondents’ pack."

Pilkington's article also profiled how many critics of the pair argue that, by focusing on pettier matters like the president's personality and looks rather than his anti-democratic measures, Wolff and Coles may be doing more harm than good for the anti-Trump movement.

"The podcast’s unashamed technique of examining Trump in the round, with all his personal flaws and foibles, is not without its critics," Pilkington wrote. "The New York Times columnist Frank Bruni last month wrote an opinion piece that berated media outlets that focus on Trump’s appearance rather than on the damage he is doing to the world. Though he didn’t mention the podcast, Bruni did mention 'cankles', a Daily Beast favourite."

In response to this Wolff told Pilkington that “Trump is the most unique politician anyone has come across. He’s so unique no political reporter can cover him. That’s our conceit: to probe what the traditional media is not covering. They cover Trump as they would an ordinary politician, and his politics as an ordinary function of cause and effect. But Trump is completely outside of the familiar ecosystem of the presidency.”

Wolff added, “You can analyse Trump’s policies all you like, but what he is doing has nothing to do with policy. It has everything to do with himself, with his self-aggrandizement. To understand him, you have to look at his character, how this guy thinks, what are his fundamental motivations.”

Regardless of their approach to covering Trump, Wolff and Coles are not alone in reporting that most of the people in his orbit reportedly dislike like him. Trump's former communications director has said the same thing.

“Getting fired after 11 days was brutal, but there was also a genuine sense of relief,” Anthony Scaramucci posted on X in July. “Yes I had a shortcoming. I failed at the job. There was humiliation in it, but there was also relief.”

He added, “Here's what I've observed about everyone around Trump. Nobody likes him. I don't think his family members like him. I don't think his cabinet members really like him. They kiss his a—— because he's powerful.”

Scaramucci continued, “The people who genuinely like him are one or two electron orbits away, close enough to feel the warmth, far enough to avoid the heat. I don't know a single person in his inner circle who came out unscathed.”

Ex-Trump aide predicts how he will get Republicans to back his impeachment

President Donald Trump could continue to "push the envelope" so much that even Republicans become sick of him enough to back impeachment, according to one of his former first-term aides.

Anthony Scaramucci famously served as White House Communications Director during Trump's first term in the White House and was fired after a week and a half on the job, after comments critical of his colleagues emerged. Since then, he has become a vocal critic of his former boss, making countless media appearances to offer his unique perspective on the Trump political machine.

On Sunday, he was a guest on the latest edition of The Daily Beast Podcast, where he predicted to host Joanna Coles that, after the seemingly inevitable midterm blue wave, the numbers in the House and Senate could end up in the right place to actually remove Trump from office via impeachment. He also argued that Trump himself is making this possibility even more likely as his unhinged actions continue to make life miserable for elected Republicans.

A third impeachment of Trump has seemed inevitable, given his almost unending list of offenses and the virtual certainty that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives in the midterms. Given that a two-thirds majority is needed in the Senate to actually convict and remove an impeached president, that prospect has largely been dismissed as impossible despite the increasing odds that Democrats will win that chamber as well.

Scaramucci, however, thinks that possibility remains a live one. He made the argument after also suggesting that a proposed trilateral meeting between Trump and the leaders of Russia and China would mark the ultimate death of the Republican Party.

"And so Trump should be very careful with that, because, you know... probably he's going to push the envelope where he may be asked to leave the presidency," Scaramucci said. "So, you know, people say, 'Oh, that's crazy.' Not crazy, because the Democrats are going to take the House. Let's say they split and they go fifty-fifty [in the Senate]. You need 17 Republicans that have had enough of him. And you're a good journalist. They hate his guts. Michael Wolff knows that, okay, I listen to you guys."

He added: "You know, they hate his guts — [and] he hates them, by the way. And they hate him. And so, you know, keep pushing and keep doing this sort of nonsense that they all hate."

Scaramucci gave the example of Trump shutting down the bipartisan sanctions against Russia, passed in honor of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, as a prime example of the sort of behavior likely to turn Republicans against him.

"Lindsey Graham puts out the sanctions, he dies unceremoniously and tragically, and they vote 86-to-whatever, bipartisan commitment on the sanctions," Scaramucci explained. "Trump revokes the sanctions. So okay, keep doing that and you're going to get a you're going to get cross-traffic to the Democrats who, say, 'Impeach him in the House, I'll pull up 17 votes and we'll knock him out of the presidency.' And by the way, people can say, oh, that will never happen. That is on the table, ladies and gentlemen; that is on the table. That's how much these people hate him."

America's great sleeping giant awakens, roars and puts an end to it

Multiple polls show Trump’s approval at record lows, but I think what’s happening runs deeper than this. Something very dramatic is occurring.

Many people who consider themselves non-political or independent — or moderate Republican or who even voted for Trump in November 2024 — can’t avoid seeing what’s come so clearly into the open. And they’re finding it disgusting and terrifying.

They’ve watched Trump order the National Guard into cities over the objections of mayors and governors. They’ve watched Trump’s ICE agents drag people out of their beds in the middle of the night, zip-tie them and their children, and haul them away.

They’re watching the Justice Department argue that if the Democrat wins in Alaska’s Senate race, she shouldn’t be certified. They’re seeing Trump threaten to revoke the citizenship of Representative Ilhan Omar.

They see Trump direct the IRS, FBI, and Justice Department against liberal groups that oppose him. They’ve watched him push broadcasters to take off the air comedians who criticize him — Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel. They’ve watched him establish immunity from IRS investigations of himself and his family.

They’ve heard him say that Canada — Canada — is an enemy of the United States. That Putin — Putin — wasn’t the aggressor in the war in Ukraine. They’ve heard him defend Vivek Ramaswamy’s (the Republican nominee for governor of Ohio) disgusting ad featuring the estranged mother of Ramaswamy’s Democratic opponent, Amy Acton, calling her daughter a liar. (Acton hasn’t spoken to her mother since she was 12, when she was removed from her mother’s custody after her stepfather was arrested and charged with raping her.)

They’ve watched him decide, on his own, to take America into another endless war in the Middle East that’s driven up prices at the pump so high that many Americans can’t make ends meet.

All across America, millions of people who have avoided politics are shaken by what they’ve seen and heard.

It’s no longer Democrat versus Republican or left versus right. It’s now democracy versus dictatorship. Right versus wrong.

It’s no longer a war on undocumented immigrants. It’s now a war on Americans.

It’s no longer just a matter of repudiating Trump. It’s now a matter of stopping him — containing him.

Across the land, average Americans are realizing that they too could be dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night by Trump’s ICE agents, or tear-gassed and arrested by Trump’s National Guard, or targeted by Trump’s prosecutors, or shot by Trump’s military.

They too could be impoverished by his brainless, arbitrary tariffs and wars.

They too could be made unsafe, their children vulnerable to measles or other diseases, their health insurance unaffordable, their neighborhoods taken over by data centers —because the person in charge doesn’t give a fig about them. He’s in it for himself.

Trump has shown that all of us are endangered by him.

It is impossible not to see. Trump and his Republican sycophants are doing all of this in the open.

Most Americans abhor what they see, because what they see is abhorrent.

This is how the great sleeping giant of America awakens, roars, and puts an end to it.

This is how America throws the bums out.

Nine days from now.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/

'Losing his mind': Trump accidentally 'explains the bruises' on his hand

There was a time when former MAGA Illinois lawmaker Joe Walsh and “Jim Acosta Show” host Jim Acosta may not have seen eye to eye on some things. But on Friday both were thoroughly in accord on the topic of President Donald Trump’s rapidly deteriorating health.

Aside from being increasingly riddled with unexplained bruises to his face and hands, the president of the United States, both said, is tumbling fast. And debilitation is obvious in the way he carries himself, stands, and in the chaos he spouts — be it foul language or inarticulate nonsense.

Walsh said the Trump gobbledygook extends beyond the racist bigotry the president unleashes at rallies against brown and non-Christian Democrats. Because that, he said, is actually sound tactic from Republicans.

“Look, I come from the right and I used to engage in some of that [racist garbage] because that kind of bigoted, fearful [stuff] excites the Republican Party base. And it's horrible to say that, but I know that for a fact. And that's what Trump is doing. That's all he's got left right now is to scare the hell out of his voters that brown and Black people, Muslims, are taking over America. Most Americans are going to reject that, but it's all about him getting his base out, and they still are drawn to that stuff.”

They were quicker to point out Trump’s fascination with fabricated facts and men’s rear ends.

“He's spent a lot of time thinking about what other dudes look like. And, you know, not that there's anything wrong with that, but weird,” said Acosta. “Weird, weird, weird.”

“You, Jim Acosta, are much better than I at laughing at how [stinking] insane he is,” chided Walsh. “I have always had a hard time laughing at Trump because what he does so [infuriates] me. But I listen to a clip like that, and all I can think of is the 25th Amendment. I mean, I don't think we realize he is losing his mind day by day. Every day.”

“No, it's so true. And I mean, you know, he's talking about how his hand hurts. I don't know what he's doing. Maybe that explains the bruises,” quipped Acosta.

Acosta also pointed to Trump countless vanity projects, around D.C., which Acosta referred to as “insanity projects.”

“The way he obsesses over this golf course in D.C., it's exactly what you're saying, Joe. These are sort of like the ramblings of somebody who just ... They just need to not be in charge of the country and in charge of the nuclear codes,” said Acosta. “… The President of the United States should not be focused and obsessed with a golf course. It's totally nuts.”

“This is the difference,” said Walsh. “In that first term, the one constant in Trump's life — the only thing he cares about — is Trump. But if the economy wasn't doing well, he at least gave the appearance that he cared about that. But this term, he doesn't give a f—— about anything. And again, to me, this goes back to what's going on in his head. I think he's so insecure that he's desperate to have his name everywhere when he leaves. But I don't think he's capable of caring about gas prices, diesel prices, the price of beef, the slowing down of wage growth in this country. I don't think he cares, Jim, whether Republicans keep the House or the Senate. All he cares about is him, his money, and his … name.”

Trump’s illness has progressed so far now that neither Acosta or Walsh were sure if Trump was even capable of policing his own actions anymore.

“We don't fully know what he's going to do in these next 15 days. The truth is the current president of the United States is actively trying to sabotage another American election. He just sent threatening letters to some 20,000 California voters that they believe erroneously are non-citizens. He's doing this all over the place to try to intimidate and keep people from voting,” said Walsh, also referring to Trump ordering his DOJ to preemptively target Alaskan elections if Republicans lose.

Trump admin fights back after judge rejects $400M settlement

MediaPost reports President Donald Trump is appealing a district court judge's rejection of a proposed settlement with TikTok over charges that the app violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

The deal the judge is rejecting vacates a 2019 settlement between TikTok and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over the charge that the company's predecessor, Musical.ly, violated the same law by collecting personal information from users younger than 13

“Last month, U.S. District Court Judge George Wu in the Central District of California refused to approve the agreement, writing that the government failed to prove the 2019 order should be set aside,” reports MediaPost. “That order required TikTok to pay $5 million and comply with numerous conditions going forward.”

But the Trump Justice Department said in its bid to scrap the deal that those conditions were "no longer necessary to serve the public interest." The government claims that the prior settlement grew out of practices by Musical.ly, as opposed to "the TikTok platform as it exists and operates today."

ByteDance potentially sweetened its problems with the White House by selling TikTok's U.S. operations to a joint venture of investors including Oracle, which is run by Larry Ellison — a Trump ally and MAGA adherent working to snap up centrist news into a MAGA-curious empire. That empire, say critics, will not be capable of criticizing Trump or the Republican Party, making it a de-facto subsidiary of the GOP.

But Wu complicated the TIKTOK side of things by ruling that the change in ownership did not justify vacating the prior order.

"While there have been significant legal developments concerning TikTok in the years since the Consent Order was issued, nothing has changed regarding defendants’ legal obligations under COPPA," wrote the judge, using an acronym for the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. “… There is nothing inherent in the ownership change that renders the aims of the Consent Order accomplished or its enforcement no longer necessary.”

The deal Wu tossed would have resolved a 2024 complaint alleging that the app — under the ownership of the Chinese company ByteDance — allowed children 12 and under to sidestep a more restrictive "Kids Mode" app setting that would have blocked data collection.

Wu allowed the Justice Department to amend its request for settlement approval and refile, but the administration said in papers filed Thursday that it planned to appeal Wu's order.

"After meeting and conferring, the United States declines to renew its consent motion and rests on the current record before this Court, because there is nothing further for this Court to consider," Trump DOJ argued.

Pope Leo is using a Cold War playbook to fight MAGA

A key part to the end of communism in Eastern Europe was the late Polish Pope John Paul II's decisive moral and spiritual role in a peaceful collapse. Pope Leo has now taken up that anti-authoritarian banner and is happy to bring it to MAGA.

Christopher Hale, who writes a Substack on Pope Leo, argued in his latest column that Pope John Paul II’s resistance to authoritarianism connects with Pope Leo XIV’s defense of immigrants and refusal to bend to President Donald Trump.

The message began when John Paul’s delivered his inaugural message in October 1978, telling those in St. Peter’s Square, “Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems.”

Top communist leaders knew exactly what he meant, Hale said.

It was less than a year later that John Paul knelt and kissed the tarmac at Warsaw’s airport, Hale recalled. "That afternoon he celebrated Mass in Victory Square, a plaza the communists had renamed, before hundreds of thousands of Poles." A little over a year later, the Berlin Wall came down.

Pope Leo has taken up that same mantle and instead of confronting communism, he took on "the danger to human dignity wears a red hat and speaks the language of the right. Just as God raised up John Paul II behind the Iron Curtain to stand up to communism, God has raised up a pope from the Americas, from inside the walls of MAGA authoritarianism, to stand up to it," said Hale.

In his first year in office, Leo, the first American pope, is using his position to urge Americans to uphold the value of loving their neighbor.

In a June letter, Leo said defending life includes “welcoming, protecting and assisting immigrants.” The writer contrasts that language with Trump’s warning about a communist threat involving newcomers. The pope who opposed communism also welcomed immigrants, wrote Hale, while Trump invokes communism to cast suspicion on them.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is sounding the alarm that the communists are coming. The 21st century's "red scare" has been a huge part of Trump's 2026 election message. During his speech at Mount Rushmore, Trump claimed there is “a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including from newcomers to our country.”

Hale pointed out how uniquely inverted that statement is from the pope's.

While the president desperately wanted Pope Leo to attend some of the America 250 events, His Holiness spent the day with the migrants of Lampedusa, a small island off the coast of Sicily. They have been experiencing an influx of migrants fleeing poverty, war and persecution.

Leo recalled the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan: “before any intellectual consideration or ideological conviction, the encounter with those who lie before us, stripped of everything, calls us to be close to them.”

Back home, the Pentagon brought in Cardinal Christophe Pierre to lecture on the pope's language, which some saw as anti-Trump. Leo hasn't been deterred, much less intimidated.

Leo has refused to trade moral independence for whatever political access he's been promised.

Hale closed his column by concluding that Catholics should recognize that resistance to MAGA authoritarianism is also a defense of human dignity, and far from a departure from their faith. While Pope John Paul II offered encouragement, Pope Leo XIV is speaking plainly to power while reminding Americans that welcoming the vulnerable is a responsibility, not a weakness.


Trump’s DOJ faces extraordinary collapse of trust in federal courts

Judges across federal courts in America are fed up with President Donald Trump's Justice Department, with many questioning whether government lawyers can be trusted or obey judicial orders.

A new report from Democracy Docket details growing frustration among judges appointed by presidents of both parties, as clashes over immigration, press access and federal projects test the longstanding legal convention known as the presumption of regularity.

The principle limits judicial scrutiny by presuming that government officials act lawfully and in good faith. Legal experts say the Trump administration's disregard for the rule of law and frequent confrontations with judges are eroding that assumption.

“Judges are figuring out that either the attorneys can’t or won’t manage the Trump administration,” constitutional law professor David Schultz told Democracy Docket.

The most recent confrontation involves U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, who angrily rebuked Justice Department lawyers after they removed more than 500 trees from Washington's historic East Potomac Golf Links, and expressed feeling betrayed by the move.

Reyes had repeatedly asked the DOJ for advance notice before making irreversible changes to the historic golf course. Instead, they seemingly ignored her request and removed more than 400 trees, prompting the judge to question whether officials had deliberately withheld information.

“You did your absolute worst,” Reyes told government attorneys in regard to their efforts to notify the court.

The administration maintained the removal followed an older landscaping plan and was separate from Trump's proposed renovation. The Justice Department later tried to remove Reyes from the case, alleging bias, but she rejected the request.

Another Trump-appointed judge, Timothy Kelly, blocked the administration's effort to ban White House access for reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Kelly sided with the networks, questioning the government's claim of national security risks and found the restrictions likely violated the First Amendment

Due to the growing distrust of Trump’s DOJ, judges are changing how they write orders.

In one case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis now requires 30 days' advance notice before the administration activates a portal involving state citizenship lists, a measure intended to preserve judicial review amid threats of election interference

Xinis previously accused administration officials of deliberately defying orders in the wrongful deportation case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg continues pursuing a contempt investigation over El Salvador-bound deportation flights carrying Venezuelans despite an order restricting them.

Retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel told Democracy Docket that the administration has a view that “the most important thing is to win.”

Experts say the real danger is that if the courts can't take the Government at its word, then they're going to have to be much more rigorous in their approach, such as demanding more evidence and documentation and being on the lookout for attempts to circumvent their decisions.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.