Thursday, September 25, 2025

Chief Crook John Roberts destroyed the legal system

That Crooked Court.  One of my posts this week was censored by Blogger.  Why?  No valid reason.  I really don't care.  To be honest, I don't.  I said what I said.  If you have to do two clicks instead of one to get to it, oh well.  I'm not going to let it change the way I write.  The Court is crooked and John Roberts is the biggest crook of them all -- to Patti Labelle it.  Heather Digby Parton (SALON) notes:

President Donald Trump has had a tumultuous week so far. There was his strange, inappropriate remarks about hating his opponents at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service, a bizarre press conference in which he denounced Tylenol and vaccines, and a downright unhinged speech he gave before world leaders at the United Nations. But the president did get some good news from his allies on the Supreme Court. Using the so-called “shadow docket,” the justices allowed him to fire someone the law says he should not be allowed to fire. No doubt that felt very soothing. He is, after all, the man who first ran for office by shouting his famous reality show catchphrase: “You’re fired!”
In March, Trump terminated two Democratic-appointed members of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without cause. They in turn sued the government, demanding to be reinstated and pointing to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a landmark 1935 Supreme Court case involving the firing of an FTC commissioner. The ruling made clear that a president cannot fire independent agency commissioners at will; there must be a grave reason.

After Bedoya resigned from the case in June to seek other employment, Slaughter was left to carry on with the suit alone. The lower courts all sided with her, citing the clear precedent in Humphrey’s Executor. But earlier this week, ahead of its upcoming term that begins Oct. 4, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority accepted Trump’s emergency appeal in the case and, using an accelerated timetable, added it to its December docket. Worse, they ruled that Trump’s firing of Slaughter could stand until the case is resolved.
You don’t need to be a Supreme Court insider or a psychic to figure out how this will go. The conservative justices couldn’t even bring themselves to allow the precedent to stand for a few more months until they could hear the case. They had to step in to give Trump the relief he craved to be able to fire this woman.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the minority, pointed out that this is only the latest in a series of cases in which the majority has “has handed full control of all those agencies to the president…He may now remove — so says the majority, though Congress said differently — any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence.”

The ruling shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It continues the court’s trend of supporting Trump’s view of the unitary executive, a theory that has been pushed by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation for years, which holds that the president has absolute power over the executive branch.


It's a garbage court with six garbage cans serving on it.  And we need to realize that.  We need to sound the alarm.  We need to be sure that this follows them into retirement.  They should be booed whenever they surface in public.  They have destroyed America's trust in the courts.  They have ruled against democracy.  They are pure trash and nothing more.


We all need to heed Heather's conclusion, "If Democrats manage to win back power in the next couple of elections, they must understand that “guardrails” are insufficient. Right now we’re watching what happens when we rely on norms and the good faith of extremists with lifetime appointments to guard our rights and freedoms. Democrats must build a big, beautiful, legal wall to prevent this from happening in the future — and make sure MAGA pays for it."  At THE NEW REPUBLIC, Simon Lazarus explains:


The Supreme Court’s conservatives spent most of last term accepting, then granting, an unprecedented slew of heretofore-rare DOJ “emergency applications” from the court’s so-called “shadow docket,” most in the service of staying lower court bars against myriad Trump administration actions bloating presidential powers. Thereby, the justices enabled Trump to continue breaching preexisting boundaries without having to decide on the merits whether his power grabs actually violate relevant law. In most cases, the justices issued these often highly consequential edicts with no explanation to help parties, lower courts, other governmental branches, or the public get an inkling of what their final decision might be, or what analytical approach they will deploy.
But in recent weeks, Trump’s gluttony for norm-breaking has reached heights that preclude the justices from continuing to kick these cans down the road. In the term that begins next month, they will have to stop dithering and decide issues that could make or break his presidency. On September 9, the court agreed to review two lower court rulings that held that Trump’s huge new tariffs lack any statutory authorization and would, one appellate court held, usurp “the power of the purse (including the power to tax) [which under the Constitution] belongs to Congress.” This past Monday, September 15, an appellate panel upheld Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s challenge to Trump’s attempt to fire her without statutorily prescribed “cause.” A day later, the White House announced its intent to appeal that defeat to the Supreme Court.  

A number of prominent liberal court-watchers, such as law professors Lawrence Tribe and Leah Litman, pundit and author Ian Milhiser, and, at times, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, have ascribed the conservative majority’s receptivity to Trump shadow docket requests, to rank partisanship. Much evidence lends credibility to that charge. As of this writing, the Trump Justice Department has filed 20 emergency applications with the court in its brief tenure, compared with a 16-year total of eight such applications from the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, or one every other year.
This year, the court granted 18 of Trump’s requests to stay adverse lower court orders, usually over fierce dissents from liberal justices. Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck spotlighted the “rather obvious contrast—where serious standing objections were not enough to justify emergency relief when it was the Biden administration looking to put its student loan debt relief back into effect, but where ... weaker standing objections were enough to justify allowing [President Trump] to effectively strangle a critical federal agency.” (Emphasis in the original.) Trump had fired fifty percent of the Department of Education’s workforce overnight. By letting this decapitation stand for as long as Trump manages to slow-roll litigation challenges, the conservative justices may well have enabled him to render his starkly unlawful objective—unilaterally terminating a congressional enacted department and multiple duly enacted programs—a fait accompli.


Meanwhile CNN's Joan Biskupic has a piece analyzing the Supreme Court and John Roberts:

But the moment most central to Roberts’ legacy occurred in the courtroom shielded from cameras on July 1, 2024.

Seated at the center of the elevated bench, Roberts declared the American president immune from criminal prosecution. It was a milestone decision providing new power for all presidents and, at the time, possibly changing the course of a presidential election.

“I think it was a turning point,” said Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman of Roberts’ stewardship of the high court. “Roberts played a role not just in terms of the decision but in navigating the timing” that foreclosed a Trump trial.

For 14 minutes in an otherwise silent courtroom, Roberts defended the decision before scores of spectators that included the government lawyers who’d brought the case, luminaries of the appellate bar, journalists, and such special guests as Roberts’ wife, Jane, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s parents.


John Roberts is disgusting.  This little conspiracy that The Federalist Society has hatched should actually result in the six justices being impeached.  Coached to lie at their confirmation hearings, coached to lie the American people, all six need to be removed from the bench.  At The Brennen Center for Justice, Michael Waldman writes:

Often, but not inevitably, reform follows scandal. After Watergate, Congress passed legislation to curb abuse and constrain the imperial presidency. They ranged from special prosecutor laws to new budget powers for Congress. Nixon’s Republican successor Gerald Ford established a tradition that the Justice Department should have considerable independence in order to avoid a repeat of political prosecutions.

A half-century eroded those constraints. The Supreme Court gutted the campaign finance laws and narrowed the definition of bribery. During Trump’s first term, it became clear that the guardrails were flimsy. In this term, they might as well not exist.

Will these newest transgressions become a major issue? Endless cacophony can distract from scandal. Who can even keep track? But voters do seem to understand the link between self-dealing, abuse of power, and rights violated. In just a few months, corruption has quickly emerged as a hot issue again.

Yet it won’t be enough for politicians to merely orate about restoring the rule of law. Leary voters think, “Everyone does it.” The only way to overcome that skepticism is with action.

That’s why it is encouraging that some lawmakers have begun to stir.

Last week, Schiff reintroduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Passed by the House in 2021, the bill would limit contacts between the White House and the Justice Department. It would bring transparency to the pardon process. It would create clear standards for enforcing the Constitution’s emoluments clauses — the provisions, so important to the founders, that prevent presidents from receiving bribes from foreign governments. It would restore Congress’s role as a check against the kind of presidential abuse of emergency powers that has become a hallmark of this administration. And it would bolster Congress’s oversight role and reinforce its power over the purse. It was a strong measure to curb abuse of power.

The bill draws on key recommendations from a 2017 Brennan Center nonpartisan task force — led by former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman — and from Brennan Center recommendations for reforming the National Emergencies Act.

This reintroduced bill is a promising start. But reforms should keep evolving, growing stronger to address the magnitude of today’s new Gilded Age. One example: Tighter rules should be put in place to prevent the weaponization of the Justice Department against political enemies. It is illegal for presidents to order a tax audit of an individual, so they should not be able to order a criminal prosecution either. Perhaps individuals could be given standing to sue if they have been selectively prosecuted for political reasons.


"The Snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):
Thursday, September 25, 2025.  Senator Adam Schiff is calling for answers from the FCC following the commission's attack on free speech, is Putin mocking Chump, FOX "NEWS" calls for the United Nations to be bombed so let's all forget the nonsense about 'watch the rhetoric," Senator Elizabeth Warren is concerned that sports fans will be cheated by ESPN's new deal, a paper's reporting that despite Chump's claims that he knew nothing about Ghislaine Maxwell being moved to Camp Fed he and Pam Bondi had discussed it before the move took place, and much more.


Let me start with Jimmy Kimmel.  Ava and I have covered media at THIRD for twenty years and counting.  If there was a story to Jimmy's return, it would really go over there.  I covered Jimmy here as part of a news story -- it was a story of corruption and greed and a warning against media consolidation.  A number of e-mails indicate some thought I would be covering his return the day after.

Sorry.

I'm expecting a media narrative to be imposed.  If it is, the one I'm expecting, Ava and I will probably try to tackle it at THIRD.  Try.
 
I'm not saying, "Ava and I will cover it at THIRD."  Those days are gone, days where by Thursday we have some idea regarding what we'll be covering.  With a psychopath in the White House, advance planning is out the window.  When adults are in the White House, the weekends don't careen around from one story to the next.  Ava and I are, like the rest of the country, caught in a "Bitter Sweet Symphony."



No change, I can change
I can change, I can change
But I'm here in my mould
I am here in my mould
But I'm a million different people from one day to the next
I can't change my mould
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
-- "Bittersweet Symphony," written by Richard Ashcroft, first appears on The Verve's album URBAN HYMNS
 
A TV topic we do need to address in the snapshot?

Forget rhetoric

The death of The Demagogue showed you what trash MAGA, Chump and others are.  And also what liars.

A hate merchant dies and Pam da Bimbo Bondi threatens American citizens with what they can and cannot say.

And stupid asses in Congress -- both sides -- start calling for the rhetoric to be lowered.  As Mike noted last night, the idiot Markwayne Markwayne is a liar and an inciter so the idea that anyone's going to listen to that trash is already crazy. .  

Let's note these psychopaths for what they truly are.

Governor Gavin Newsome gets under their skin as he parodies dementia Donald Chump online.  FOX "NEWS" -- including mannish Laura Ingraham -- begin attacking Gavin and saying things like his social media posts are not dignified and no governor should be doing that.

No Democrat needs advice from FOX "NEWS" first of all.   Second, he is parodying Chump and FOX "NEWS" never frets over the social media posts of their dear leader.

Then they attack criticism of Chump especially critiques that liken him to Hitler or point out his fascist streak.  It's not hate speech to note how similar he is to Hitler.

Don't want to be compared to Hitler?  Stop acting like Hitler.

He has repeatedly attacked the left -- the entire left in this country.  And FOX "NEWS" never frets over that -- a president who attacks half the country.  This is supposed to be the United States and the president is supposed to lead by example.

This week, if you missed it, Donald Chump showed his ass at the United Nations and he was a public embarrassment.  Fatty had to walk up the escalator and the teleprompter didn't work.  See our group post last night:



To cover for his dismal performance, that White House -- chiefly Propaganda Pig Karoline Leavitt -- and FOX "NEWS" launched these nutty conspiracy theories -- the UN was out to get Chump.  

Jesse Waters was raging on FOX "NEWS" that the US needed to bomb the UN.  

As usual, who's preaching violence?

Don't you dare accuse the left of stoking violence when you've got FOX "NEWS" calling for violence and no one in the White House is calling that out. 

And the escalator?  Chump brought along his personal videographer to record the event.  The escalator was already dealing with the morbidly obese Chump and apparently the videographer Chump brought along set off some safety switch.
 

As for that substandard teleprompter the UN gave Donald?

It was the White House teleprompted.  They brought it with them.

Everything that said was a lie.

And they didn't wait for any facts before they started calling for the United Nations to be bombed.

Where's the violence coming from?  The right-wing as usual.  

The FCC has no control over FOX "NEWS" -- it's a cable station.  But any outlet calling for a bombing to take place -- especially without knowing the facts -- should be called out.  Find me the Republican that's called out FOX "NEWS" for lying -- that's what they did -- and for stoking hate and violence.  Until then, stop your advice about how we need to speak.

And Kristi Noem, to be seen by the public as a slut cheating on her husband for years and now being allowed to work with the man she's supposedly has had this long standing affair with?  Stop attacking Gavin for saying you'll have "a bad day."  No one needs to hear from the slut breaking number seven of The Ten Commandments.  (See Elaine's "Work for Chump and he'll pay you to cheat on your spouse too."  THE NEW YORK POST has been reporting on the alleged affair since 2023 and it supposedly started in 2020.) 


Another news topic re: TV?  From Senator Adam Schiff's office:

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led eight Senate Democrats in demanding answers from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr about the Commission’s unprecedented assault on freedom of the press, following its implicit threat to revoke’s ABC’s broadcast license if it refused to take action against “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” 

The Senators request all information on FCC communications with ABC, Disney, or any of their affiliates related to Kimmel, including programming content decisions and possible consequences for broadcasters airing certain content. Additionally, the Senators are seeking clarification of how the FCC justifies its threats to revoke licenses, given the First Amendment’s prohibition on government retaliation against protected speech. 

“The chilling effects of your public comments are evident in ABC’s response. While Disney reversed course on September 22, 2025, stating that “Jimmy Kimmel Live” will return to air following “thoughtful conversations,” the timing of your threats and the broader pattern of government intimidation make clear that broadcasters were operating under extraordinary duress,” wrote the Senators. 

According to reporting, executives at ABC, Disney, and their affiliates convened emergency meetings following the FCC Chair’s statements with sources indicating that executives’ fear of retaliation was the decisive factor in ABC’s initial decision to suspend “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” 

In the letter, the Senators also emphasize that this latest action by the FCC is part of a broader pattern of government coercion of the press emboldened by President Trump and designed to intimidate and silence critical coverage of the Administration. 

“As Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, you hold a position of extraordinary trust and responsibility. The FCC’s regulatory authority over broadcast licenses was never intended to serve as a weapon to silence criticism or punish satirical commentary. Your agency’s mission is to serve the public interest, not to act as an enforcement arm for political retribution against media outlets that displease those in power,”the Senators continued. 

This letter is also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Angela D. Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.). 

The full text of the letters can be found here and below.  

Dear Chairman Carr:  

We are writing with grave concern regarding your agency’s role in what can only be described as an unprecedented, purposeful assault on press freedom and the First Amendment. ABC’s decision on September 17, 2025, to remove Jimmy Kimmel’s program following your implicit threats to revoke its broadcast license represents a dangerous watershed moment for free speech in America.  

On September 17, 2025, you appeared on The Benny Show podcast and called on licensed broadcasters to “push back on Comcast and Disney” and preempt coverage of Jimmy Kimmel Live!.  Furthermore, you warned that continuing to broadcast the program could result in “fines or license revocation from the FCC.” You then delivered what can only be described as an ultimatum to broadcasters: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” 

The chilling effects of your public comments are evident in ABC’s response. While Disney reversed course on September 22, 2025, stating that Jimmy Kimmel Live! will return to air following “thoughtful conversations,” the timing of your threats and the broader pattern of government intimidation make clear that broadcasters were operating under extraordinary duress. According to reports, senior executives at ABC, Disney, and their affiliates convened emergency meetings following your statements. Multiple sources indicated that executives’ fear of retaliation from the Trump administration was the decisive factor, ultimately leading to the direct censorship of constitutionally protected speech. Meanwhile, Nexstar Media Group – while seeking FCC approval for a $6.2 billion acquisition – and Sinclair Broadcast Group – also lobbying for favorable regulatory treatment from the FCC in its review of its broadcast business – quickly reacted to your intimidations by preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! on their stations. 

This fear parallels the same alarm you previously expressed regarding potential action by the FCC to censor disfavored speech. On several prior occasions, you warned of the “chilling transgression of the free speech rights that every media outlet in this country enjoys” and applauded political satire as “one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech.”  

Your latest statements are part of a broad pattern of government coercion of the press emboldened by President Trump and your leadership at the FCC, and designed to intimidate and silence critical coverage of the Administration. On July 17, 2025, CBS announced plans to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, just one day after Paramount paid President Trump $16 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit in time to ensure the FCC approved their $8 billion merger with Skydance. President Trump has also filed a $15 billion suit against the New York Times, claiming a series of articles “sought to undermine” the President’s reputation, and a $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal over its reporting on his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.  

This apparent intimidation has achieved the intended effect. ABC News paid a $15 million settlement plus $1 million in attorney’s fees before Trump even returned to office, likely an effort to mitigate future retaliation from the President. Meta paid $25 million to settle a lawsuit over the President’s account suspension after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, also just days into Trump’s second term. The administration has also moved to defund public media, with an executive order cutting funding to PBS and NPR on claims of “biased and partisan news coverage.” It pushed a rescissions package to claw back $1.1 billion in previously approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and removed The Associated Press from the White House press room after the organization refused to adopt the administration’s preferred terminology. Even private media ownership has bent to pressure, with Jeff Bezos dramatically shifting the Washington Post’s editorial direction in what many view as capitulation to the President. Viewed collectively, these actions represent the most blatant and coordinated attack on the free press in American history. 

As Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, you hold a position of extraordinary trust and responsibility. The FCC’s regulatory authority over broadcast licenses was never intended to serve as a weapon to silence criticism or punish satirical commentary. Your agency’s mission is to serve the public interest, not to act as an enforcement arm for political retribution against media outlets that displease those in power.  

In order to fulfill Congress’s constitutional obligation to perform oversight of regulatory agencies, we request responses to the following questions no later than October 1, 2025:  

  1. Have you, the Commission, or FCC staff had any communications with representatives of ABC, Disney, or any of their affiliates concerning specific programming content decisions, including Jimmy Kimmel Live! or other programs in the last 30 days?  
    •  If so, please name all individuals involved in those communications and provide the dates and documentation of all such communication.  
  2. Have you, the Commission, or FCC staff ever discussed with any media executives the potential consequences for their broadcast licenses, should they continue to air programming critical of the administration?  
    • If so, please name all individuals involved in those communications and provide the dates and documentation of all such communication.  
  3. Did you, the Commission, or FCC staff have any communications with the President or any of his associates, including any officials or employees of the White House, regarding Jimmy Kimmel Live! or other ABC/Disney programs prior to your September 17, 2025, remarks on The Benny Show?  
    • If so, please name all individuals involved in those communications and provide the dates and documentation of all such communication.  
  4. What specific statutory authority, if any, do you believe empowers the FCC to revoke a broadcaster’s license or impose fines on the basis of satirical or critical content?  
  1. Has the FCC opened any investigations into broadcasters related to the airing of late-night comedy or political satire programs?  
    •  If so, please provide details of each investigation, including the initiating authority, scope, and current status. 
  1. Has your agency consulted with the Department of Justice or any other federal agency regarding the legal or constitutional basis for sanctioning broadcasters based on their content? 
    • If so, provide the dates of and participants in such consultations.  
  1. How does the FCC justify its threats to revoke broadcast licenses over critical programming given the First Amendment’s prohibition on government retaliation against protected speech? 
  1. Do you acknowledge that threatening broadcast license revocation or fines for airing content deemed critical of the government risks creating a chilling effect on protected speech?  
  1. What specific safeguards will the Commission implement to ensure that broadcasters are not pressured to self-censor content critical of the President or other elected officials?  

We look forward to reviewing your responses. 

###


Is Putin mocking Chump?  Check out Ben's report for MEIDASTOUCH NEWS this morning.






Trashy Garbage, as Trina calls Tulsi Gabbard, was a fool before Chump made her DNI and she's lucky that, so far, as she demonstrated just how foolish she is, her ignorance has not been revealed on a massive scale.  Leigh Kimmins (THE DAILY BEAST) reports:


The investigation into former CIA chief John Brennan is in turmoil after intelligence head Tulsi Gabbard revoked the security clearances of potential witnesses, four Trump administration officials told Axios.

The witnesses were central to prosecution efforts to prove Brennan skewed a 2017 intelligence assessment to suggest Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “clear preference” for Donald Trump—and that Brennan later lied about it to Congress.


Let's stop there because we've already realized she was an idiot on her purge.  This is the list she published on her Twitter feed.  Remember?  That included the name of one undercover CIA agent.  She's such a damn idiot.  That move was already bad and she received harsh criticism for it (even within the Chump administration: "critics inside the administration said Gabbard’s office treated the clearance purge like 'a PR operation to get on Fox News' rather than a coordinated reform effort.").  The winner here is John Brennan as a result of Trashy's incompetence:  "Officials outlined three consequences, pointing out that prosecutors now face hurdles in handling classified material; witnesses may refuse to cooperate out of anger; and Brennan’s defense team can use Gabbard’s own claims to undermine their credibility."


The big picture: The controversy underscores the ongoing tension between Gabbard's office and other departments as she makes sweeping changes to the intelligence community.

"Tulsi is the right person for the job with the wrong team," a senior administration official said. "They've treated this like a PR operation to get on Fox, and not a serious intel reform process envisioned by the president."
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Gabbard "blindsided" the CIA with the cancellation list that included an active undercover officer. Her office disputed the report and said the CIA had been notified.
The Guardian reported Saturday that Gabbard's office hadn't told the White House in advance, which Gabbard's team also disputed. Regardless, the Justice Department wasn't notified in advance. Gabbard's team says other agencies had ample time to weigh in.
The notification from Gabbard's office was emailed to agencies on Aug. 18 at 7 p.m., after work hours. Gabbard publicly announced the security clearance cancellations the next day, at 3:53 p.m.




Trashy Garbage, as Trina calls Tulsi Gabbard, was a fool before Chump made her DNI and she's lucky that, so far, as she demonstrated just how foolish she is, her ignorance has not been revealed on a massive scale.  



U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California, have 217 signatures from House members backing their bipartisan legislation that calls for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the Department of Justice's files on Jeffrey Epstein. The billionaire was once a bon vivant buddy for Trump before he pleaded guilty in 2008 on Florida charges of soliciting and procuring a person under 18 for prostitution.
Massie and Khanna need just one more signature on their discharge petition to force a vote in the House.


Troy Matthews (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) points out an interesting detail about the election, "Grijalva’s 43-point victory on Tuesday trounces even her father’s 26-point victory over his Republican challenger in 2024. Raúl Grijalva was a Democratic stalwart who held his seat in congress representing Tucson, Arizona for more than two decades. Kamala Harris won in Grijalva's district by 22 points in 2024."  All politics are local.  I wouldn't argue one House election indicated how it would be across the nation.  But it is worth noting that she outperformed her late father who was very, very popular in the district.  That would mean one of two things -- or a combination of the two -- for that district -- either Democratic Party voters are especially focused on turn out or Republican voters are growing increasingly dissatisfied with Donald Chump.  I would argue, again, that it's a combination.  That's a read on one district.  That said her win and James Walkinshaw's win in Virginia two weeks ago are tracking with national polling on voter sentiment.  Were I a Republican member of Congress right now, I'd be trying to put a lot of sunlight between myself and Chump whose brand just gets more toxic with each passing day.  Charles P. Pierce (ESQUIRE) notes, "Grijalva’s victory also will underscore further how narrow the wire Johnson is walking as Speaker is. If Massie, Greene, and the others can defy him on the Epstein files, what’s to keep other Republicans from operating on their own hooks, especially those looking at dire reelection numbers in their home districts? That six-vote majority looks perilous depending on where you sit. It’s like a jungle sometimes, and Speaker Moses has to be wondering how he keeps from going under." 


Closer to the release of the documents.  FORBES reports on yesterday's press conference in Colorado Springs held by family and supporters of the late Virginia Guiffre.



Family members of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an accuser of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and other survivors called for the release of the Epstein files outside 5th District U.S. Rep. Jeff Crank’s office Wednesday in Colorado Springs.

“As Virginia’s brother, and on behalf of the survivors, I am here to remind you we won’t stop until justice is served,” Sky Roberts said. “If you think we’re going away, you are wrong.”

[. . .]

If the act goes into effect, the Justice Department would be required to publish all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative material in the prosecution of Epstein. Records regarding Maxwell, flight logs and individuals involved also would be released.

More than 20 survivors of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s abuse support the legislation, according to Sky Roberts. The Justice Department also can protect personal information about the victims and materials that can harm ongoing investigations under the act.

“Congressman Crank: Why shouldn’t Colorado lead the way in standing up against this injustice?” Sky Roberts asked. “We cordially invite you, along with all representatives, to sit down and hear these stories directly from survivors and their families.”

Crank’s office doors were locked Tuesday and the family of Giuffre has not heard back from the lawmaker about this legislation. 



"Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents," Donald Trump declared at his 2025 inauguration. Hold that thought.

Trump is now using the immense power of the state to distract from a scandal that could bring him down. That is, his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a fiend who sexually trafficked girls young enough to be in junior high.

Watch how Trump uses the power of the state to change the subject. Note how his weaponizing of government to go after foes — or just attract attention — escalates into sheer spectacle.

It's no longer just insulting celebrities. No, he needs the big guns to force attention away from deeper questions about his close dealings with Epstein. He needs to send the National Guard into cities that didn't want them, bomb boats that may or may not be carrying drug smugglers and send immigrants who may or may not be undocumented to third-country dungeons.

News channels have jumped all over FCC chairman Brendan Carr's mafioso threats against news media that don't do Trump's bidding. He apparently intimidated ABC/Walt Disney into firing Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night comedian made comments at odds with state-sanctioned opinion. Carr used to make fiery defenses of free speech.

This is a serious story, but critics shouldn't let Trump lead them astray from the story that undoubtedly terrifies him: his relationship with the predator who provided rich men with underage sexual partners.


The statue of Epstein and Chump holding hands has been taken down at The National Mall as Lawrence O'Donnell explained last night.



They can pretend all they want but Epstein's not going away.  During the July 4th holiday, Chump thought he had buried the story.  It's September 26 and it's still in the news.


In other news of pedophiles Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Christopher Bucktin and Ryan Carroll (THE RECORD) reported four days ago:


Humiliated US prison chiefs have launched a major probe after a million-dollar bid to keep sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hidden collapsed.
Maxwell was pictured in the cushy Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas after being transferred under a cloak of secrecy. Mirror sources said that US Attorney General Pam Bondi had personally assured US President Donald Trump that her transfer would not embarrass him.
Trump is under pressure over his friendship with Maxwell’s pal, paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. However, the emergence of an image from inside the sprawling minimum-security complex has blown those promises apart. 

Maxwell was pictured in the cushy Federal Prison Camp Bryan in Texas after being transferred under a cloak of secrecy. Mirror sources said that US Attorney General Pam Bondi had personally assured US President Donald Trump that her transfer would not embarrass him. One insider said: “The President was told she would never come back to haunt him. He was assured by Pam Bondi that Maxwell would be buried in the system. It’s blown up in his face.”


Grasp what THE RECORD is reporting -- Pam Bondi and Chump discussed moving Maxwell to the cushy 'prison.'  Grasp that Donald has repeatedly insisted that he knew nothing about the transfer.

US House Rep Jasmine Crockett continues to fight for the truth to come out.




And US House Rep Jim Jordan -- himself accused of covering up the abuse of young men -- continues working to keep the truth about Epstein and Maxwell hidden.

Again, Jim Jordan's accused of already covering up one sex abuse scandal that he was aware of.


Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:


“ESPN’s deals with the NFL and the MLB would give the sports media giant new degrees of control…for two of the most profitable sports leagues in the country. We have serious concerns that fans and competitors will suffer as a result.”

Members concerned about loss of ESPN as a source of independent sports journalism

“[These deals] would likely harm ESPN’s competitors, who could find it challenging to compete, ultimately resulting in higher prices and fewer choices for viewers”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Representatives Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), and Patrick Ryan (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to the heads of Disney, ESPN, the National Football League (NFL), and Major League Baseball (MLB), raising concerns that ESPN’s proposed deals with the leagues could restrict competition and raise prices for sports fans.

Last month, Disney-owned ESPN announced a $3 billion deal to acquire the NFL Network, the distributor of NFL games, as well as the NFL’s fantasy football league — a competitor of ESPN’s fantasy football league — and the rights to distribute NFL RedZone, a live-TV feed that shows whip-around coverage of Sunday football games. In exchange, the NFL will take a 10% stake in ESPN. This deal raises a number of concerns, including the possibility that the NFL could give ESPN preferential treatment over other media companies, entrenching ESPN’s dominance in sports distribution.

“[This deal] would likely harm ESPN’s competitors, who could find it challenging to compete, ultimately resulting in higher prices and fewer choices for viewers if disadvantaged competitors subsequently fail,” said the members.

The NFL’s stake in ESPN could give the NFL preferential treatment over other sports leagues, offering more advantageous terms, pricing, or time slots for games. The NFL’s partial ownership could also hurt fans, players, and anyone involved in the business of sports that relies on ESPN’s independent coverage of NFL news, which has included developing stories and, at times, scandalous behavior in professional sports.

“The ESPN-NFL deal raises concerns regarding whether reporters and journalists would be under pressure from ESPN executives or their new part-owner regarding coverage…[which] could negatively affect the public as well as League players and other industry stakeholders whose interests are tied up in decisions the leagues make,” wrote the lawmakers.

ESPN executives have suggested that the company is open to replicating these types of “unconventional” equity deals with other sports leagues, creating the potential for more consolidation and consumer harm.

In August, ESPN also announced an agreement to fold MLB.TV into its new direct-to-consumer service, giving ESPN the exclusive right to “sell out-of-market regular-season games digitally and in-market games for five clubs over the next three years.”

The move could allow ESPN to “make it more difficult and more expensive for…subscribers to watch games…[or] force fans to subscribe to the ESPN media ecosystem in order to access games and charge an additional price to watch local teams’ games,” said the Congress members.

“ESPN’s deals with the NFL and the MLB would give the sports media giant new degrees of control…for two of the most profitable sports leagues in the country. We have serious concerns that fans and competitors will suffer as a result,” concluded the members.

The lawmakers asked the recipients to respond by October 8, 2025, explaining how the announced deals will affect the prices for fans to access content, whether fans will have to buy add-on subscriptions to access MLB content, how NFL and ESPN will safeguard against giving each other preferential treatment to the detriment of competitors, how ESPN will prevent infringing on competitors’ distribution rights if it establishes RedZone-type channels for other sports leagues, and what steps ESPN will take to prevent conflicts of interest and preserve the journalistic independence of its reporters.

###




The following sites updated:


Posted by at