Bondi Says She's The Bar Now

We don't need no stinkin' ethics.

Liz Dye Mar 5

On her first day in office, Attorney General Pam Bondi delivered a warning to Justice Department lawyers: Refusing to zealously advocate for the president’s position — no matter how unethical or contrary to law — was a firing offense.

A year later, morale has cratered and her agency is a hollowed out shell. The DOJ has been reduced to recruiting online, urging would-be prosecutors to hit up US Attorneys via DM. Turns out lawyers don’t love being marched into court with a gun in their backs and forced to light their credibility on fire!

The problem reached a crisis point this winter thanks to the Department of Homeland Security’s dogged insistence that its creative reinterpretations of settled law allow it to indefinitely detain any immigrant without a green card. Hundreds of judges have said they can’t, and yet district courts are still buckling under the weight of hundreds of identical habeas petitions. DHS routinely ignores court orders to release immigrants, or, when it does comply, dumps people on the street a thousand miles away from home without their identity documents.

DHS Puts DOJ In The Firing Line With Judges Liz Dye · Feb 26 Read full story

Unsurprisingly, judges are furious. Just this past week, courts in New Jersey, West Virginia, and Minnesota warned that they’re going to start holding DHS and prosecutors in contempt. And in California, Judge Sunshine Sykes was incensed by a leaked memo from Chief Immigration Judge Teresa Riley instructing immigration courts (which are part of DOJ) to disregard district court rulings.

Knowing that risking contempt is a job requirement won’t help Bondi recruit and retain staff. Nor will the inevitable bar complaints that quote judicial orders excoriating AUSAs for bringing frivolous cases and failing in their duty of candor to the court. So Bondi is running to where the ball is about to be.

In a proposed rule change flagged by Bloomberg Law, she floats a plan to take over state bar complaints against DOJ attorneys and “request that the bar disciplinary authority suspend any parallel investigations until the completion of the Department’s review.”

Bondi adds that, “should the relevant bar disciplinary authorities refuse the Attorney General’s request, the Department shall take appropriate action to prevent the bar disciplinary authorities from interfering with the Attorney General’s review of the allegations.”

The “appropriate action” would be nothing, but considering the number of garbage lawsuits her agency files, she probably means pointless litigation.

Fittingly, Bondi relies on a creative statutory reinterpretation of her own — a little hair of the dog, if you will.

Since it was passed in 1998, the McDade Amendment (28 USC § 530B) has subjected government attorneys to local ethical and professional standards “to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” In fact, the law was enacted because Attorneys General Janet Reno and Dick Thornburgh kept trying to exempt DOJ lawyers from local rules.

Bondi’s theory is that the McDade Amendment only prescribes standards of conduct for government lawyers, but leaves enforcement to the Attorney General herself by instructing her to “make and amend rules of the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this section.” She also gestures vaguely in the direction of the Supremacy Clause, claiming that fear of “weaponized” bar complaints deters her staff from zealous advocacy and thus interferes with “the broad statutory authority of the Attorney General to manage and supervise Department attorneys.”

The problem is that all of that is bullshit.

In 1979, the Supreme Court said that Larry Flynt’s lawyers had no right to be admitted in Ohio pro hac vice because, “Since the founding of the Republic, the licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States and the District of Columbia within their respective jurisdictions. The States prescribe the qualifications for admission to practice and the standards of professional conduct. They also are responsible for the discipline of lawyers.”

Jeff Clark, the MAGA goon serving as acting head of the Civil Division in 2020, tried to escape discipline by the DC Bar on the exact same theory that Bondi is floating now (plus several other even nuttier ones), and got laughed out of the DC Circuit.

Bondi’s fakakta claims don’t even make sense on their own terms, since the AG has zero power to impose professional discipline after an investigation — or “investigation,” since Bondi gutted the Office of Professional Responsibility and the White House defunded the Inspectors General. She can fire a lawyer for misconduct, or maybe go after his pension, but she can’t suspend him from the practice of law.

As for her whining about weaponized attorney grievance proceedings, that, too, is nonsense. State bars have handled Trumpland lawyers with kid gloves, refusing to discipline Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan after they falsely held themselves out as US Attorneys for months after courts had already ruled they were nothing of the kind. And Bondi herself, as well as her Principal Deputy Todd Blanche, shrugged off bar complaints in Florida and New York.

The proposed rule change will get 30 days for comment, and perhaps the negative publicity will lead the DOJ to withdraw it. But even it becomes official policy, this rule is effectively a nullity. Supreme Court precedent, settled law, and the Tenth Amendment will protect state bars when they tell the AG that they’ll be conducting their own disciplinary investigations, TYVM. But there is something Bondi could do to protect DOJ lawyers from professional discipline.

If she cared about keeping her staff out of trouble, she could just quit asking them to do wildly unethical stuff. It would be a twofer, saving them from contempt sanctions as well as possible disbarment. Plus it would probably help a lot with retention and morale!

I’m kidding — we all know she’s not going to do that.

HUBBELL

 

House calls Bondi over missing Epstein files as Senate abdicates its duty to declare war

March 5, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell Mar 5

As Trump continues his illegal war against Iran, the House Oversight Committee is losing patience with the DOJ’s cover-up of Trump’s involvement with Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. After the Wall Street Journal reported that the DOJ was withholding over 40,000 documents, the DOJ acknowledged that “47,635 files were offline for further review and should be ready for re-production by the end of the week.” See WSJ, There Are 47,635 Epstein Files Offline for Review, DOJ Says. (Gift article, accessible to all.)

Per the Journal, the documents being withheld include

a series of interviews the woman gave to agents in 2019 in which she alleged sexual misconduct by Trump and Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor in the 1980s, according to copies of the documents reviewed by the Journal.

Those revelations were enough to push the House Oversight Committee to subpoena Attorney General Pam Bondi to discuss the ongoing failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. See Politico, House committee subpoenas Pam Bondi to testify on her handling of the Epstein case.

Bondi’s last appearance before Congress was a disgraceful performance in which she insulted Democratic Representatives who questioned her about the Epstein investigation. But Republicans on the House Oversight Committee supported the issuance of the subpoena and are increasingly frustrated with Bondi’s handling of the document production. See CNN, “GOP Rep. Nancy Mace moved to subpoena the attorney general and it passed 24-19, with bipartisan support. Mace was joined by Democrats and fellow Republicans Tim Burchett, Michael Cloud, Lauren Boebert and Scott Perry.”

If the DOJ’s statement to the WSJ is credible, we will receive another production of the Epstein files late Friday evening (March 6). Unless Bondi is willing to be impeached or indicted, the interviews of the woman who accuses Trump of abusing her as a minor will be in the documents produced on Friday. If so, that will set off a new round of scrutiny and further questions.

The drip-drip-drip of disclosure is eroding the foundations of the cover-up. It is only a matter of time until we get to the truth. The good news is that progress is occurring; the bad news is that accountability is long overdue. Every additional day of delay inflicts further injury to the victims and allows the perpetrators to evade justice. Keep up the pressure—for the sake of the victims and for the sake of justice.

Senate rejects War Powers resolution, giving Trump free rein to continue illegal war on Iran.

In an abdication of its constitutional responsibility to decide whether to declare war, the Senate rejected a motion to invoke the War Powers Act. If the motion had succeeded, Trump would have been required to end hostilities in 60 days or seek approval by the Senate to extend hostilities beyond the 60-day limit. See CBS, Senate rejects attempt to rein in Trump’s power to wage war on Iran. Democrat John Fetterman voted against the motion, and Republican Rand Paul voted for it.

The fact that the Senate failed to pass the War Powers motion does not mean that the war against Iran is legal. It simply means that, as a matter of partisan politics, Congress refuses to perform its constitutional duty. That is the steady state for the Republican-controlled Congress under Trump. But the Senate’s failure to assert control over Trump’s ongoing conduct of an undeclared war will have far-reaching consequences.

The most immediate consequence of the failure is that Trump will ask for a supplemental appropriation of $50 billion to pay for the war against Iran in the short term. Although it is difficult to provide precise daily costs, an online, real-time tracker based on DOD data estimates that sustained operations run at $220 million per day.

The math suggests that for each month the war drags on (as an air war), Congress would be required to appropriate an additional $6.5 billion. If US troops invade Iran—as Trump said today might be necessary—that estimate would balloon dramatically. (Trump said in an interview, “[E]very president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it.“)

To fund the ongoing costs of the illegal war, at least 7 Senate Democrats would need to support the supplemental appropriations, assuming the filibuster applies. Republicans might try to force the funding through in the annual reconciliation bill, which would require only a majority vote in the Senate. That pathway is full of procedural nuances and not a sure bet. The Pentagon may need the money sooner rather than later, which would necessitate a bill subject to the filibuster. See The Hill, Five questions on Iran as the House returns to Washington.

One would hope that Democrats would vote against supplemental appropriations to fund a war that has not been authorized by Congress. Surprisingly, several Democrats in the Senate have suggested that they might support funding for a war they oppose. See Politico, ‘We’re in it’: Democrats won’t rule out giving Trump more money for Middle East war.

Per Politico, Democratic Senators Elissa Slotkin, Jack Reed, Gary Peters, and Tim Kain are not ruling out supporting additional funding.

The rationale of those Senators is that “Trump backed us into a war we oppose, but we can’t refuse to support our military in the field of battle.” (That’s my paraphrase.)

Per Politico,

There’s awareness among many Democrats that Trump has thrust the country into a conflict, and now Congress has no choice but to help keep things on track.

“I need to know the goals and the plan. … I don’t rule anything out,” said Slotkin. “I mean, we’re in it.”

There is an additional rationale motivating some Democratic Senators: Trump’s illegal war is rapidly depleting “stockpiles of precision-guided missiles and air defense interceptors that are critical for national security priorities elsewhere around the globe.” Trump is weakening US defenses across the globe by firing missiles at a furious pace in Iran. Congress may be called to shore up defenses outside of the Middle East.

The problem with all the post-hoc rationalizations for supplemental appropriations is that they reward Trump’s lawless behavior. There is an old saying, “Better to ask forgiveness than permission.” Trump asks neither forgiveness nor permission. He assumes that Democrats will always cave in their pursuit to maximize safety and order in the moment. But in doing so, they enable and encourage more bad behavior by Trump—which makes America less safe over the long run.

Trump started a war without asking for authorization from Congress because he correctly determined that Congress would not stand up to his unconstitutional behavior. He will now seek additional funding for his illegal war because he assumes that Democrats won’t be able to say, “We gave you $960 billion for defense in 2026; that’s more than enough money to provide for our safety, assuming you make wise choices. Don’t turn your bad decisions into our need to make emergency appropriations.”

Unless Democrats are willing to draw that line, Congress has no control over Trump’s ability to wage new wars. None. It will erase one of the fundamental safeguards against tyranny that the Framers established in the Constitution. See Adam Serwer, The Atlantic, The American King Goes to War.

Per Adam,

The authority that Trump has asserted in taking America to war against Iran is, like many of his other power grabs, an expression of the very tyranny the Framers were seeking to prevent.

Who can decide when a country goes to war is one of the crucial distinctions between a republic and a monarchy.

The Founders’ decision to give Congress the authority to declare war is not a coincidence. It was one of several deliberate moves to limit the ability of an executive to wage war based on grudge, impulse, or personal profit.

The restraints on the executive branch’s ability to wage war exist to ensure that if the nation makes a choice to go to war, it does so only after careful planning and deliberation. That is to say, the opposite of what happened here.

Having decided to start a war because of impulse and personal profit, Trump now expects Democrats to validate that choice post-facto by paying for the war’s incredible burn rate of multi-million dollar precision-guided missiles.

Elected democrats should listen to their constituents, who are raising their voices in the streets. I suggest that congressional Democrats join their constituents on March 28 to see and hear how real Americans feel about Trump’s illegal war.

Coda: As the war continues to spiral out of control, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the media to stop “obsessing” about the deaths of US soldiers and focus, instead, on the bombs exploding across Iran. See Tom Nichols, The Atlantic Pete Hegseth Treats Fallen American Soldiers as a PR Problem

Per Nichols,

This morning, the defense secretary gave a briefing on the war that quickly degenerated into Trumplike bombast. . . . Hegseth apparently prefers to sound more like a Call of Duty player leading a raid than a sober and judicious secretary of defense: “Death and destruction from the sky all day,” he said, along with other empty phrases such as “We’re playing for keeps.” (As opposed to what, exactly?)

“When a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news. I get it,” Hegseth told the reporters, military personnel, and civilians gathered this morning in the Pentagon. “The press only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality. The terms of this war will be set by us at every step. As I said Monday, the mission is laser-focused.”

As Nichols correctly notes, Hegseth’s comments reduce the deaths of six American soldiers to a contest between competing media narratives—one in which Trump “looks bad” because Americans die, and another in which Trump looks good because “death and destruction fall from the sky on Iran all day.”

Hegseth’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense was an insult to every active-duty soldier and veteran, living and deceased. He cannot bring himself to acknowledge that the sacrifice of American soldiers and their families is real, tragic, and worthy of somber acknowledgement.

The illegal war on Iran is an abstraction to Trump and to Hegseth. That makes them all the more dangerous and callous.

Concluding Thoughts

Representative Jasmine Crockett lost a hard-fought battle against Texas legislator James Talarico on Tuesday evening. Rep. Crockett had reason to feel as though her campaign was unfairly impacted by the Republican voter suppression in Dallas County.

But when it became clear that Talarico had secured a lead that could not be overcome, Rep. Crockett released a gracious concession statement that called for party unity. She then flew to Washington, D.C., to participate in a House Judiciary Committee hearing, where she eviscerated DHS Secretary Noem about deaths in DHS detention centers.

After a hard-fought campaign that ended with widespread voter confusion in her home county, Rep. Crockett could have taken a few days off to absorb the loss and get over her suspicions of unfairness. Instead, she continued to perform her duties as the representative of her constituents while calling for party unity in a race that might determine control of the Senate.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett should serve as an example to us all. Her resiliency, selflessness, and dedication are admirable. Her willingness to put the fate of the Senate above her own feelings of disappointment should guide all of us as we work through anger at Democrats who take positions with which we strongly disagree.

I had great difficulty restraining my comments in today’s newsletter about the Democrats who suggested they were willing to grant additional funds to Trump’s illegal war. We cannot turn against every Democrat who disappoints or upsets us. There is a bigger goal at stake—recapturing control of Congress. That goal requires us to support candidates and officials who do not check every box on our list or who disappoint us from time to time. (There are limits, however. We should not countenance betrayal.)

So, today, let’s all keep top of mind Jasmine Crockett’s example of leadership, strength, and dedication to a cause bigger than ourselves. Together, there is nothing we cannot do. But we need to stick together to achieve our most ambitious goals. Jasmine Crockett has shown us the way.

Talk to you tomorrow.

 

A good night for Democrats as the administration flounders

March 4, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell Mar 4

In states holding midterm primaries on Tuesday, the throughline was Democratic enthusiasm. In blue and red states alike, Democratic turnout in open and closed primaries was strong, reaching near-record levels in some states. Although Republican turnout was strong, as well, it was eclipsed by Democratic enthusiasm.

The good news at the ballot box was heightened by “candidate quality.” In North Carolina, former Governor Roy Cooper secured the Democratic nomination for Senate to succeed retiring GOP Senator Thom Tillis. Cooper has never lost an election and will face off against “a GOP oil lobbyist” at a time when lobbyists, oil, and Republicans are increasingly unpopular.

As I write, it is too early to tell which of two future stars of the Democratic Party—Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico—will win a tight race for the Democratic Senate nomination. Together, they have generated record-levels of Democratic turnout in Texas, a state with chronic low turnout. If there is a path forward, it is through candidates who can motivate reluctant voters to show up at the polls.

On the Republican side, several races in Texas have turned into “cage-match” mixed-martial-arts contests that will leave a mark on whoever wins. GOP incumbent Senator John Cornyn is in a run-off with the controversial and toxic Ken Paxton. Even Trump has had the good sense to stay away from race. When it became clear that Cornyn was forced into a runoff with Paxton, Cornyn released a statement saying, “Judgment day is coming for Ken Paxton. Republican voters will learn who Ken Paxton really is.”

MAGA firebrand Chip Roy will be in a run-off with another MAGA firebrand to replace Ken Paxton as Texas Attorney General. That race will turn on “loyalty” to Trump, pushing both contenders to the most extreme MAGA positions—not a recipe for success in blue-wave midterms where Trump is historically unpopular.

In a similar dynamic, one of MAGA’s nastiest members, Dan Crenshaw, is being challenged from the right by an even nastier challenger, who may win because of support from Trump and the Tea Party caucus. [Update: Dan Crenshaw lost to the challenger.]

The confusion in Dallas County, Texas, is inexcusable and was the result of a voter suppression change that became effective on election day. The change regarding where Dallas County voters were required to vote resulted from the refusal of Dallas County Republicans to sign an agreement allowing precinct-wide voting.

The details will matter in the litigation that will undoubtedly follow, but for now, the point is that Democrats have been forewarned that, in the 2026 midterms, same-day voting must take place in the precinct where the voter is registered to avoid challenge.

With that advance notice, we must ensure Democrats know where to vote. It will require hard work, but that burden will fall on Democrats and Republicans alike. We must work harder than Republicans to educate voters who will support Democratic candidates. We can do that.

The administration has a dumpster-fire day of contradictions, flip-flops, and incompetence

The administration experienced one of the worst days in modern presidential history. Incompetence oozed through the sizable gaps in the scotch tape and baling wire that hold the administration together. At its core, the chaos emanated from Trump, who lacks the attention-span, discipline, and intelligence to lead the administration. His stubby fingers were all over Tuesday’s chaos.

Why does this matter? Am I relating these stories just to serve a dollop of schadenfreude on top of Republican humble pie? No, the inconsistencies and incompetence are at the beating heart of Trump’s lawless policies.

If we hope to defeat his acolytes in the midterms, we must arm ourselves with the evidence of Trump’s colossal ineptitude, forcing his minions to defend every mistake, corrupt action, and crime committed by Trump.

Administration flip-flops on dropping appeal against law firms that refused to bend the knee to Trump.

Yesterday, I wrote that the Trump administration had requested a voluntary dismissal of its appeal of losses in lawsuits brought by law firms that refused to capitulate to Trump. That decision effectively amounted to a concession of illegality by the Trump administration—the correct result and a prudent exercise of judgment by the DOJ. But someone apparently forgot to tell Trump, who went ballistic and ordered the DOJ to seek to withdraw its request for voluntary dismissal.

Marc Elias sent an email that explained the reversal by the DOJ, and the blame that should be shared by the nine capitulating law firms. Elias wrote:

Having spent last night, no doubt, reviewing the slew of negative news clips indicating that Trump had given up his fight and democracy had prevailed, the Department of Justice decided to reverse course this morning. In its filing, the DOJ simply cited its “prerogative” to continue its appeal and informed the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that it would continue its legal crusade against these four law firms. [¶]

In my piece earlier today, I called out the cowardice of the nine law firms that were in a position to speak out against Trump’s executive orders, but chose to stay silent. They bear the bulk of the responsibility and shame for the situation we find ourselves in. Had they stood tall and supported the four courageous law firms that fought back, Trump would not feel as empowered to continue his crusade.

Trump will ultimately lose this fight. But it should be over—and would be over if the nine capitulating law firms, and the rest of the legal profession, had come to the aid of the firms that chose to stand up to Trump.

Trump contradicts Rubio’s claim that the US attacked Iran because Israel was going to launch an attack first.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the US launched a “preemptive war” against Iran because Israel had informed the US that it planned to attack Iran, which the US feared would result in strikes on US military bases in the Middle East. Today, Trump contradicted Rubio’s claim. See ABC News, Trump contradicts Rubio. (“No. I might have forced [Israel’s] hand. . . [I]t was my opinion that [Iran was] going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”)

To be clear, Trump lies constantly, so we should not credit anything he says. The point is that it is a rarity for a president to contradict his Secretary of State. But in Trump’s out-of-control administration, there is no coordination between Trump and his cabinet members.

Was the real reason for the attack on Iran a plot to commence “Armageddon”?

You can’t make this up. Apparently, at a pre-strike briefing, an officer told non-commissioned officers that Trump was chosen by God to start a holy war against Iran that would start Armageddon (a final battle before the Second Coming of Christ). See Military.com, Commanders Accused of Framing Iran War as Biblical Mandate, Jesus’ ‘Return’.

A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that President Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to independent journalist Jonathan Larsen as published on Substack.

That complaint was made by a non-commissioned officer and provided to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), which from Saturday morning through Monday evening received and logged more than 110 complaints about commanders in every branch of the military.

A word of caution: This story is based on a single source, which is generally reliable. But Snopes has rated the story “Unrated” because it relies on a single confidential source.

But the whole apocalyptic religious trope is consistent with Pete Hegseth’s radical Christian views. Indeed, Hegseth has a medieval crusader, anti-Muslim tattoo on his chest, “Deus Vult,” and is a member of a radical Christian nationalist movement that believes “God is also a god of war.” See Religion Dispatches, Not a Single Senator Probed the Most Dangerous Part of Pete Hegseth's Background: His Ties to White Christian Nationalism.

Per Religion Dispatches,

In December 2024, Jane Mayer reported in The New Yorker that a coworker at Concerned Veterans for America, one of two small nonprofits Hegseth has run, lodged a complaint against Hegseth after he and an associate began chanting “Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!” in “a drunk and a violent manner” at a bar while on official travel for a work event.

So, the notion that Hegseth and other officers believe the attack on Iran is part of a twisted plan to prepare for the Second Coming doesn’t seem far-fetched.

Lack of coordination between FBI and Pentagon on illegal war against Iran.

In a well-run administration, planning for a war against a state known for sponsoring terrorism would have included working with the FBI to prevent terror attacks on the US. But forty-eight hours before Trump launched his illegal war on Iran, FBI Director Kash Patel fired about eleven members of an elite group charged with monitoring terror threats from Iran. See CNN, Kash Patel gutted FBI counterintelligence team tasked with tracking Iranian threats days before US strikes, sources say.

Kash Patel is affirmatively making Americans less safe. But it was unconscionable that the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, and Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, failed to consider the prospect of Iranian terror attacks on the US. They should have alerted Kash Patel to the need to increase surveillance of domestic threats coming from Iran. All of them are responsible for any attacks that slip through surveillance networks because of the untimely firing of the FBI specialists.

Americans are stuck in the Middle East because State Department failed to plan for their evacuation.

As with the failure to coordinate with the FBI, the State Department failed to make plans to evacuate Americans from the Middle East. See NBC News, Americans told to leave Middle East due to Iran war face closed airports, reduced embassy staffing.

The lack of planning was exacerbated by Iran’s response to the war. Rather than hunkering down under US attacks, Iran has adopted a strategy of spreading the hostilities throughout the Middle East. See NYTimes, Iran’s Strategy: Expand the War, Increase the Cost, Outlast Trump (Gift article, accessible to all.)

Per the Times,

Faced with the overwhelming firepower of the United States and Israel, diplomats and analysts say, Iran is working to enlarge the battlefield from its own territory to the broader region. The goals are to damage oil and gas infrastructure in neighboring countries, shut the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and curtail air traffic — all to disrupt the economies of the Persian Gulf and drive up global energy prices and inflation. Iran will also be trying to exhaust the number of expensive missile interceptors held by its enemies.

“The war has become a test of wills and stamina,” said Vali Nasr of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. “Iran is facing qualitatively superior militaries, so the strategy is to test their will by expanding the battlefield, complicating the war and increasing the danger to the world economy.”

The US State Department and Department of Defense apparently failed to anticipate a regional war as Iran’s defensive strategy—a failure of contingency planning, wargaming, and imagination.

There are more examples, but you get the idea. The administration is hopelessly in over its head. And the prime culprit is Trump’s undisciplined, narcissistic approach to all things.

Concluding Thoughts

Tuesday was a confidence-building night. As Democrats supported talented, personable candidates, Republicans were choosing election deniers and extremist, scandal-ridden candidates whose only selling point is their loyalty to Trump. For a president with an approval rating of 38% (19 points underwater) who has a positive approval rating in only 9 states (AL, OK, TN, MT, UT, WV, ID, WY, and ND), loyalty to Trump as a qualification for office seems like a losing proposition.

We can’t rely on Republicans to defeat themselves. But neither should we ascribe to them strength or acumen that they do not possess. They are not only fighting the last war (2024), they are fighting the two prior wars (2016, 2020). Democrats must look to the future and convince Americans to join them on that path. Given the state of America under Trump’s reckless, corrupt, incompetent administration, that is a vision that should be far more attractive to voters than Trump’s, “I alone can solve it” approach to politics.

Talk to you tomorrow!