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.
