On Thursday night, Los Angeles looked like it had been hit by Hurricane Katrina. If you had walked around last night, on the other hand, you wouldn't even have known there was rain 24 hours earlier. Such is the nature of the city, we suppose.

Our explainer yesterday, in which we noted that we'd have to kill the day's post due to the weather (and its impacts on power and the Internet) included the note that, in view of our unexpected day off, we'd be heading to Cancun. We thought we'd pass along a few of the reader responses to that explainer:

T.B. in Wiscasset, ME, writes: Give my regards to Ted.

---

J.K. in Portland, OR, writes: Enjoy your Cruz.

---

B.C. in Phoenix, AZ, writes: Say "Hi!" to Cancun Teddy for me!

We're getting some leftover rain from youse guys. And the "RAIN ... in ... PHOENIX?!?" allows my ISP to give me a different excuse reason for my connection going down, other than "Must be YOUR router/modem/wiring/attitude/age/hair color/religious beliefs/etc."

---

E.W. in Silver Spring, MD, writes: I just want to publicly apologize to the Electoral-Vote.com community for Thursday night's heavy rainfall in Los Angeles, which resulted in canceling Friday's post. As a Jew and a meteorologist, I was attempting to use the Jewish Space Laser to slightly adjust uplift to ease the moderate drought around Orange County. My intentions were good, but I accidentally missed a zero when using the Ideal Gas Law, and while I corrected my error in just a few minutes, I forgot that my timing was now off and that the Earth had rotated and I instead enhanced the uplift over Long Beach. From there, things got out of control.

So, once again, I'd like to apologize to the entire Electoral-Vote.com community, and in particular to (Z).

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: Enjoy your brief respite.

If you don't want the hassle of customs and ICE or possibly being seen with a Texas senator, your northern neighbor states have power and infrastructure designed and built to withstand the weather. Foggy and cool this morning, showers and intermittent sun breaks is the forecast until probably sometime in May or June. Besides that, we have excellent craft beer.

We don't worry too much about ICE; as we pass their tests with flying colors. Well, not so much "colors" as "color," if you know what we mean.

We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.

Today in Not Normal: Trump Says He Wants Democrats Executed

Yesterday's rain delay was fortuitous, as it allowed our star pitchers Warren Spahn and Johnny Sain to get an extra day's rest. As they say: "Spahn and Sain, and then pray for rain."

No wait, we got confused for a moment. As it turns out, we are not, in fact, the 1948 Boston Braves. In our case, the rain delay actually added additional elements to each of the three news stories we're running. So, the literal clouds had a metaphorical silver lining.

Maybe you heard—and maybe you didn't; keep reading—that six Democratic members of Congress recorded a video, entitled "Don't Give Up the Ship," addressed to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the U.S. intelligence community:

The six speakers—Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Reps. Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA)—are all veterans of the armed forces and/or intelligence services, and they take turns delivering a message whose main thrust is this:

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad but from right here at home. Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders.

The subtext, for Americans who might be put in this position, is: (1) If you've been worried that some of the things you've been ordered to do are illegal, you're not crazy, and (2) If you do decide that an order is illegal, you will have the support of half the politicians in Washington, and maybe more. Just to make sure nobody misses that latter point, the video also includes Slotkin noting "We've got your back."

Donald Trump, of course, blew a gasket when he learned of the video. He got on his seditious social media site, and sent out this angry message:

It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won't have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET. President DJT

We very seriously doubt that he could even define what the word "sedition" means. Still, just in case anyone was unable to infer Trump's preferred outcome for this hypothetical trial, he added it just a bit later:

SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!

So, that's the President of the United States, expressing his preference that members of the opposition party be rounded up, tried and executed. Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy.

This immediately prompted quite the response in Washington. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), who has made clear time and again that he is nothing more than a Trump lapdog, lived up to his reputation. Johnson said that while he would not necessarily like to see his colleagues executed, that IS the proper punishment for sedition, and the video was "wildly inappropriate" and "beyond the pale."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) was not willing to endorse, even indirectly, the execution of Democratic members, but concurred that "what [the six Democrats] did was ill-advised and provocative and unnecessary." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), another lapdog who is also one of the biggest show horses in the Senate, posted a message to his webpage asserting that he's opposed to illegal orders, too, but demanding that the Democrats give him an example of "a single example of an illegal order during this administration." Hmmmm... how about opening fire on civilian fishing boats without provocation or warning, and without benefit of a declaration of war, Mr. Senator?

The White House, for its part, explained that everyone misunderstood Trump's response. White House Minister of Information Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the President does not wish to execute anyone, and that it's the six Democrats who "brought the president to responding in this way." And Trump himself appeared on Fox to tell whatever fawning host he was talking to that he was merely accusing the six Democrats of sedition, not calling for them to be executed. After all, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" is pretty ambiguous, right? Maybe he thinks it doesn't REALLY count if he fails to add "Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Of course, Trump can claim his words were not to be taken seriously, but that does not make it so. When the President of the United States calls for violence against someone, all it takes is for one person to take it seriously. Slotkin has already revealed that the Capitol Police believe she's in enough danger that they are assigning a 24/7 security detail. One imagines that some/most/all of the other five are getting the same treatment. Well, maybe not Kelly. A former U.S. Navy captain and astronaut probably has an idea or two about how to protect himself, if needed.

And here is the dimension that a day's delay added to this item. Here is a list of the highest-on-the-page Trump-related item from 10 major media outlets, as of Friday night at 9:00 p.m. PT. See if you notice a pattern:

• CNN: "Why were Trump and Mamdani so friendly at White House meeting?"
• Politico: "Marjorie Taylor Greene resigns from Congress after clash with Trump"
• Fox: "Trump vows to send Somalis back as he axes protected status program in Minnesota"
• The Hill: "Trump meets Mamdani in the Oval Office: Winners, losers and takeaways"
• NBC News: "With the rest of the world at a climate summit, Trump administration announces major environmental rollbacks"
• The Washington Post: "White House blew past legal concerns in deadly strikes on drug boats"
• The New York Times: "'Fascist'? 'Communist'? For an Afternoon, They Were Just 2 Guys From Queens."
• USA Today: "The key takeaways from Mamdani and Trump's Oval Office love fest"
• CBS News: "Trump praises Mamdani after White House meeting: 'I want him to do a great job'"
• ABC News: "What Trump and Mamdani said in friendly White House meeting"

Yep. Not a one has anything to do with Trump pulling a Mussolini/Hitler/Franco, and calling for leading members of the opposition to be put to death. And the story is not to be found lower on the page(s), either. It has completely disappeared. If you were not paying attention during the correct news cycle, you might never even know what happened. For any other president, this would dominate the news for weeks, if not months. For Trump, it's just another Thursday. (Z)

Congressional Departures: Greene Will Be Resigning

This is the item that was affected the most by the extra day. Late last night, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted a message to eX-Twitter in which she dropped the bombshell news that she is going to resign her seat on January 5 of next year.

The tweet contains images of a 4-page letter Greene wrote that explains her position. It is more than a bit rambling, and more than a bit unhinged, because it is Marge Greene, after all. However, the main points are as follows:

• Greene is definitely still a right-wing populist.
• She still agrees with Donald Trump on most things.
• However, she has become disillusioned with Congress, and believes it's too dysfunctional to solve problems.
• She is disturbed by some of Trump's recent actions, particularly as regards the Epstein files.
• She is also very worried about Trump turning against her, and how that puts her and her family at risk.

It is worth noting that Greene was hated by the left for 5 years, and never had to fear for her safety. She's been hated by MAGA for 2 weeks, and she's had to engage protection, and then end her political career. Incidentally, the comments on her post are running something like this: 33% "You can't go, because you're the bestest member of Congress ever," 33% "Good riddance!" and 33% "Ah. The Jews finally got to you, apparently?" Those who live by the antisemitic sword, die by the antisemitic sword.

Greene was always a True Believer, and she was, and is, someone driven FAR more by emotion than by intellect and reason. That's part of the reason that she and Trump got along so well for so long, because he's the same way. However, the problem for True Believers is that if they come to realize that one of their True Beliefs was false, then it throws the entire system of belief into question. It's the same reason that major churches don't like to course-correct on things like women priests or gay marriage or (in the past) evolution—if the Church was wrong about (X), what else might it have been wrong about?

In Greene's case, we can't be 100% sure what it was that wrecked her faith in MAGA, but we'd say we can be at least 90% sure: the Epstein stuff. She's railed against that, louder and longer, than anything else where she's on the opposite side of Trump. And it also features more prominently in her letter than anything else. We allow for the slight possibility that it might have been something else, like the ACA subsidies, that pushed her over the edge, but we doubt it.

What's next for Greene? She's not saying yet, of course. It seems unlikely that she would be effective as a lobbyist, given the whole "nutty as a fruitcake" thing. And we don't really see a place for her among the talking heads. All the news outlets, even the non-right-wing ones, want someone who is MAGA, not someone who once was MAGA, and who was cast out of paradise. The non-MAGA Republicans know this well, which is why someone like CNN's Scott Jennings went from lambasting Trump as an authoritarian to publishing a book last week entitled A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization. We have not examined the book, so we don't know if it has actual words, or just AI-generated images of Jennings, on his knees, bowing before Trump. Or maybe Jennings on his knees for other reasons.

It is at least possible that this is a chess move, and Greene is retrenching with an eye toward her future career. In 1854, there was a letter, called the Ostend Manifesto, which suggested the U.S. acquire Cuba from Spain so that Cuba could become another slave state. It caused a national scandal, and tainted every Democratic officeholder in the country. This laid the groundwork for James Buchanan, who was NOT in the country (he was serving as ambassador to the U.K.), to seize the Democratic presidential nomination and then the presidency. Similarly, part of what allowed Abraham Lincoln to claim the Republican nomination and then the presidency in 1860 was that he was not in office for the passage of the disastrous Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854.

The point is that serious sh** went down in the 1850s, and two presidents in a row got that job because they managed to position themselves in such a way that none of the sh** ended up on them. Greene might suspect, or might know, that things are about to get ugly for Trump and/or MAGA, and she might want to avoid being a part of it, so she can waltz in later and be the right-wing populist who "picks up the pieces."

That said, there are serious objections to this thesis. Greene does not seem like a long-term thinker or, really, a strategic thinker at all. We also don't see what her constituency would be for a run for any office higher than Representative; she's a traitor to MAGA, and while Democrats are surely happy to see her act(s) of rebellion, they are certainly not going to vote for her. We think the likeliest possibility here is that Greene did what she always does, which is go with her gut, and that she will now fade away. Keep in mind some of the folks who were running the Greene shtick before Greene came along—a Sarah Palin, or a Michele Bachmann, or a Madison Cawthorn. Where are they these days?

And for the record, Greene's district—GA-14—is R+19, which means the odds of a flip are roughly equal to the odds that Trump decides his current approach to his hair is no longer working, and so shaves and goes Patrick Stewart for the rest of his days:

Yeah, not happening. Just the Dr. Evil memes alone would be enough to trigger a case of apoplexy. Anyhow, Greene will be replaced by a Republican as soon as the necessary elections can be held. However, until May or so, Mike Johnson's margin will be that much thinner.

And now we move on to the two people who were supposed to be the focus of this item, until MTG came along. Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), who was the first Puerto Rican woman elected to Congress, and who was an outspoken member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus when some members of the Squad were still in diapers, will step down at the end of this, her 16th term.

The 72-year-old Velázquez is one of the few retiring members to take note of the grassroots' desire for a new generation of leaders, and to say openly that was the primary reason for her decision: "I love this work and I love my district, but I believe now is the right moment to step aside and allow a new generation of leaders to step forward." In an interview conducted shortly after her retirement announcement, Velázquez made particular reference to mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City, opining that the future of the Party and of the movement are in good hands.

Velázquez' district, NY-07, is D+25. Given that fact, not to mention the current political climate, it's an even longer shot to flip than Greene's is. Think the Trump bald thing PLUS the President also admits that he's been tying his tie wrong for the last 50 years, and that it's time to start tying it right, and to stop trying to hide that he's put on a few pounds over the years. Demographically, NY-07 is about 35% white and about 35% Latino, so one could imagine someone from either of those demographic groups succeeding the Representative. That said, she is likely to endorse, which will be a big advantage to that lucky person, and her endorsee is likely to be someone from the Puerto Rican community. So, if you had to bet right now, you'd have to bet that the next person to represent NY-07 in Congress will also be Puerto Rican.

There is also one other story for this item, which gets pushed even farther down the page because of MTG. There must be something in the water in FL-20. That district was represented for years by Alcee Hastings, who pursued the job because he was impeached and removed from the federal bench for taking bribes. During his time in Congress, he was the subject of several ethics investigations, most significantly the one focused on the question of why his deputy district director was drawing a larger salary than his chief of staff. That investigation ended when the House Ethics Committee decided it could not prove, beyond all doubt, that the salary discrepancy was related to the fact that Hastings was dating the deputy district director.

When Hastings died, he was replaced by Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL). And now, she's in hot water, too, having been indicted for allegedly stealing $5 million in federal disaster funds, and then using some of that money to fund her campaign for office.

The good news for the Representative is that she survived an initial attempt by her colleagues to remove her from office. Also good news for her is that the current Department of Justice, as you might have heard, has a habit of pursuing cases of dubious merit when political opponents are involved, and this COULD be another instance of that. The bad news is that Cherfilus-McCormick's colleagues are nonetheless going to mount an investigation, and may vote to remove her at a later date. Also bad news for her is that this investigation began before Trump took office, and involves both federal and state authorities.

So, if we had to guess, we would guess her goose is cooked, sooner or later. Or her turkey, if you prefer, given the nearness of the Thanksgiving holiday. When and if she does have to decamp for more iron-bar-y pastures, she'll leave behind a district that is D+22, majority-minority, and 49.1% Black. Barring new Florida maps (which is obviously a real possibility), she will thus be replaced by a Democrat, and probably a Democrat who is Black. And it will be up to that person to find some new and innovative ways to be corrupt, since their two predecessors will already have covered all the classics. Our suggestion: Crypto scam. (Z)

Legal News: Comey Prosecution, Halligan Law License Both In Big Trouble

The case against former FBI Director James Comey is evaporating rapidly, along with any remaining shreds of credibility that "U.S. Attorney" Lindsey Halligan may have. At a hearing on Wednesday on Comey's motion to dismiss the case based on vindictive and selective prosecution, Halligan admitted that she never presented the final indictment to the entire grand jury that indicted him. Apparently, at that stunning admission, there were audible gasps from those seated in the packed courtroom. Comey's lawyer called for an immediate dismissal of the case, arguing that there was no valid indictment and the statute of limitations has now passed.

Then, late Thursday, the Department of Justice filed a "notice correcting the record," in which it now claims that the grand jury DID see the final indictment. The filing includes an exchange between the magistrate judge who oversaw the return of the indictment and the foreperson of the grand jury. The magistrate judge was trying to clarify which indictment is the final one, because she was given both the three-count indictment and the two-count indictment. The foreperson says: "It was the very first count that we did not agree on, and the Count Two and Three were then put in a different package, which we agreed on." The court then confirms, "So you voted on the one that has the two counts?" To which the foreperson responds, "Yes." Given that exchange, it's really puzzling why Halligan and Assistant U.S. Attorney Tyler Lemons said exactly the opposite in court on Wednesday. But read on.

The other revelation from Wednesday's hearing is that the prosecutor refused to confirm the existence of a declination memo, which is a memo the prosecutor's office submits outlining the reasons they have declined to prosecute someone. It was widely reported that such a memo was produced when Erik Siebert was the U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Virginia, and Judge Michael Nachmanoff has previously ordered that it be turned over to the defense. Now, the prosecutor is saying they may have objections to producing it, if it even exists. The judge was clearly exasperated but didn't issue a ruling from the bench. He took everything under advisement and is expected to rule soon.

This saga actually began earlier this week. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick was assigned to deal with the government's request to use evidence that was seized in 2019 from Comey's friend and former attorney, Daniel Richman, as part of an investigation called "Arctic Haze." Magistrate judges work with federal district court judges to handle discrete portions of the case, so as to relieve the presiding judge of some of the workload. Fitzpatrick was assigned the task of determining how to handle potentially privileged information, such as attorney-client communications, that was part of the materials seized, and that the DoJ wants to use as part of its case against Comey. The government asked the Court if it could use what's called a filter team to review the material and remove any privileged communications. Comey argued, in response, that the motion was too little too late: A filter team is useless now because the government already accessed privileged information and used it improperly in its presentation to the grand jury. Comey then filed a motion arguing that to prove his allegation and successfully oppose the government's motion, he needed to see all of the grand jury testimony. Naturally, the government objected vociferously, so the magistrate judge ordered the grand jury materials to be submitted only to him so he could determine if they should be handed over to Comey and his team.

This is probably when Halligan started sweating. Recall that she presented this case to the grand jury alone. Everyone else in the office refused to have anything to do with this charade. (It was only later that she managed to recruit a couple of flunkies from the North Carolina office to assist her.) Also recall that she has never prosecuted a criminal case, let alone a federal criminal case, and has never appeared before a grand jury. In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor holds all the cards: No one appears for the defense and there is no judge presiding over the proceedings. If you're an experienced prosecutor, that kind of control is a huge advantage. When you have no idea what you're doing, you're on a tightrope high above the center ring working without a net. There is no one to object and nothing to catch you when you fall. And Halligan really needs a net.

At the conclusion of the judge's review, Fitzpatrick ordered the DoJ to turn over the grand jury materials to Comey. Halligan could have just left it there and complied. Instead, she complained to Nachmanoff that Fitzpatrick didn't provide any specific reasons why Comey should have access to this secret material. That's when the fun started because Fitzpatrick was more than happy to provide reasons in a 25-page order.

To start, he acknowledged the importance of grand jury secrecy and that there is a high bar to clear before transcripts and other materials can be disclosed. And then he went on to document the stunning improprieties he discovered that warrant the disclosure. The first problem is that in executing the search warrant in 2019, officials took more materials than were covered under the search warrant—many of those documents related to Comey and his attorney-client relationship with Richman. This is a Fourth Amendment violation and the Court was not amused: "This cavalier attitude towards a basic tenet of the Fourth Amendment and multiple court orders left the government unchecked to rummage through all of the information seized from Mr. Richman, and apparently, in the government's eyes, to do so again anytime they chose. The Arctic Haze investigation was closed in September 2021, with no charges filed. The Richman materials sat dormant with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the Bureau chose to rummage through them again." It was this rummaging that led to the second problem: using materials that were unlawfully seized and privileged to secure an indictment. "The government's decision to allow an agent who was exposed to potentially privileged information to testify before a grand jury is highly irregular and a radical departure from past DoJ practice."

The third problem is Halligan's misrepresentations to the grand jury. The Court identified two statements that misled them on the law: (1) She implied that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial and that he needs to disprove any harmful evidence, giving the impression that the burden of proof lies with the defendant instead of the government, and (2) she told the grand jury that they didn't have to rely only on the evidence presented to them to establish probable cause, and that they "could be assured the government had more evidence—perhaps better evidence—that would be presented at trial." (A point of personal privilege: (L) really wishes she could tell a jury, "Hey, if you don't like this evidence, I have much better evidence hidden behind door Number 3—Trust me!")

And then Fitzpatrick noted that there were hours missing from the proceedings and a question of whether the final indictment was presented to the grand jury. Again, the issue is that the initial indictment presented to the grand jury contained three charges. The grand jury rejected one of those charges but found probable cause on the other two. At that point, the protocol is to prepare a new indictment with those two charges, present that to the grand jury to confirm their decision, and then return that to the judge. The grand jury began its deliberation regarding the initial three-count indictment at 4:28 p.m. That's where the transcript stops. The two-count indictment was presented to the magistrate judge at 6:47 p.m. What happened in that time span?

Now, we have at least part of the answer to that question: Halligan never presented the two-count indictment to the entire grand jury. Nachmanoff now has to decide how to proceed: He could grant one of Comey's motions to dismiss; he could wait for the outcome of the motion to dismiss based on Halligan's unlawful appointment, which was heard in Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie's courtroom last week (she's expected to rule early next week); or he could toss the whole thing based on misconduct to the grand jury. Whatever he decides, odds are it will be yet another black eye for the DoJ. At the very least, Halligan's law license is in serious jeopardy. (L)

We're going to end here for today, because we're already at 5,500 words, and yesterday's disaster threw a lot of things out of whack. Normal order will resume next week.

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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