Shutdown Update

You may want to brace yourself for this, but: The federal government is still shut down. The Senate held its lucky thirteenth vote on the House's sorta-clean kick-the-can-down-the-road bill, and the measure failed to pass for the 13th time. As with the first 12 votes, Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), John Fetterman (D-PA) and Angus King (I-ME) voted with all of the Republicans, which means that the bill was five votes short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture. It also means that the pressure from the American Federation of Government Employees, whose president called for Democrats to support the House bill, had absolutely no effect.

We wrote an extremely long item about the shutdown yesterday, and do not need to subject readers to that kind of abuse for multiple days in a row. However, here are a few quick updates based on events in the past 24 hours:

SNAP: Yesterday, we wrote:

The Republican finger-pointing speaks to a certain amount of desperation, which implies that Trump & Co. know they are more likely than not to get the blame here. That said, we are surprised that the Democrats—as far as we know—have not introduced a bill to fund SNAP during the shutdown. It would not pass, presumably, but then the members of the blue team could say "We tried to fund SNAP, but the Republicans voted it down."

Clearly, like Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), the members of the Senate are readers of this blog, because there are now dueling SNAP bills, both of them announced yesterday. The one favored by the Republicans, with Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) leading the charge, would pay SNAP benefits while the government is shut down. The one favored by the Democrats, with Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) leading the charge, would pay SNAP benefits and WIC benefits while the government is shut down. SNAP benefits don't correlate with red states and blue states—for example, the five states with the highest percentage of the population getting SNAP, in order, are New Mexico (21%), Louisiana and Oregon (18%), Oklahoma (17%) and West Virginia (16%). WIC, which targets low-income women and their children, tends to go to urban areas (blue) and to people of color (also blue). This may explain the discrepancy between the two plans.

Of course, even if the Senate works something out, the House would have to come back in session and pass the bill. And then, Donald Trump would have to sign it. Neither of those are sure things, to say the least. And Speaker Mike Johnson would then have no excuse not to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), who would promptly sign the discharge petition, which would force a vote on the Epstein files.

Job Security: Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston extended her order barring the Trump administration from firing any federal employees while the shutdown is in effect. This will make it somewhat easier for the Democrats to accept the plan from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), which would pay all federal workers during the shutdown, but would protect Trump's alleged right to fire who he wants. Obviously, the second part of that is moot, and figures to remain so for the duration of the shutdown.

GOP Dissension: It's nowhere near a majority yet, or even a large minority, but more Republican members of the House are expressing unhappiness with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) for keeping the lower chamber in recess. The members who have spoken out publicly are Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). Reportedly, there are a few dozen others who feel similarly, but do not prefer to publicly chastise their party leader.

And that's the latest. Onward to Week 6! (Z)

Some Senators Show Some Spine

That's five s-words in a row in that headline, which is obviously doable. It would also be pretty doable with T, or R, or B, we'd say. Much, much harder with U or Q or Z.

The House is not even in session right now, of course, but the Senate is getting a little work done, in between marathon sessions of not doing anything to end the shutdown. Yesterday, the Democrats brought a privileged motion to revoke Donald Trump's authority to impose tariffs on Brazil, which he did under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, legislation that specifically gives Congress the power to say "no more emergency, so no more tariffs." And the measure passed 52-48, with co-sponsor Rand Paul (R-KY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) joining the 47 Democrats and independents in voting in favor.

To address some questions we are sure readers have, privileged motions are allowed under certain, fairly narrow circumstances. One of those is urgent/time-sensitive matters, and the Senate Parliamentarian has to agree that the matter is urgent/time-sensitive, as opposed to just an attempt to do an end-run around normal operating procedures (like passing a budget). A privileged motion must be placed at the top of the Senate's to-do list and, critically, it's (usually) not subject to debate. Since the filibuster is, ultimately, "endless debate," that means privileged motions are not filibusterable. That's why the bill could pass with fewer than 60 votes.

It is improbable that Mike Johnson will bring the bill up for a vote in the House (though, thanks to Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, we all know how discharge petitions work, so maybe four rogue Republicans might decide to "change" Johnson's mind). If it does somehow pass the House, Trump will immediately veto it. Still, it's a pretty big act of defiance, and an early sign that if Trump doesn't TACO on his various trade wars, Congress might just step up and do so for him, since they know full well what the impacts of a hyper-protectionist (and simultaneously arbitrary and unpredictable) trade policy will be. (Z)

Israel Observes Ceasefire by Doing Some More Firing

Things are not going too well in Gaza right now. Israel says that Hamas violated the ceasefire in three ways: (1) refusing to return the 13 remaining hostages' bodies, (2) crossing into territory that was off-limits and firing on (and possibly killing) an Israeli soldier and (3) staging a fake "discovery" of a missing hostage, by burying a dead person and then arranging for that body to be "found" shortly after Red Cross inspectors arrived. The last of those three claims has been verified by several international media outlets; the other two remain hazy.

In response to these provocations/alleged provocations, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he had ordered the Israeli military to carry out "immediate, powerful strikes in the Gaza Strip." That order was followed, of course, and according to international sources, at least 20 Palestinians, including several women and children, were killed.

We don't have all that much to add here. Obviously, neither side is behaving like they particularly want the war to be over. It also looks an awful lot like Donald Trump threw his weight around to get the two sides to play nice for a week or two, apparently in the misguided hope that would land him a Nobel Peace Prize. Now that Nobel season has passed, it seems that either Netanyahu is no longer interested in accommodating Trump, or that Trump is no longer interested in getting involved and playing peacemaker, or both. And whatever is going on, anyone who would like to see an end to the killing and the destruction can't be too optimistic right now. (Z)

On Thin ICE, Part I: Greg Bovino

In the movie One Battle After Another, Sean Penn plays a racist ICE agent (is that redundant?)—a skinhead with a badge, who has risen through the ranks with the hopes of joining a secret cabal whose only goal is to Make America White Again (Stephen Miller's fever dream come to life). He's also a raving lunatic and, ultimately, just a pawn whose usefulness lies in his willingness to carry out orders without question, including murder and mayhem.

That character bears a striking resemblance to Greg Bovino, the Customs and Border Patrol Chief Patrol Agent, El Centro Sector, which includes the California counties of Imperial and parts of San Diego (where Sean Penn's character was also stationed). More recently, Bovino's been a little far afield in Chicago. He clearly believes he's on some kind of mission (which remains undefined) and sees the people who live there as a threat to this mission. So, he and his army are beating people up, shooting pepper bullets at close range, and throwing tear gas at residents gathered outside their homes. That includes children and their parents who were out on the streets preparing for a Halloween parade. And a 70-year old who dared to ask an agent what his purpose is. When Donald Trump dutifully read the speech Miller wrote for him, which says the enemy is the American people, Bovino apparently took that as carte blanche to wage war in his own special way against the good people of Chicago. He is instigating violence, and then lying about how it started, alongside poorly trained but heavily armed men who seemingly answer only to him.

That said, as is so often the case with this administration, while Bovino is dangerous and unhinged, he's also a nitwit. He obviously doesn't recognize that he's being used and will be abandoned as soon as his stupidity eclipses his fear tactics, which looks to be soon.

Not long after CBP tried its Chicago takeover, a federal judge, Sara Ellis, issued a temporary restraining order requiring federal agents to wear and activate body cameras and wear clearly visible identification. The order also prohibits them from throwing tear gas or otherwise harming peaceful protesters and bystanders and from harassing journalists and clergy. The TRO was in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of journalists, individual protesters and clergy who have been targeted by the operations without warning or provocation. After video evidence showed the agents, including Bovino, violating the TRO, Judge Ellis summoned him to her courtroom to testify. He admitted that he was not wearing a body cam and that he threw tear gas into a nearby crowd. He claimed it was because he was hit with a rock, but there is no evidence to support that claim. Instead, there is a video clearly showing Bovino casually tossing a tear gas canister into a crowd of nearby onlookers. Judge Ellis dryly pointed out that if Bovino had been wearing a body cam as he was supposed to, he could have proven he was hit by a rock.

While Ellis did not find Bovino in contempt, she did set some new rules. First, he has to report to her in person every weekday at 6 p.m. starting tomorrow and continuing until November 5, the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, to explain how he and his agents spent their day. He also has to provide a report on all non-immigration arrests from September 2 forward, with names, arrest dates, charges and resolutions. So, basically he has to report to the principal's office every day after school with written reports about whether he's beaten anyone up on the playground. Not a good look. She also ordered his deposition to proceed on Wednesday, October 29. Initially, she limited it to 2 hours, but after his blatant violations of the TRO, she increased the time to 5 hours.

Bovino and his agents may think they're above the law because the DOJ is turning a blind eye to their abuses and Stephen Miller pronounced them "immune." But Bovino is finding out otherwise; whether he actually learns anything remains to be seen. Steve Vladeck of One First followed Miller's remarks closely about agents' so-called immunity and has a few clarifications. Vladeck first points out that they are absolutely not immune from federal prosecution, and the statute of limitations on the federal crimes doesn't run until, wait for it, 2030 or later. Moreover, immunity from state prosecution depends on what they were doing and why. Were their actions taken as part of their authorized duties? And were those actions necessary to fulfill those duties on an objective basis? They can also be sued civilly for the injuries and emotional trauma these agents have caused. There is video evidence everywhere showing innocent bystanders being thrown to the ground in broad daylight and beaten by multiple officers. It's hard to imagine that a defense of "necessity" will hold up. That'll be some wake-up call when these agents finally realize they've been lied to and have lost everything in service of nothing more than a greedy power grab by some rich dude and his white supremacist stooge. (L)

On Thin ICE, Part II: The Purge

The immigration policy of Donald Trump and Stephen Miller is not going well on the legal front (see above, for just one example). It's not going well on the logistical front, either.

It would seem that not every high-ranking ICE officer is a Greg Bovino. Some of them believe in the mission, but also believe in the rule of law. That just won't do, in the view of this administration. And so, for the third time, the White House (really, Stephen Miller) has implemented what it calls a "purge" of the ranks.

It was announced yesterday that the leaders of five different ICE offices—the field directors of the offices in Denver, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and San Diego—had been relieved of their duties, and had been assigned to posts elsewhere in the United States. The administration can't fire anyone right now (see above); this is a clear attempt to get them to quit voluntarily. Speaking off the record, several ICE officials said that more "reassignments" are coming.

As it turns out, it's not easy to find suckers enthusiastic enforcers like Bovino. So, the administration's new plan is to replace the field directors with officers who had been serving along the Mexican border. The thinking is that if anyone is going to be willing to be rough with alleged undocumented immigrants, it will be the people who have been on the "front lines."

And it's not just the upper ranks where things have not been going according to plan. It's the very lowest ranks, as well. The people running this particular show (again, Miller) do not seem to be particularly bright, but they do know that they need substantial manpower to achieve their goal of Making America White Again. So, the administration is trying to hire 10,000 new ICE agents, to go with the 6,000 already on the job.

Obviously, this White House is not very forthright about sharing details, but it's clear that the hiring process is not going well, and is not attracting enough applicants. The administration has tried to poach police officers from their departments. It has abolished the maximum age for new applicants. It has significantly reduced the intensity of the required physical fitness exam. And it's not enough. The administration has claimed that it's gotten 150,000 applications. However, it's double- and triple- and quadruple-counting people who applied for multiple postings. In fact, there appear to be only 50,000 actual applicants. Still a lot, but most of those people are not qualified, for one reason or another. If the conversion rate is similar to Trump v1.0 (when standards were also lowered), then those 50,000 will turn into about 1,000 actual ICE officers.

Even once those folks are hired, they have to be trained, which is no small thing. Meanwhile, morale is very low among the current staffers at ICE. No wonder; many of them are being sent, effectively, to invade American cities. Also, many of them are losing leaders they trust and respect in favor of people like Greg Bovino. It is well within the realm of possibility that the recruitment rate and the resignation/retirement rate will equalize, and the administration won't be able to expand ICE much at all.

There are two problems here, one more specific, one more broad. The specific one is that, these days, ICE is a crappy job. The skills and requirements are basically the same as for police officers (hence the poaching), but police officers can stay close to home, are generally paid better, and are not usually asked to go harass a bunch of innocent people in some faraway city. Also, "I work for ICE" is not a great conversation starter these days. So, it's not going to be easy to reverse the staffing issues while also carrying on the campaign of terror that the White House desires.

The broader problem is the one that happens every damn time with Trump: WAY over-promise, WAY under-deliver. It makes for a great talking point on the campaign trail to assert that Joe Biden/the Democrats don't take border enforcement seriously, but it's just not true. The things that can be done easily and humanely, every administration, Democratic and Republican, already does. They even do some of the hard stuff, as well. That means that to dramatically "improve" on such efforts, the current administration either has to get WAY better at the hard stuff (like finding drug dealers), or it has to get WAY more inhumane. Obviously, Miller and Trump have chosen Option #2, and it's STILL not getting them close to the ridiculously high target of 3,000 deportations a day. What a mess. (Z)

Washington Post Approves of Trump's Gold-Encrusted Eyesore

On Saturday, The Washington Post ran an editorial saying that yes, Donald Trump went about it the wrong way, but the White House really does need a large space to hold 999-person state dinners. Having big events on the South Lawn really doesn't cut it, in their view, especially in winter. And the porta-potties that are installed for them are less than presidential. The Post claims that Obama and Biden alumni agree that a large event space was long overdue.

This editorial conveniently overlooks some important points. The reality is that if Trump had followed the official review procedure and asked Congress for the money, it would never have happened. When a fence jumper hopped the White House fence in 2014, it was obvious that a better fence was needed. It wasn't until July 2019 that the permitting process had been completed and construction could begin. Or, to take another example, Congress authorized the creation of a memorial to President Eisenhower in 1999. Architect Frank Gehry was selected in 2009. His first proposal was rejected. Eventually one was approved. Final approval from the Commission of Fine Arts came in 2017. The memorial was completed in 2020, more than 20 years after Congress authorized it. In contrast, Eisenhower planned and executed D-Day in 6 months.

This doesn't excuse how Trump extorted money from companies and billionaires, of course. But if Congress functioned at all, he could have asked it for approval and the funding and he might have gotten it. But Congress doesn't function at all. The Speaker has recessed the House and is hiding somewhere in order to avoid swearing in a duly-elected representative from Arizona. And of course, carelessly destroying a historic structure like the White House is completely inexcusable.

Anyhow, the real story here is that we are now at the point that Jeff Bezos envisioned when he started mucking around with the once-storied newspaper 10 months ago. A lot of the Trump-critical editorials have disappeared because the people who would have authored them (Aaron Blake, Jennifer Rubin, etc.) headed for the hills. Others have disappeared because the editors have put the kibosh on them. Meanwhile, a columnist like Marc Thiessen can write whatever Trumpy stuff he wants, while bragging "we're now a conservative opinion page." The editorial board would seem to agree, given that it's most interested in kissing Trump's rump these days.

So, how is that rightward turn working out for the Post? Not so well, as it turns out (sorry, link is paywalled). The paper has just lost several high-profile staffers, and has just completed its third round of layoffs this year. A fourth is expected in December, and the mood in the newsroom is reportedly "grim" (no wonder).

As one might infer from this, the paper's finances are a mess. The paper's leadership admits, off the record, that the Post is in "severe financial distress." It's lost close to $200 million in the last two years, and that trend is not likely to turn around given that more than half a million subscribers have canceled their subscriptions this year, as they don't particularly want to read or pay for Trumpy propaganda.

There are many other changes, besides the Trumpy turn, that have degraded the paper in a way that its longtime readers will notice. The Opinion section no longer has copy editors, which is not great, since AI or Microsoft Word might catch grammar and spelling errors, but they are not likely to catch errors of fact, or misleading claims, or other such issues. The paper has all but eliminated local coverage, which saves money and also allows them to look the other way as Trump militarizes the capital. A large number of freelancers have been advised their services are no longer needed, with those column inches filled by wire stories or advertorial stuff.

Fundamentally, there are two problems here. The first is that it's a difficult time to be a legacy newspaper; that's why Bezos needed to "ride to the rescue" in the first place. The second is that the "lane" that Bezos envisioned simply does not exist. People who are MAGA already have plenty of "news" outlets to choose from (many of which, it must be noted, don't require costly subscriptions or... reading). And the folks who traditionally subscribed to the Post—Democrats, independents, moderate Republicans, educated people, etc., don't need or want "Fox Lite" and they don't need or want a paper that seems to be deteriorating by the day.

So, who's left? Maybe some people—Marc Thiessen superfans, we suppose, and a few others. But not enough readers to support an operation the size of the Post. Bezos, of course, could step in and cover the overage without missing it; a year of making up the budget gap is the cost of about half a wedding, for him. But he does not appear inclined to do that. So, the scuttlebutt on the street is that within 2 years, the Post might be online only or maybe even out of business entirely. Whatever happens, it is improbable that the paper will be what it once was. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would be rolling in their graves right now, if they were dead. (V & Z)

The Case of the Missing Teamster

Just 3 weeks ago, we wrote an item about Amelia Earhart headlined "The Case of the Missing Aviatrix." Despite the ongoing shutdown, Donald Trump decided that re-investigating an 88-year-old disappearance could not wait a minute longer, and ordered the FBI to locate and turn over any and all documents related to the matter, to be submitted no later than the following Monday.

We do not seem to have read any stories about how the Earhart mystery has finally been solved. So, it would seem that the FBI did not come up with anything that would crack the case wide open. No matter, there are other unsolved mysteries to be attended to. And so, with the shutdown STILL ongoing, Trump has ordered the FBI to spare no effort in finding any and all documents related to the disappearance of Teamsters' president (and friend-of-the-mob) Jimmy Hoffa. Reportedly, the agents again face a Monday deadline.

The good news, such as it is, is that Hoffa disappeared in 1975, not 1937, so the trail is not quite as cold. The bad news is that Hoffa disappeared from a restaurant in Michigan, and not over some distant island in the South Pacific. And so, the trail has already been examined endlessly by FBI agents, by other law enforcement and by self-appointed private sleuths. Also, Mother Nature is pretty good at making people disappear without a trace. But the Mafia is even better.

As with the Earhart matter, there are basically two schools of thought as to what is going on here. The first is that Trump has been watching reruns of Unsolved Mysteries or some other such program, and is being influenced by that. The second is that there is actually method to the madness, and what he's really doing is learning about what information the FBI has on various subjects, so he can judge what information they have on the subject that actually worries him, namely Jeffrey Epstein.

Whatever is going on, does anyone want to take bets on how many days it is until the FBI is ordered to drop everything it's doing, and immediately look for any and all information it has related to the disappearance of D.B. Cooper? (Z)

All in the Family

Yesterday, Katie Miller—who undoubtedly got her job in the White House, her job with Elon Musk, and her podcast based on merit, and not for any other reason—was on the show of Jake Tapper, who loves to perform "balance." And they got on the subject of former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, perhaps unaware that the Biden administration has been out of office for 9 months. Miller had some choice thoughts on Jean-Pierre:

I saw her interview this morning in the New Yorker, if it came out today or yesterday, but I think what you're seeing and what [Former Hillary Clinton spokesperson] Karen is attesting to is that she is quite incompetent to do the job, right? This is what Republicans have been saying for years now, is that she is just another evidence that DEI doesn't work, whether that's in the White House in your press secretary role or whether that's, you know, an air traffic controller, an air pilot, whether that's your doctor. You know, you want to hire the best for the role, not just based on skin color, Jake. Why did she get the job over John Kirby?

Miller also complained that "every fourth sentence" out of Jean-Pierre's mouth was a reminder that she (Jean-Pierre) is a gay Black woman.

We only mention this story because it is the most recent example of MAGA Republicans kvetching about how people should be judged based solely on merit. We could easily give a thousand other examples, of course. What we don't fully understand is exactly what is going on in the minds of people like Miller. Is this just a dog whistle, so as to make Jim Crow great again? Or do they really not see that there are all kinds of cases where someone is given a job, or a promotion, or an opportunity based on something other than merit, and DEI has nothing to do with it?

That brings us to the actual news here, namely that the second-to-last event on the LPGA calendar, the Annika, is coming up. Since it's part of the final stretch, it's a big event that tends to attract most or all of the top players—you know, the people who have earned the right to be there. And this year, it will also include a notable name, which belongs to someone who most certainly has NOT earned the right to be there: First Granddaughter Kai Trump.

Kai is the daughter of Donald Jr., and is a pretty fair golfer. How fair? Well, she's headed to the University of Miami to play on their women's golf team. She's also ranked #461 in the American Junior Golf Association's Girls' ranking. For those unfamiliar with this sport, and these rankings, that is... pretty fair. It's also not within a country mile of world-class. To put that in context, if a person was the #461 ranked boys basketball player, they would be good enough to be the third- or fourth- best player on a mid-range NCAA team, and would be a longshot to claim one of the 450 roster spots in the NBA. There are only 222 players on the LPGA Tour (a bit less than half), so the competition for an earned slot is even more fierce.

Although everyone is pretending otherwise, and saying lots of nice things about "nurturing young talent" and the like, Kai Trump was chosen for a sponsor's exemption because she'll attract eyeballs to the tournament. She is herself an "influencer," with a social media following in the millions. There will be some people in MAGA nation who tune in, just to root for a Trump. There will be some people who are not in MAGA nation who tune in, just to root against a Trump. The sponsors usually get 4-5 exemptions to use for this purpose, and it's hard to imagine a more productive use of one of the slots, unless Tiger Woods agreed to get a very hasty sex-change operation.

This story certainly raises some interesting questions. Among them:

• If Trump plays poorly, as is likely, is it OK to boo/critique her mercilessly? On one hand, she's a first-timer and not a battle-hardened veteran. On the other hand, she's legally an adult (18), she's willingly pursued and accepted a slot on the big girls' tour, and she should know full well what she signed up for.
  
  
• How will the media cover this? Undoubtedly, Trump will get far, far more attention than any other golfer who fails to make the cut. She'll probably get far, far more attention than whichever golfer wins the tournament. Will the media try to cover it straight down the line? Or will they be extra harsh in their assessments, either because she's a Trump or because she took a spot from a more talented golfer? Or will they be less harsh in their assessments, for fear of presidential blowback?
  
  
• Will Donald Trump come to the defense of his granddaughter? Most readers are probably familiar with the story of Harry S. Truman, who did not like a reviewer's negative assessment of daughter Margaret Truman's vocal recital, and so wrote a heated letter where he (Truman) threatened, in 1950s language, to punch the reviewer in the face and in the balls. Will the current president do that, if he feels his granddaughter has been unfairly maligned? And what will Trump's standard for "unfairly maligned" be? And will he limit himself to an angry tweet, just like Harry S. limited himself to an angry letter? Or will he sue Golf Digest or ESPN or CBS Sports for $100 million?

The tournament is November 13-16. And note that we are aware that Kai Trump might actually be playing one of the ancillary events, like the pro-am, and not the actual tournament. If so, then she's learned a thing or two from her grandfather about, well, lying, because on social media she's said very clearly that it's the main tournament she'll be playing. (Z)

There's Something Happening Here: The No Kings Protests, Part VIII

Six more reports from the No Kings protests:

B.R. in Helena, MT:

---

P.S. in Seattle, WA, writes: I attended the No Kings rally in Seattle last Saturday. Here are a few of the sights and signs:

---

R.C. in Boise, ID, writes: I attended the rally/protest in Boise, and it was a big'un! Estimates say 10,000+ attended. Among the largest in Boise history. The previous NK in June brought out between 3,500 and 5,000, so this was roughly two to three times larger!

We had meant to stay out on the fringes of it (crowds and older people in the age of COVID, you know), but it grew right past us. It was festive, with many speakers giving nods to the Constitution and Rule of Law, to our basic civil rights, and so on. Not a single incident of violence or harassment by people who might disagree with the premise of the rally was recorded. The weather was also perfect (it turned cold and rained the very next day, so thank you Weather Gods).

My favorite sign of the day, which I sadly didn't get a photo of, read: "Like Adolf and Benito, and yesterday's burrito, this too shall pass..." I love the sentiment!

Here are a some photos from the day. It was fun to exercise my First Amendment rights, and I'll happily attend the next one!

---

P.S. in North Las Vegas, NV, writes: I hope you get the chance to post a picture from the rallies here in Las Vegas:

---

D.L. in Olathe, KS, writes: My husband and I have been protesting since we met while working for the McGovern campaign in 1972. Still going strong!

---

L.E. in Putnam County, NY, writes: Despite my being uncomfortable with the world's monarchies being unfairly associated with Donald Trump, I did want to put in an appearance at Putnam County's "No Kings" rally, which was held in Brewster... but I got delayed, and by the time I got there police were directing traffic off the road on which the site (Wells Park) was located. I went in the indicated direction and around the edge of the village and found no available parking.

The Putnam County Courier front page story reads:

The largest gathering in the history of Brewster crowded into Wells Park Saturday for a regional No Kings Rally when activists and advocacy groups protested in response to what they described as an abuse of power by President Donald Trump and his administration, including his immigration crackdown and sending troops into American cities. "Brewster Police estimated about 4,000 people attended the demonstration—a gathering that resulted in gridlock throughout the half-mile, square-mile [sic] village.

The population of the county is a little under 100,000, and Trump got 56% of the vote last year.

Six more tomorrow! (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