How Trump Is Alienating Republicans

Most readers will know Michael Savage (née Michael Weiner, expert in naturalistic medicine). He is the embodiment of a certain flavor of modern American conservatism (the cultural nationalist faction, which also includes Stephen Miller). He also has a large audience of right-wing listeners (20 million people/week, at his height) that may not see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but are definitely interested in what Savage has to say.

Yesterday, Savage fired up his eX-Twitter account to share his list of the things that Donald Trump has done to alienate his voters. Here it is:

1. Escalating instead of defusing the Ukraine/Russia war
2. Pushing a bloated pork barrel spending bill and attacking Musk
3. Hiding the Epstein list
4. Firing the labor statistics chief who refused to back down
5. Unconditional support for Netanyahu's war
6. Accepting a plane from Qatar which will cost $1 billion to retrofit
7. Building a gilded ballroom in the WH

Savage added that these things will not push him, and other conservatives he's spoken to, into the Democratic camp, but they might well cause them to stay home on Election Day next year.

This is not the most important news of the day; not by a longshot. However, we run it, and in the lead position, for two reasons. First, it speaks to the sources of Trump discontent for at least some Republicans, and very possibly a substantial number of Republicans. Second, it is a pretty good framing of our coverage today (and in the last week or so). We've written recently about all of these things, except the Qatari plane, which we wrote about extensively when the bribe was paid deal was made. It's at least something of an affirmation that we're on the right track in the things we identify as political liabilities for the President. (Z)

Epstein Isn't Going Away...

After a brief lull, there was a bunch more Jeffrey Epstein news yesterday. Here's an overview:

• Subpoenas: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) was given marching orders from his fellow committee members: Issue subpoenas that will help get to the bottom of the Epstein scandal. Yesterday, he complied, demanding information from the White House, and also sending subpoenas to former U.S. Attorney Generals Bill Barr, Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Merrick Garland; former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
  
  There are some pretty obvious gaps in that list. Given Comer's apparent interest in attorneys general and FBI directors (FBIs director?), he didn't see fit to subpoena current AG Pam Bondi or current FBI Director Kash Patel. And even if Comer is operating under the belief that current members of the administration would tell him to piss off, or would invoke some sort of immunity or privilege, what about Alex Acosta? He's not in office right now, and he is the fellow who gave Epstein a plea deal that is almost too generous to believe, with the explanation that he (Acosta) was told that Epstein was an intelligence operative. Sure seems like Acosta would have some interesting information to share.
  
  Maybe more subpoenas are forthcoming. But if they are not, then this is clearly not what most/all of the committee members voted for. One cannot take that witness list as a serious effort to actually figure out what happened. We're not entirely sure what is going on, here (again, assuming no other subpoenas are forthcoming). Is Comer trying to change the narrative, and to make this about the Clintons/Democrats, and not about Trump? Or has Comer imbibed so much of the Trump Kool-Aid that he actually believes Hillary Clinton is a more important witness than Acosta (or than Trump himself)?
  
  
• Grand Jury Testimony: The White House is once again pursuing the possibility of releasing grand jury transcripts, despite the fact that one judge already said "no," and the rules here are pretty clear. The victims of Epstein have asked that the materials remain sealed, and so too has Ghislaine Maxwell.
  
  
• Maxwell: Speaking of Maxwell, the administration is also thinking about releasing a partial transcript of the interview she sat for last week. Apparently, key members of the administration are going to have dinner tonight and discuss strategy, with J.D. Vance serving as host. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. Whatever Vance & Co. decide, it has already leaked that the main thrust of Maxwell's comments, at least as regards Trump, is that he never did anything in her presence that caused concern.
  
  It would seem that the White House thinks this characterization is exculpatory. We're not so sure. First of all, the people who are concerned with the Epstein scandal, regardless of their political vantage point, are not likely to trust her. Second, that characterization seems to be very carefully crafted to give Trump what he wants (in search of a pardon, presumably) without committing perjury. She doesn't say that he never did anything wrong, or that she has no knowledge of illegal or immoral activities, only that he didn't do anything "concerning" around her. That leaves an awful lot of room for bad behavior. Oh, and she's a convicted pedophile sex trafficker, so her definition of "concerning" may be rather different than that of most people.
  
  
• About that Lawsuit: Trump has begun slow-walking his lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. Yesterday, the President agreed to delay all depositions until a court has decided whether or not to dismiss his suit. Previously, he was pushing for Rupert Murdoch to be deposed ASAP. This change in approach is being interpreted as a sign that: (1) Trump wants this lawsuit to stop making headlines and/or (2) Trump is planning to quietly drop the matter.
  
  
• Politics, Republican: Most Republican members of Congress are spending their recess in hiding, for fear of angry blowback from constituents over a host of issues. Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) was one of the brave few who decided to face the music, and to hold a town hall for constituents. He may regret that decision, as he got blasted for the better part of 2 hours, primarily about Epstein and the BBB.
  
  
• Politics, Democratic: A Democratic politician has broken the seal, as it were. Stephen J. Cloobeck is a businessman, and the latest person to decide that he might just be able to buy his way into the California governor's mansion. Since nobody has ever heard of him, and since he's up against a bunch of heavyweights with actual name recognition, he's a bit desperate. And so, in his first campaign ad, he decided to lean into the Epstein scandal. You can see it for yourself, if you wish:
  
  
  
  We are not quite sure how the logic of "Trump is a pervert, so vote for me for governor" works, and the commercial doesn't really answer that. Still, if Epstein continues to be an anchor around Trump's neck, this is just going be the first of many such commercials.

And there you have it: Jeffrey Epstein, the dead pedophile who just keeps on giving. Yay? (Z)

...But the DOGE E-mail Reports Are

Another day, and another signature "accomplishment" of Elon Musk erased. Remember the rule that every federal employee had to send an e-mail to their supervisor each week listing five things they had accomplished? Well, compliance wasn't great, even from the beginning. It's gotten much worse over time, since most departments did not see the value in the exercise. And now, it's officially over, per an announcement from Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor.

We wonder if the full story of DOGE will ever be known. We would certainly be interested to know answers to these questions (among many others):

• To what extent was Musk "hired" to do an actual job, and to what extent was DOGE just a reward for his nine-figure donations to the Republican Party and Trump's super PACs?
  
  
• How much energy was expended on bringing Musk's plan for DOGE, and Trump's plan for DOGE, into alignment? Did they discuss their visions in depth? A little bit? Not at all?
  
  
• Did either of them even HAVE a vision, beyond "break things"?
  
  
• To what extent were Musk's decisions coordinated with/vetted by the White House? For example, with this e-mail thing, did Trump and his team know about the new policy in advance? Or did they first learn about it when they saw the story on Fox?
  
  
• Did Musk and his team make any decisions that the White House opposed, but where there was no reversal/rebuke from the administration? And if so, did the administration stay silent because it did not want to alienate Musk, or because it did not want the embarrassment of appearing to have lost control?
  
  
• Was Musk basically a useful idiot? Was the plan all along to fire as many federal employees as possible, with Musk inadvertently putting himself forward as the mustachioed villain who would take most of the heat?

In any case, it's clear that the relationship between former bros Musk and Trump remains chilly. It's also clear that DOGE was a train wreck; that conclusion will become even sounder once improperly terminated employees begin winning lawsuits—and judgments—by the bushel. (Z)

Israel Is Losing

We always get lots of... pointed e-mails when we write about Israel. This piece is definitely not going to break that trend. So, let's just get this out of the way right now; responses go to comments@electoral-vote.com. We are basically teetotalers, but we will make sure to consume a stiff cup of hot chocolate before checking the inbox tomorrow.

We have noted, many times, that we are not experts on the situation in the Middle East. However, we do know a fair bit about war in general, and the history of modern warfare. We also know a thing or two about rhetoric. Our last piece on Israel was a little over a week ago, and in that item, we included an impassioned response from reader D.E. in Lancaster, PA. We did not necessarily agree with everything that D.E. wrote, but that letter did a better job than we could have done when it comes to capturing the feelings of (many) people, as they are exposed to the horrors taking place in Gaza.

As is inevitably the case, we got many e-mails that we would describe as... not helpful, let's say. Here is an example; we choose this one primarily because it's fairly short. We've decided not to include authors' initials in this item, since these correspondents did not know their letters would be utilized in this manner:

I wish you would stop giving D.E. a megaphone. They try to stop what they know is coming, but they are in fact antisemitic. I've followed enough of their posts, comments and questions over the years to say they are virulently so, and even more so when it comes to Israel. They hate Israel categorically, and they hate Jews as well. Comparing Israel to the Nazis is antisemitic. Period, end of story. They can couch it with whatever words they want, but they are disgusting, and you amplifying their message isn't helpful at all.

Let's be clear: Hamas can end the war and end the "starvation" whenever they want. Free the hostages! It is literally that simple. No country in the history of the world has ever been required to assist the enemy during war. Ever! Not only that, you, and everyone else on the left, including D.E., are utilizing antisemitic and anti-Israel publications as though they are 100% unbiased and 100% truthful. Haaretz is further to the left in Israel than Daily Kos and MSNBC are in America. They hate Netanyahu and don't really care much for their homeland either. Some of the so-called starving children images are actually Gazan children with legitimate diseases like cystic fibrosis, and not at all related to a lack of food. But, the world at large, and specifically those on your side of the aisle, doesn't care. They want Israel to be accused of genocide. They want Netanyahu to fail. I think it's fair to say that they would be perfectly fine with the State of Israel ceasing to exist.

You can keep letting D.E. spew their hatred, and you can keep up with your grossly slanted commentary, and I will now start calling you out on it. I hope others will as well, but I seriously doubt it. When it comes to Israel and the Jewish people, I know where the majority of the left stands, and probably where most of your readership stands. Just look at France. Recognizing "Palestine" is the end of France as a safe place for Jews to live and visit. The U.K. is threatening to recognize Hamas-ville if Israel doesn't back down. Think about that. They don't really care about the "Palestinians." If they did, they would recognize the nation right now. They want to use them to extort the Israelis. When they do recognize the Hamas-ians, that'll be the end of the U.K. as a place Jews should live or visit. See, this isn't much different than the Nazis, only D.E. had it reversed. Europe is once again becoming a place inhospitable to Jews. We've come full circle with the 1930s-1940s. All that they needed was Hamas killing 1,200 of my brothers and sisters, and Israel retaliating, for their true colors to shine through.

Europe is almost dead to Jews. There aren't more than a handful of countries in Europe one can visit with a Yarmulke on and feel safe. The countries that are safe are right leaning or right-ish leaning. That's no coincidence. I'll repeat what I said before. The left hates Israel. They want to see it fail. They want a one-state solution, that will be the end of the Jewish state. Until that happens, people like D.E. will do what they can to make Israelis and Jews the enemy of the world.

Clearly, this reader has strong feelings about the situation in Israel in particular, and about Judaism in the modern world, in general. That said, and we're largely putting on our rhetoricians' hats here, there are numerous reasons why we put this in the "not helpful" category. Here are half a dozen of those:

1. Turning anyone who is not 100% on your side into the enemy is counterproductive, and most certainly does not win friends or influence people.
   
   
2. Over-the-top, vitriolic rhetoric? Ibid.
   
   
3. More specifically, declaring D.E. to be an antisemite, much less a "virulent" antisemite, is entirely out of bounds. In particular, there is a world of difference between "I have a long history of engagement with, and respect for, Judaism, and here are some examples" and "I have a Black friend."
   
   
4. Making broad, and unsupported, assertions about what "we" (V & Z) think/feel/believe is one of the most obvious of cognitive biases. This is Attribution Theory 101. It is exceedingly difficult, even with the benefit of hundreds of thousands of words we have written on the situation in Gaza, to know what we think/feel/believe. We get dozens of messages every week, on a whole variety of subjects, in which a reader asserts that we think/believe something, and they are WAY off. It is a particular error to assume that, just because we print someone else's opinion, we agree with it. Meanwhile, it is exceedingly probable that when someone feels strongly about a subject, and when they are determined to lash out at anyone who feels differently, there will be some projection that takes place.
   
   
5. Word games are not generally helpful either, and are more likely to alienate people and to undermine one's position than they are to win people over. For example, "some of the starving children actually have cystic fibrosis" is about as tone-deaf a defense as we can imagine.
   
   To give another example, the above message also indulges in some sleight-of-hand that pops up a fair bit among SOME supporters of Israel. To wit, when it serves the argument, then Israel = Judaism. And then, when it serves a different argument, Israel ≠ Judaism.
   
   
6. Finally, and most importantly, it is a very rare conflict of any sort where one side is completely in the right, and one side is completely in the wrong. The current mess in the Middle East is NOT one of the rare exceptions. Anyone who comes from the vantage point that Israel is 100% right, or from the vantage point that Israel is 100% wrong, is being intellectually dishonest.

And now that we've affirmed this particular reader's belief that we are co-presidents of the Hamas Fan Club, let's take a message from a reader with a very different point of view. We regularly get variants of this message, too (and, once again, we will withhold the identity of the author):

In a post in November of 2023, you had set forth the following criteria for what would constitute a genocide:

• Killing members of the group
  
  
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
  
  
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
  
  
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
  
  
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

You concluded that the actions of the Israelis (up to that point of course) did not meet any of these criteria. Would you care to revisit that opinion taking into account Israeli actions since that November 2023 post?

We will offer a few remarks, but they are surely not the remarks that this reader (and others who have sent in this same basic e-mail) want to hear:

1. Within just a few hours of the October 7 attacks (where, recall, Israel was the victim), virulently anti-Israel content began to circulate on TikTok. It was on other social media platforms, as well, but was ubiquitous on TikTok. It did not take long (perhaps a week, perhaps less) before that included claims of genocide.
   
   It is not clear, to this day, why TikTok was at the center of this. Was it organic in some way, given the age of the user-base (a lot of college students)? Was it somehow the work of bad actors in China, as the platform is Chinese-owned, and China benefits from political turmoil in the world in general, and in the U.S. in particular? Somebody knows if this is the case, but that somebody is not us. In any event, what's important for our purposes is that the talk of "genocide" began to be bandied about well before it was possible for the facts on the ground to justify that conclusion.
   
   
2. It is somewhat difficult to interrogate the views of someone who has reached the conclusion that a genocide is taking place, as there's a lot of emotion there, and so even the most gentle Socratic questioning tends to trigger a defensive response. Nonetheless, it often appears that these folks don't have a broad understanding of modern, total warfare. Total warfare almost invariably involves targeting civilian populations, including children, because those populations are the backbone of the war effort as a source of war materiel, volunteers, political support, money, etc. If one believes that the situation in Gaza is a genocide, then they need to consider whether the firebombing of Dresden is a genocide. Sherman's march. The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. Operation Rolling Thunder. The Siege of Leningrad. The Siege of Vicksburg. Pretty much every other siege. The Bataan Death March. The Iraq War. If some or all of those things are NOT genocides, then why? What distinguishes them from the events in Gaza?
   
   
3. Turning to the other side of that coin, the no-question-about-it genocides in eastern Europe in World War II, in Turkey/Armenia in World War I, in the former Belgian Congo, in Gold Rush-era California, etc. involved mass slaughter, with the number of victims in the hundreds of thousands or millions. They often involved torture. In some cases, there was medical experimentation. These dimensions, by all indications, do not exist in Gaza. So, a second question that one must ask themselves is: Do these things not make a substantive difference? Is mass suffering, often leading to death, the same thing as mass killings, often on a large scale, often accompanied by other atrocities?
   
   
4. And now, having laid out those observations, our actual answer to the question posed, such as it is: It is no longer useful to debate whether the term "genocide" is appropriate, for two reasons. On an academic/intellectual level, that word was once a "break glass in case of emergency" word, only to be used with extreme caution, in the most dire of circumstances. But in the last couple of years, that ship has sailed, in part due to Israel-Gaza, and in part due to casual (and often completely inappropriate) use in other contexts (e.g., "white genocide"). At this point, "genocide" is like "terrorist," a word that is losing (or has already lost) a precise meaning, and that is now more of a value judgment.
   
   Meanwhile, on a practical level, the people who are suffering in both Israel and Gaza don't give a damn what term is used. They are just suffering and dying.
   
   
5. And finally, along the same lines as what we wrote above, about the other letter, the use of "genocide," and the pushback (often angry) against those who disagree or who are leery, can definitely be counterproductive, and serve to push potential allies away.

If readers would like to read a bit more about how words like antisemitism, genocide, etc. are being used as weapons by partisans on both sides, then Politico had a pretty good piece just this week.

Now, in the interest of giving as well-rounded a presentation as we can, we want to share an e-mail that belongs more in the "helpful" bin. It is from a reader who shared last week's item with a friend in Israel, and forwarded that friend's response. Do keep in mind that it's a response to D.E.'s letter, which was Israel-critical:

Thank you for expressing concern for human life. That is a value I share deeply. But to move forward, we must ground this conversation in moral clarity and factual context.

There is indeed a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but it is critical to ask why. Not in vague terms, not in political slogans, but with honest scrutiny.

The Crisis in Gaza Didn't Begin in a Vacuum

Before October 7, 2023, Gaza had electricity, water, schools, hospitals, and work permits, much of it facilitated by Israel, even as Hamas smuggled weapons and built terror tunnels. Over 18,000 Gazans crossed into Israel daily for work. That is not apartheid. That is cooperation.

Then Hamas launched one of the most barbaric attacks in modern memory, not against soldiers, but against children, the elderly, and families in their beds. The goal was not resistance. It was extermination.

So yes, Israel responded. As would any country. The real question is: how did Hamas respond in return?

• By using hospitals as command centers
• By hiding weapons in schools
• By holding Israeli hostages in tunnels under civilian homes
• By stealing food, fuel, and aid intended for their own people

Even now, Israel authorizes hundreds of aid trucks daily. The tragedy is that much of that aid never reaches the innocent because Hamas either loots it or uses it as leverage.

On the Holocaust Comparison: A Dangerous False Equivalence

To compare Gaza to the Holocaust is not only historically inaccurate, it is morally outrageous. Nazi Germany built industrial death camps to eliminate an entire people. Israel, by contrast, warns civilians to evacuate war zones, pauses fire to allow humanitarian corridors, and pleads for hostage returns to end the war.

What Hamas did on October 7 was far closer in spirit to Nazi ideology than anything Israel is doing now. They filmed themselves burning families alive. They celebrated mass murder. They still hold toddlers and Holocaust survivors underground.

Punishment vs. Responsibility

Are children in Gaza suffering? Yes. And it is devastating. But are they suffering because Israel wants them to? No. They are suffering because Hamas decided they were more valuable as victims than as citizens.

The question is not whether innocent Palestinians deserve protection. They do. The question is, who is endangering them? And the answer is: their own rulers.

Israel's "Endgame"

Israel's objective is not to destroy a people. It is to destroy a terror regime that has vowed, explicitly, to repeat October 7 again and again. Every rocket, every tunnel, every hostage confirms that Hamas is not interested in peace. Not in two states. Not in coexistence. Just destruction.

If Hamas laid down its weapons today, the war would end.

If Israel laid down its weapons, Israel would end.

Where Do We Go From Here?

True peace requires two things: moral honesty and the rejection of extremism on all sides. But no peace can begin while one side continues to glorify genocide and use its own children as shields.

And this needs to be said clearly: Articles and commentary that frame Israel as the villain, while erasing or minimizing Hamas's responsibility, do not help the Palestinian people. They empower the very regime that brought Gaza to ruin.

Every time we draw false equivalence, every time we circulate unverified images without asking who stole the aid or who controls the streets, we signal to Hamas that its strategy is working. That terror pays. That human shields succeed.

So yes, let us speak about suffering. Let us speak about hope. But let us speak truthfully.

Hamas' survival is not the path to Palestinian freedom. It is the single greatest obstacle to it.

And silence, or worse, misplaced outrage, only ensures that more innocent lives will be lost.

This is very clearly a sympathetic-to-Israel perspective (makes sense, given who wrote it, and given that it's a response to D.E.'s perspective). However, we hope it's evident as to why it's different from the first message above. If it's not evident, well, it's something of a gut feel kind of thing. That said, if readers want specifics as to the differences, we would draw their attention to the observations above about vitriol (and, by extension, lack thereof), and about framing one side as 100% right and the other as 100% wrong.

Moving along, there's actually a purpose here that is related to the focus of this blog (beyond a general comment on helpful vs. unhelpful discourse). We mention total war above and, of course, the first great "philosopher" of total war was Carl von Clausewitz. One of the primary themes of his posthumous magnum opus Vom Kriege (On War) is that "war is a continuation of politics by other means." One of the implications of this is that it's not enough to win on the battlefield, you have to win the hearts and minds of your own populace, and of others whose support you need.

By all indications, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has the hearts and minds of (most of) his populace squarely in hand, which is why he has just announced plans to grow more aggressive in Gaza, and to fully occupy the territory. However, the hearts and minds of the international community are much more in doubt.

As the first e-mail above alludes to, several major western nations, including the U.K., France and Canada, are on the cusp of recognizing Palestine. It does not matter what those nations' motivations are, or if they are being hypocritical. The bottom line is that the recognition would be a huge setback for Israel, both as a symbolic rebuke, and also as a practical change of circumstances that would, among other things, trigger a bunch of violations of international law that those nations have promised to abide by.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., support for Israel is noticeably softening. Many moderate Democrats, who previously took a position that was either pro-Israel or was neutral, are shifting their positions to something along the lines of "something has to be done to save the poor people of Gaza." Just this week, the Pod Save America guys, also known as the "Obama Bros," noticeably recalibrated their position on Israel, to a much more Israel-critical posture. Republican support for Israel is also weakening. Donald Trump himself told a Jewish donor: "My people are starting to hate Israel." And recall the criticism from Michael Savage, who is himself Jewish, above.

In terms of U.S. domestic politics, the shifts in public opinion could very possibly reverse the dynamic of the 2024 elections. Then, Democrats had no answer on Gaza that would not infuriate some major segment of the party's base, while Republicans could go all-in on a pro-Israel stance. In 2026, it might be that Democrats can unite on a position that is pro-Gaza (not necessarily anti-Israel or pro-Hamas, mind you), while the Republicans are the ones who are divided.

In terms of geopolitics, it's not so easy to go it alone when world opinion turns against you, as the United States showed in Vietnam. It's rather harder when you are a smaller nation that relies on the western, industrialized democracies for money and armaments. Netanyahu probably can't afford to think too much about long-term implications, but it's something that supporters of Israel should be very concerned about.

And note that when one side in a conflict is losing the war of public opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean the other side is winning. As far as we can tell, pretty much everyone knows that Hamas are a bunch of bastards, that they are the single-biggest obstacle to peace in that region, and that they are substantially responsible for their people's suffering. Even the Arab League knows it, which is why all 22 member nations of that organization joined the EU and 17 other nations in signing a declaration this week declaring that Hamas has to go.

Again, we are not experts here, though it sure looks to us like the writing on the wall is becoming clear. Israel isn't going to like it, but one day the Palestinians will be recognized by most or all nations, and given territory they will control (probably with some acreage being shifted around, and with some sort of international governance of Jerusalem). Meanwhile, Hamas will be forced from power, which they won't like, either. If this is indeed where things are headed, one can only hope they get there sooner, rather than later, so the suffering on all sides can come to an end. If this did come to pass, and if the peace held, it would take one of the most vexing issues of the past 75 years of American foreign policy off the table. Maybe THE most vexing issue (though China is also in the running).

That was pretty long, so here's another reminder that responses go to comments@electoral-vote.com. We may share some of them on Friday. However, if we do, we won't withhold initials, because forewarned is forearmed. (Z)

Making Criminals Great Again

Alina Habba is still the Acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, at least for now. Habba was installed as the "interim" U.S. Attorney on March 28, and was also formally nominated for the post for Senate confirmation. Both New Jersey Senators objected to her nomination, so it did not move forward. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), Habba could only serve in an interim capacity for 120 days, which meant that her term ended July 26, 2025. After that time, lacking Senate confirmation, it was up to the district court judges in that district to determine if she should remain in the post or if someone else should have the job.

The New Jersey district court judges did not find Habba to be suited for the role of U.S. Attorney and on July 22, appointed her First Assistant, Desiree Grace, to the position. To be clear, the judges were following the timelines set by the FVRA in selecting Grace, whom Habba herself had put into the first assistant position.

Trump administration officials were not pleased with that appointment, to put it mildly. "Attorney General" Pam Bondi, along with Trump's personal henchman, er, consigliere, er "Deputy Attorney General" Todd Blanche immediately fired Grace (who didn't leave willingly and endeavored to stay in her post). They then undertook a series of maneuvers to get around the FVRA and keep Habba as U.S. Attorney. As it turns out, the district judges acted a little early; the 120 days weren't up until 11:59 on July 25, so Bondi and Blanche had three days to find a way to break the law—pshaw, give them something hard to do.

Here's what they came up with. On July 24, they withdrew Habba's nomination to be U.S. Attorney and had Habba resign as interim U.S. attorney. Next, Bondi appointed Habba as a "Special Attorney to the Attorney General" and purported to give her all the powers of a U.S. Attorney. Then, Bondi appointed Habba to the now-vacant First Assistant position left open by the firing of Grace. Finally, Habba was then automatically elevated to the position of Acting U.S. Attorney, which was now vacant thanks to her resignation 5 minutes before coupled with the termination of Grace. Pretty cute, eh?

There's only one problem. None of this is legal, and it took about a nanosecond before criminal defendants started to challenge their prosecutions in New Jersey on the grounds that the U.S. Attorney is illegitimate and has no authority to bring criminal charges against anyone. And you thought The Purge was just a movie.

And now two defendants, whose trials had been scheduled to start in August, have a hearing before Judge Matthew Brann, who is the Chief U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That is because the New Jersey district judges are conflicted out, as they picked someone other than Habba to serve as the U.S. Attorney. Judge Brann has already denied the defendants' motion to dismiss their charges, since they were brought in 2024 under the former U.S. Attorney, a Joe Biden appointee, who, unlike Habba, was qualified for the post, duly nominated and confirmed by the Senate.

But even though the charges remain pending, the defendants may be entitled to bar Habba from prosecuting their cases and to prohibit any attorneys in her office from acting at her direction. (From where we sit, their case probably gets stronger the more involved Habba is in the prosecution, but who are we to question their strategy.) The next step is for the Court to determine whether Habba is barred from serving as the Acting U.S. Attorney. If she is, then she can't be involved in the prosecution of any cases out of her office, and she can't supervise the attorneys on those cases. The Court said that it will stop short of imposing an "officewide disqualification" but could disqualify certain Assistant U.S. Attorneys who bring cases under Habba's authority. The Court also said that prosecutions can continue to move forward so long as it is clear that the assigned attorneys are working under Bondi's authority and not Habba's. Oral argument is scheduled for August 15.

Readers may recall that Bondi and Trump pulled a similar maneuver in the Northern District of New York where the interim U.S. Attorney, John Sarcone, was nearing the end of his 120-day period. After the district judges there rejected him for the post, Bondi also made him a Special Attorney to the Attorney General. The difference there is that Sarcone had been acting not only as the U.S. Attorney but also as the First Assistant, so there was no Desiree Grace equivalent for the judges to put into the post. But if Judge Brann finds that Habba's designation as Special Attorney to the AG is ultra vires (a.k.a., made up and illegal), that calls into question Sarcone's appointment as well. Stay tuned. (L)

Never Forget: Budae Jjigae, Part II

Another "stew" of shorter reminiscences:

R.C. in Eagleville, PA: Dad served as an army medic during World War II; he gave medical aid to his fellow soldiers until he himself was wounded. The first time I asked about his war experience, he did not speak about fighting in the jungles of New Guinea and the Philippines. He did not speak about the elite unit he served with, the Alamo Scouts. He spoke about the hospital ship that carried him home from the South Pacific. Of all his intense wartime experiences, the most prominent memory, the first one he told his son, was of the hospital ship. He spoke about the sights, sounds and smells during the slow journey home. He saw the medical staff was overwhelmed, but he was fortunate to be able to clean and dress his own wound.

I attended the recent Memorial Day parade with my daughter and grandkids. As the kids fought over the candy thrown from the parade vehicles, I thought of all those on the hospital ship, especially those who did not complete the slow journey home.

---

M.D.H. in Coralville, IA: My late father, who later became a history professor, heard the news that an atomic bomb had been used on Japan while serving as a sailor on an American ship in the Pacific. His first reaction was relief: This would probably end the war and therefore he would have a future.

But, as he wrote in a letter to my grandmother that day, he strongly felt it had been wrong for the U.S. to use such a weapon, even though it might have saved his life. He also said in that letter the secret of such a bomb couldn't be kept for very long so other countries would probably have them soon. Those were not the majority views among Americans at the time.

---

J.E. in Winchester, CA: My cousin, Rudolf Kahles, became a Marine as soon as he finished high school. He was sent to fight on Iwo Jima and was dead by age 19. I remember his photo in military dress on top the buffet in my aunt and uncle's home. He was their only child. When Rudy was laid to rest, I heard the guns salute and my aunt and mother sobbing. I remember Fourth of July parades, seeing my aunt riding in an open limousine labeled "Gold Star Mother." She gazed straight ahead, proud, but with an enormous sadness in her face.

My older sister remembered Rudy's going away party before shipping off. She knew everyone was acting upbeat while hiding apprehension. Last month, she passed away at age 88. Now there is just me and a tattered page in my mother's scrapbook.

---

S.Y. in Skokie, IL: I'm not a vet; I managed to avoid Vietnam despite drawing the lottery number 12. Guys were coming home in boxes from a war that never made sense for us to be involved in.

In high school I used to wrestle against a boy named Glenn Cunningham. Good guy, sense of humor, strong wrestler, not in my circle of close friends, but I liked him—despite our wrestling battles, he acted like a friend.

After high school I heard he had died in Vietnam. It was a rumor, I didn't know if it was true. So years later, in the 90s, I was in D.C. with my young son and we visited the Vietnam wall. I found his name. He was born a month before me in 1950. We both graduated from Morgan Park High School on Chicago's south side in 1968. By the end of 1969, he was dead. What a profound waste.

I have not forgotten Glenn Cunningham. He deserved to live a long life as I have.

It was taken away from him by arrogance and stupidity.

---

R.M. in Williamstown, WV: I spent 25 years on active duty, some in pleasant places, and some in less pleasant places. But all of it with very good, very thoughtful, very patriotic other service members. As one might imagine, 25 years would, for the most part, be routine work—not that much different from what our civilian counterparts experienced, if perhaps in less mundane locations and circumstances. But some of that time was, indeed, different and uniquely military. 19 months spent in Vietnam, including the period known as the Tet Offensive. One year at a radar site in northern Labrador, Canada, where the weather could only be described as brutal. And 13 months in Korea (much closer to "normal" than the other two locations). But those who serve in the military adapt to these conditions, and they become more or less routine.

For the most part, my memories are good. There are a few occasions that bring more sober thoughts: The passing of a fellow service member in combat, the instructions read by a stewardess on a contract flight from Vietnam to Seattle, WA, which went (as best as I can recall it): "We have been requested by the Department of Defense to read the following announcement. You may encounter demonstrators when you exit the aircraft and make your way through the passenger terminal. You are not to interact with the demonstrators. If you are assaulted, you may defend yourself, but verbal comments, or spitting are not sufficient to permit a response."

In that instance, there were a few demonstrators, but their actions were fairly restrained. There was no spitting. Nevertheless, this was a sobering experience, and one that cannot be easily forgotten.

However, most of my memories are good. I served with wonderful people, doing work that gave me satisfaction and pride. Moving around a lot was sometimes difficult, but exposed me to different places, different cultures, and experiences I could not possibly have achieved in any other line of work.

I don't regret a single moment of it.

---

J.R. in Huff's Church, PA: My father, Earl "Sticker" Romig, was among the innocents who hated being too young for World War II. Turning a restless 17 in 1946, he got his dad's okay to enlist, and wound up in Battery B, 1st Field Artillery Battalion, 6th Infantry Division, on occupation duty in Chinhai, Korea.

Sticker told a good story. Here's my favorite from his army days: One deep winter night, cold wind howling out of Manchuria, he guarded a train on a rail spur near the former Japanese seaplane hangar where his battery was billeted. The train was strung together with old open-topped gondola cars. He wondered, as the night wore on, what they held. He scaled a short corner ladder on one of the cars and saw something he could never have anticipated: It was filled with bronze Nationalist Chinese coins. From his perch, it looked to him as if the other cars carried similar loads.

Thinking about it later, he supposed they'd been sent down the peninsula by Nationalists desperate to keep them out of Chinese Communist hands. It felt, to a kid from the Pennsylvania farm country, like he'd witnessed a strange manifestation of geopolitics.

He stuffed a handful of the coins in his pocket. I still have a few that he passed along to me with the story. To Sticker, the army experience was an adventure. He was home before the fighting in Korea began, otherwise he might have seen things differently. Regardless, as a boy I was intensely proud of him. I still am.

Thanks, all. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger