Monday, February 16, 2026

DAN RATHER

 

… And For His Next Offense

To maintain control of Congress Trump is trying to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans

Credit: Getty Images

November 3 is 260 days away. Between now and then, no story is more consequential to the survival of our republic than Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the midterm elections. These biennial contests have long been viewed as an interesting political exercise about the popularity of the president and his administration’s policies.

If only things were still so innocent and uncomplicated. The current president is applying maximum pressure trying to ensure the election keeps Republicans in power, whatever the cost to our democracy.

The latest misadventure by Trump and his minions was on Friday when Kristi Noem, the oft-criticized Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, made it clear she believes her agency should be involved in election integrity, claiming she has the authority to find “vulnerabilities” in the election system to make sure they are “run correctly.”

The last thing this country needs is ICE agents or DHS involved in elections. Noem was in Arizona when she made these remarks, speaking to election deniers about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

The SAVE Act, which passed the House on Thursday, includes a provision that requires a photo ID to vote and one that would mandate people to prove their citizenship by producing a birth certificate or passport when registering to vote. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 21 million Americans, or 9% of the voting public, lack easy access to these documents, and half of Americans don’t even possess a passport.

Young voters and people of color, who tend to vote Democratic, would be disproportionately affected by this requirement. Women who change their last names when they marry would face new hurdles when registering since the name on their birth certificate would not match current identification. Eighty-five percent of married women take their husband’s name or hyphenate.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there is currently no pathway to passage of the SAVE Act in the Senate, deliberately avoiding calls for elimination of the filibuster. That didn’t sit well with Trump, who took to social media in a huff. “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” he wrote. Whether it is constitutional or not.

Trump’s unyielding election denialism and his ever-increasing menu of illegal maneuvers to subvert the election come not from any evidence that U.S. elections are rife with fraud but from his inability to admit he lost in 2020. His tacit understanding is that Republicans will lose big in November— and that it will be his fault.

New polling in the wake of Alex Pretti’s killing at the hands of federal agents and recent, disturbing revelations in the Epstein files shows Trump’s approval rating average has hit an all-time low. He is currently 15 points underwater and less popular than Joe Biden was at this point in his presidency.

The fact that midterm elections tend to be referenda on a president’s policies does not bode well for Republicans’ chances in November. Trump’s approval on his top agenda items, immigration enforcement and the economy, are also underwater.

Historically, when a sitting president’s approval is above 50% he should expect to lose a handful of House seats in the midterm elections. The loss of three seats in 2026 would result in the Democrats retaking the majority.

When a president’s approval dips below 50%, the predictions are far worse. Trump, who hasn’t been at or above 50% approval for more than a year, may lose at least 32 congressional seats, according to an analysis by Gallup.

According to Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias, Trump’s election subversion timeline is right on schedule. First, he lies about voting and fraud, which he has been doing since Day One of his second term. When that loses steam, he tries to gain traction by going to the courts. When those cases inevitably fail, as they have almost every time since he started this practice in 2016, he resorts to abusing executive power. This is roughly where we’ve been and where we are.

Since he can’t win in a court of law, he makes his case in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, he has achieved significantly more success there.

It is worth mentioning that Trump had no problem with the 2016 or 2024 presidential election results, the ones he won. Only the results of 2020 remain in doubt in his mind.

But he has done a masterful job conning millions of people into believing that one election was rigged — this despite mountains of evidence that it was free and fair, according to multiple independent organizations including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank and the University of Maryland Center for Democracy. Even the far-right Heritage Foundation’s own data shows fewer than 100 noncitizens have voted since 1982!

But lack of evidence has never stopped this president.

A frustrating paradox of our current political state is that democratic mechanisms are being used to undermine democracy itself. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way call Trump’s form of governance “competitive authoritarianism,” a hybrid regime where democratic institutions — elections, the courts, the media — still exist but are forcibly skewed in favor of those in power, tipping the scales so they may remain in power.

Election subversion is one tactic of “competitive authoritarianism.” It is used to legally hold onto power by corrupting elections to prevent the true winner from taking office. It allows for elections to take place, while supplying a patina of legitimacy. Think Hungary and Viktor Orbán, Recep ErdoÄŸan in Turkey, or Venezuela under Hugo Chávez.

For a man who claims to be worried about the safety of our elections Trump has a dangerous way of showing it. He dismantled the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helped states keep our elections safe, especially from the increased threat of cyber attacks. He fired or sidelined election security personnel. He threatened to prosecute election officials in states where he didn’t like the outcome in 2020.

He demanded voter files from all 50 states and the District of Columbia in order to purge legitimate voters from the rolls, which he has no authority to do. Twenty-four states, including some red states, have not complied. So he took them to court, unsuccessfully so far.

He is now promising an executive order that would require photo identification to vote and ban mail-in ballots. He seems undeterred by the fact that he issued a similar order last March and was blocked by a federal court.

Recent election wins by Democrats, low approval ratings, and defeats in court are fueling Trump’s increasingly desperate attempts to find ways to manipulate the system to guarantee Republicans wins in November.

This election is shaping up to be one of the most consequential of my lifetime. The very foundation of our constitutional republic, based on the principles of freedom and democracy, is at stake.

THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY



 





Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Great Bubble?

 

Is Artificial Intelligence the Next Great Bubble?

26.10.202521:00

By Konstantinos Tsalakos

Author and digital rights advocate Cory Doctorow speaks to To Vima on the coming AI crash, the “enshittification” of the Internet, and how Big Tech turned innovation into decay

What if artificial intelligence isn’t the most transformative technology in the history of humanity? What if what we are actually facing is a financial bubble comparable to that of 2008? What if the services on offer from the major technology platforms don’t improve over time, but actually get worse—on purpose?

Cory Doctorow is one of the heretics who have no qualms about answering these questions straight from the hip. As a writer, journalist and digital rights advocate, he is one of the most dynamic and inquisitive figures who engage systematically with technology issues. 

To Vima spoke with him about the promises technology has failed to keep, and how we have been led inexorably down the road to what he has provocatively dubbed the “enshittification” of the Internet.

Is artificial intelligence the new financial bubble? Is our reality going to be like something from the Book of Revelations before we know it?

“Absolutely. The question is whether we can avoid at least some of the fallout and stop throwing good money after bad, given that every dollar invested in AI is a dollar wasted. We’re talking about a sector that has had 700 billion dollars of capital expenditure sunk in it, when by the Tech Bros’ own pumped-up calculations, it has only generated 60. Which depreciates its assets in five years, when its executives admit in private that those assets are worth precisely nothing after three. A sector which, according to Bain and Company, has to make three trillion dollars by 2030 or face collapse, and which only ever spends other people’s money. Seven giant AI companies now account for between 29% and 31% of the US stock market, the S&P 500, and all of them are losing money. I think the crisis, when it comes, will be worse than 2008.”00:01

So, what is this: a case of mass hallucination?

“But isn’t that what happens with every bubble? The idea prevails that there’s no way it could be a bubble, because everyone else is spending so much money. So I’d better start spending too—either that, or miss the boat. Bubbles are a way of siphoning off the savings of ordinary savers. I think a lot of the big AI goliaths may make billions out of this, just like the titans did in the housing crisis. But most people will lose everything when artificial intelligence collapses.”

Every bubble is based on a promise. What is the promise here?

“That artificial intelligence will replace human labor. If a saleswoman contacts an employer and proposes a product that will allow him to lay off workers, she’ll definitely have his attention. Bosses are always enthusiastic about the idea of downsizing. The problem is, there are very few jobs AI can actually replace, and most of those don’t come with high wage costs. So even if the salaries of the people it puts out of work were funneled into the AI company that provided the product that made them redundant, it still wouldn’t make up for the billions it had spent to develop it.”

An example?

“You can’t really replace programmers with AI, because AI can write code, but it can’t do software engineering. And, instead of trying to use AI to provide experienced programmers with the tools they need to become more productive, the companies are trying to fire all their experienced—and therefore expensive—programmers and replace them with easily intimidated younger coders. But, needless to say, the relative beginners aren’t able to detect the subtle errors artificial intelligence makes (see ‘slopsquatting’). So, we’re going to see a lot of programmers getting fired. Not because AI can actually do their jobs, but rather because their boss has convinced themselves it can.”

So what can we do?

“The best thing we could do would be to travel back in time and stop funding Open AI. But we can’t. The second-best option is to bring this gross misallocation of capital to a stop before it’s too late. We’re going to lose a lot of people who do jobs that matter, and which we rely on, as they’re replaced by artificial intelligence. And then, when the collapse comes and they turn AI off, we won’t have anybody to do those jobs. So things are going to be very bad.”

Can we talk a little bit about your concept of “enshittification”?

“It’s based on an observation of how digital platforms are changing for the worse, and offers a theory as to why this is happening. Platforms are good for the end user, at first. But then they find a way to lock their end users in, and once they realize that it’s difficult for them to leave, they downgrade the services they provide them in order to attract more business customers. And once the business users are locked in, too, they degrade their offering to them, as well. Finally, in the third stage of the process, they harvest all the value for themselves, meaning for their executives and shareholders. These are the three stages of what I call the ‘enshittification” process.

Could you give us an example here, too.

“Think of Google. The image we have is of a tremendously innovative business. But take a closer look, and you realize that its only genuinely successful and innovative product is the search engine, which it created many years ago. All its other successful products were bought, with each new acquisition raising competition concerns. It took the other kids’ toys and is playing with them now. The result: Google has captured the search engine market with a 90% market share. And it used the profits it earned from acquiring all the companies that could have replaced it one day to hoover up everything else on the shelves: every operating system, every mobile device, every provider. Which is how, in 2020, it reached the point where it couldn’t grow any more, as it already had a 90% market share.”

And so?

“And so, when the US Department of Justice took Google to court for antitrust practices, the company’s internal memos were released relating to how the company responded to the growth crisis, when it erupted in 2020. Well, we now know there were two views. On the one hand, there were those whose focus was on revenues. And that the head of the relevant department, Prabhakar Raghavan, suggested solving the problem by making Google search worse. Because making users search more than once to find their answer was more profitable, since Google would get to show you ads every time you searched. But while the head of Google search technology, Ben Gomes, hated the idea, his only counterargument was that he’d feel bad if they went ahead and did it. At the end of the day, of course, “when money talks, bullshit walks”, as they say.”

Why is this happening?

“It’s due to what I call an ‘enshittified policy environment’ that allows companies that are bad for consumers to prevail over companies that provide good services. And it starts with the failure to enforce antitrust competition law. This leads to regulatory capture, because when a few companies control most of the market in a sector, they can gang up against the regulators. In the case of the tech giants, all the other safety valves that could have prevented the enshittification of their products were also dismantled—due, once again, to the same over-concentration.”

 

The Epstein Files: The Blackmail of Billionaire Leon Black and Epstein's Role in It

 

The Epstein Files: The Blackmail of Billionaire Leon Black and Epstein's Role in It

Black's downfall — despite paying tens of millions in extortion demands — illustrates how potent and valuable intimate secrets are in Epstein's world of oligarchs and billionaires.



One of the few pictures of Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black together in 2005. Patrick McMullan / Getty Images

One of the towering questions hovering over the Epstein saga was whether the illicit sexual activities of the world’s most powerful people were used as blackmail by Epstein or by intelligence agencies with whom (or for whom) he worked. The Trump administration now insists that no such blackmail occurred.

Top law enforcement officials in the Trump administration — such as Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino — spent years vehemently denouncing the Biden administration for hiding Epstein’s “client list,” as well as concealing details about Epstein’s global blackmail operations. Yet last June, these exact same officials suddenly announced, in the words of their joint DOJ-FBI statement, that their “exhaustive review” found no “client list” nor any “credible evidence … that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” They also assured the public that they were certain, beyond any doubt, that Epstein killed himself.

There are still many files that remain heavily and inexplicably redacted. But, from the files that have been made public, we know one thing for certain. One of Epstein’s two key benefactors — the hedge fund billionaire Leon Black, who paid Epstein at least $158 million from 2012 through 2017 — was aggressively blackmailed over his sexual conduct. (Epstein’s second most-important benefactor was the billionaire Les Wexner, a major pro-Israel donor who cut off ties in 2008 after Epstein repaid Wexner $100 million for money Wexner alleged Epstein had stolen from him).

Despite that $100 million repayment in 2008 to Wexner, Epstein had accumulated so much wealth through his involvement with Wexner that it barely made a dent. He was able to successfully “pilfer” such a mind-boggling amount of money because he had been given virtually unconstrained access to, and power over, every aspect of Wexner’s life. Wexner even gave Epstein power of attorney and had him oversee his children’s trusts. And Epstein, several years later, created a similar role with Leon Black, one of the richest hedge fund billionaires of his generation.

Epstein’s 2008 conviction and imprisonment due to his guilty plea on a charge of “soliciting a minor for prostitution” began mildly hindering his access to the world’s billionaires. It was at this time that he lost Wexner as his font of wealth due to Wexner’s belief that Epstein stole from him.

But Epstein’s world was salvaged, and ultimately thrived more than ever, as a result of the seemingly full-scale dependence that Leon Black developed on Epstein. As he did with Wexner, Epstein insinuated himself into every aspect of the billionaire’s life — financial, political, and personal — and, in doing so, obtained innate, immense power over Black.


The recently released Epstein files depict the blackmail and extortion schemes to which Black was subjected. One of the most vicious and protracted arose out of a six-year affair he carried on with a young Russian model, who then threatened in 2015 to expose everything to Black’s wife and family, and “ruin his life,” unless he paid her $100 million. But Epstein himself also implicitly, if not overtly, threatened Black in order to extract millions more in payments after Black, in 2016, sought to terminate their relationship.

While the sordid matter of Black’s affair has been previously reported — essentially because the woman, Guzel Ganieva, went public and sued Black, accusing him of “rape and assault,” even after he paid her more than $9 million out of a $21 million deal he made with her to stay silent — the newly released emails provide very vivid and invasive details about how desperately Black worked to avoid public disclosure of his sex life. The broad outlines of these events were laid out in a Bloomberg report on Sunday, but the text of emails provide a crucial look into how these blackmail schemes in Epstein World operated.

Epstein was central to all of this. That is why the emails describing all of this in detail are now publicly available: because they were all sent by Black or his lawyers to Epstein, and are thus now part of the Epstein Files.

Once Ganieva began blackmailing and extorting Black with her demands for $100 million — which she repeatedly said was her final, non-negotiable offer — Black turned to Epstein to tell him how to navigate this. (Black’s other key advisor was Brad Karp, who was forced to resign last week as head of the powerful Paul, Weiss law firm due to his extensive involvement with Epstein).

From the start of Ganieva’s increasingly unhinged threats against Black, Epstein became a vital advisor. In 2015, Epstein drafted a script for what he thought Black should tell his mistress, and emailed that script to himself.

Epstein included an explicit threat that Black would have Russian intelligence — the Federal Security Service (FSB) — murder Ganieva, because, Epstein argued, failure to resolve this matter with an American businessman important to the Russian economy would make her an “enemy of the state” in the eyes of the Russian government. Part of Epstein’s suggested script for Black is as follows (spelling and grammatical errors maintained from the original correspondents):

you should also know that I felt it necessary to contact some friends in FSB, and I though did not give them your name. They explained to me in no uncertain terms that especially now , when Russia is trying to bring in outside investors , as you know the economy sucks, and desperately investment that a person that would attempt to blackmail a us businessman would immeditaly become in the 21 century, what they terms . vrag naroda meant in the 20th they translated it for me as the enemy of the people, and would e dealt with extremely harshly , as it threatened the economies of teh country. So i expect never ever to hear a threat from you again.

In a separate email to Karp, Black’s lawyer, Epstein instructs him to order surveillance on the woman’s whereabouts by using the services of Nardello & Co., a private spy and intelligence agency used by the world’s richest people.

Black’s utter desperation for Ganieva not to reveal their affair is viscerally apparent from the transcripts of multiple lunches he had with her throughout 2015, which he secretly tape-recorded. His law firm, Paul, Weiss, had those recordings transcribed, and those were sent to Epstein.

To describe these negotiations as torturous would be an understatement. But it is worth taking a glimpse to see how easily and casually blackmail and extortion were used in this world...

Total Pageviews

GOOGLE ANALYTICS

Blog Archive