We hope to have a posting tomorrow, but... no promises.

Hegseth Plans to Broadcast Firing Squad Execution

We imagine that everyone knows what happened when Tennessee tried to execute convicted murderer Christa Pike. Thanks to a poorly placed needle, as well as drugs that were past their expiration date, she was merely rendered comatose. There was much supposition that she would be permanently brain-damaged, and might never actually awaken from her coma, but a few days ago she awakened and is apparently able to communicate normally.

The conclusion that one might reasonably draw from this is that capital punishment should be abolished nationwide (something that has already happened, explicitly or implicitly, in about 30 states plus D.C.). Clearly, it is too easy to make disastrous mistakes. And that's before we get into the facts that: (1) people have been executed and later proven to be innocent; (2) study after study has shown the death penalty is not a deterrent; (3) putting someone to death costs more than just imprisoning them for life and (4) all the other western democracies have abolished the death penalty—maybe they know something.

On the other hand, if one still supports capital punishment, there still remains an obvious conclusion to be drawn. Execution by lethal injection, just like execution by electric chair and execution by oxygen deprivation (usually a nitrogen mask), were created to make the death penalty more "civilized," as compared to bloody or otherwise more violent methods like hanging, firing squads and the guillotine. The problem here is that executing a person is not "civilized," and while these newer methods might photograph better, they are not more effective nor are they kinder to the intended victim. So, if the U.S. is going to retain capital punishment, it should switch back to one of the older, uglier methods. The guillotine is not pretty, but it does do its work, quickly and successfully, 100% of the time. And people can just get over their notions that an execution is something that can be done in a nice, tidy manner.

A day or two after the Pike fiasco, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that he had asked for Fort Hood mass shooter Nidal Hasan to be executed by firing squad, and that Donald Trump had approved, with the date of the execution set for December 3. When we heard this news, we wondered if the reason was:

1. The administration wanted to avoid another Pike-style fiasco.
2. The administration wanted to put on a show, to remind everyone that Muslims like Hasan are bad, and that Hegseth and Trump are doing everything they can to fight a modern-day Crusade against them.
3. All of the above.

Yesterday, we found out that while there may be a little bit of #1 in there, #2 is far and away the main motivation.

The reason we say this is that Hegseth announced he wants to livestream the execution. Ostensibly, this is illegal, in that Army Regulation 190-55 limits the types of people allowed to watch an execution (e.g., no kids). But Provost Marshal General of the Army Sarah Albrycht can waive that, if she so desires. One imagines she will do so, or else will be fired and replaced by an acting Provost Marshal General of the Army who will grant the waiver.

At this point, let us share a message we got from reader J.C. in Washington, DC:

If you want something that is fascist this is it.

Unbelievable.

This is the nail in the coffin. Pete Hegseth's impeachment should be the number one priority in the 120th Congress.

In the movie Starship Troopers the quote is, "Execution tonight at 6:00. All Net. All Channels." Seems like something FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr might be involved in. This is the worst thing I've seen out of the DoD since I departed and needs to be amplified around the country so folks realize what is going on in this administration. Another horrific distraction that is also politically boneheaded.

I've been writing in a long time, but I'd ask that you make this front and center tomorrow. As a veteran I find this highly disturbing.

Request granted. We also find it highly disturbing.

We suspect a great many veterans will not be happy with this news. And just in case, Hegseth added a little extra insult to injury in explaining his (alleged) thinking in ordering that the execution be made public:

We'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that there's serious consequences for these types of things... I like the mentality we had in World War II, which was win. Which was understand when the enemy attacks you, you stand your ground.

The reference to World War II is because that is the last time the military executed someone by firing squad. At the same time, it is also an implied insult to soldiers who have served since then, suggesting that, for example, Vietnam went sideways because the soldiers did NOT "understand when the enemy attacks you, you stand your ground." In fact, the problem in Vietnam (and Afghanistan, and Iraq and now Iran) was crummy leadership that had no particular concept of what the endgame might be, much less an idea how to achieve that endgame. The soldiers in those conflicts were just as good as the (very good) soldiers of World War II. It is absolutely shocking, of course, that Hegseth is able to point the finger at the folks who put their rear ends on the line, but that he seems to be unwilling to look critically at leadership. Wonder why that might be...

In case readers are wondering, the reason that the execution is not set for prior to the midterms (juice up the base!) is that at least 60 days have to pass between the signing of a death warrant and an execution. This administration, of course, has a habit of ignoring rules it does not like, but maybe this was a bridge too far. In addition, Hasan can still appeal his conviction in civilian court, so that may extend the timeline, no matter what Hegseth and Trump want to do.

Earlier this year, the satirical newspaper The Onion dryly joked that:

In an effort to provide some joy to the nation and boost overall well-being, Justice Department officials announced plans Monday to bring back firing squads as a means of entertainment. "For too long, weak-on-fun Democrats have prevented our country from exercising this beloved tradition of murdering for enjoyment," said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming the practice was also a far cheaper and more efficient method of amusement than lethal injection. "Capital punishment with actual guns and bullets acts as a natural deterrent for boredom when it is carried in front of millions of thrilled, screaming Americans. Firing squads are going to completely expedite the delight and euphoria that are often slow in death penalty cases, with some inmates being forced to wait years before their death provides amusement for a cheering crowd." Blanche added that the Justice Department was also considering reestablishing state electrocutions for a one-night-only exclusive livestream on YouTube.

Blanche turned out to be the wrong Cabinet member, but otherwise it's a reminder that we live in a time where even the most over-the-top, surreal satire can become reality.

In any event, this is an absolutely vile use of a man's life as a source of political theater. There is already immense blowback, and there will surely also be lawsuits. So, it's a fair question of whether or not the execution and/or the livestream will actually happen. Either way, however, it shows exactly where Hegseth's mind is, and that he's a psychotic and bloodthirsty petty tyrant. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the Democrats, and maybe some other Republican members of the House will have all the cover they need to vote for impeachment. And if Hegseth does end up before the Senate, we can imagine a world where there just might be enough votes to convict. (Z & A)

TrumpWatch 2026: This Is What Happens When a Country Has a Corrupt Leader

As the old adage goes, "The fish stinks from the head down." And there might not be a more apt description of the Trump administration. Donald Trump himself has several problematic habits, among them that he's a liar, he's a bigot, he fetishizes violence and he's the most corrupt president in the history of the United States. And these habits radiate outward from him, sending to his underlings the messages: (1) It's OK to behave in this way, and (2) You really should behave this way, if you want to affirm you are a full-fledged member of Team Trump.

In particular, it is really and truly unbelievable how much corruption there is. Almost every day, there are new revelations about Trump, or someone in his orbit, being on the take. It's basically impossible to keep up with them all, unless we want to change the name of the site to political-corruption.com. And, on some level, it's not even useful to write about them. The people who might plausibly hold Trump accountable (i.e., the Republican majority in Congress) have no intention of doing so. And politically, Trump's reputation is baked in. Those voters who believe he's corrupt aren't changing their minds, and will vote accordingly. The same goes for those voters who insist he's not corrupt, and that any evidence to the contrary is fake news, or is dirty tricks from the "libs," or is trivial compared to the alleged corruption of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc.

All of this said, the amount of corruption that has been revealed in the last week or so has been absolutely staggering. So, we have to do a rundown:

Kimberly Guilfoyle: Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal had a big story in which it reported that former paramour of Donald Trump Jr. and current Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle reached out to Republican donor and former House candidate Eric Deters with an offer that if he would pay off her $100,000 American Express bill, she would secure him face time with high-ranking government officials. Deters declined and, obviously, decided that he would spill his guts to the Journal instead.

Guilfoyle and her lawyer deny the claim, although Deters had documentation (text messages) that back his story, which the newspaper printed. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others in the administration are trying very hard to make the story go away, which also strikes us as an indicator that it's true. And if it is, well, it's highly unlikely Guilfoyle only approached one person, and that one person just happened to sing like a canary. In other words, who else has she tried to sell access to? When the House is back in session, she could very well be the target of an impeachment resolution. And she is even more likely than Hegseth to be convicted and removed from office, we would guess.

In any event, both of these people are giving a (potential) future Democratic majority plenty of political cover. The blue team can fire off some impeachments, make the base happy, make an important statement about integrity, and be able to say that they're not making things up for show. These are bona fide high crimes and misdemeanors.

James Blair and Chris LaCivita: This is the other story from the week that is getting a lot of attention. Chris LaCivita and James Blair, while helping to oversee the GOP's midterm efforts, and without telling the White House, traveled to Republika Srpska to advise the far-right, Vladimir Putin-aligned government there on political matters. Republika Srpska is one of the two constituent states that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is not a great look for White House/GOP insiders to be working with a pro-Putin foreign government, especially without telling anyone. And it has Republicans hopping mad. They're not mad about the lack of ethics, however. They are mad that LaCivita and Blair aren't giving 100% to the midterms.

Katie Wiles: Katie Wiles, daughter of Trump Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is also working for Republika Srpska. One wonders how many other people in close proximity to Trump are working for foreign governments. We tend to doubt that Wiles' firm is being paid $35,000 a month because its insights about "stuff" are worth that kind of coin.

The Sons of Trump: Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are no more capable of earning money through legitimate business ventures than their father is. However, they now have access to the federal teat, and can spend 100% of their time exploiting that. ABC News crunched the numbers, and found that firms with ties to the sons of Trump have received over $6 billion in government contracts since dad moved back into the White House. ABC News later deleted the piece without explanation, but other outlets have reviewed the numbers and said ABC's claims appear to be on the mark.

The Son-in-Law of Trump: It involves a weedy and complex set of companies, investors, etc., but the Trump administration is trying to put together a deal to buy a bunch of oil, and oil-related assets, from Russian producer Lukoil. This would, of course, be the same Russia that continues to wage an illegal war in Ukraine, and that is still under sanctions from most of the world. Ostensibly, the oil would reduce fuel prices in the United States. Meanwhile, majority ownership in the venture would go to a group of Middle Eastern investors, nearly all of whom have ties to First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner. A few Americans, such as billionaire Todd Boehly, would also be able to climb on the gravy train. How to explain Boehly's good fortune? It's possible that he was invited to participate because he's donated over $2 million to Donald Trump-related PACs and causes.

Again, this is just a week's worth of this stuff. Things like this help explain why, in a poll released last month, 89% of respondents said that corruption is widespread in the U.S. government. That does raise an obvious question, however: What are those other 11% smoking? (Z)

The Senate: Candidates Try to Pop Each Others' Bubbles

Election Day is about 3½ weeks away, which means if voters are ever going to pay attention, now is the time. Meanwhile, early voting is, or soon will be, underway in many states. That means that it's primetime for U.S. Senate debates, of which there have been four in the last 48 hours—one on Wednesday (Iowa), and three on Thursday. Here's a rundown of how things went; if you wish to view the broadcast of the debate, click on the state's name:

Iowa: Like most of the debates this year, the central figure in this one was not the candidates, but Donald Trump. Iowa state Rep. Josh Turek (D) accused Rep. Ashley Hinson (R) of enabling Trump, particularly his tariffs and his war with Iran. She tried to counter that by arguing that Trump has done some good things (e.g., the border), and that when it comes to Iran, Congress does not need to be mucking around in the peace process, as the executive branch is more capable of handling that.

Hinson's attacks on Turek were all tried-and-true ones from the standard-issue bag of tricks. She said he misses a lot of votes in the legislature (true this year, because he's been campaigning, but not in other years), that he's a flip-flopper, and that he's basically an East Coast liberal. Turek scoffed at these claims, and said he has a long record of bipartisanship (true) that he hopes to continue in Washington (good luck with that).

Because Iowa has more than its fair share of older folks, the two candidates also argued about Social Security. Hinson, being a garden-variety Republican, wants to raise the retirement age. Turek, being a garden-variety Democrat, wants to lift the cap on taxable wages.

We'd say the (slight) winner here is Turek, primarily because he didn't have to twist himself into knots by trying to be both Trumpy and not Trumpy at the same time.

Georgia: Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) appears to be in the driver's seat here, and so he could have found a way to skip the debate ("I have food poisoning") or he could have just debated in cruise control. Instead, he came out with guns blazing, asking why Rep. Mike Collins (R) has so many ties with white supremacists. Collins appeared completely unprepared for this line of attack. That is political malpractice, since it was obviously coming, in the same way that Ken Paxton (R) won't debate because he knows the first topic of discussion will be his various grifts. We suspect that Ossoff's declaration that "you hired half the Third Reich to staff your congressional office" will linger in the minds of voters.

In contrast to the other Republican debaters this week, including the other Collins, the Representative did not really try to distance himself from Donald Trump as much as he tried to avoid answering any questions about Iran, the tariffs, etc. Collins' very Trumpy strategy was to blame Joe Biden for everything, and to interrogate Ossoff about votes he took during the Biden years. "That Bidenomics, that Green New Deal my opponent voted for, that's where this inflation came from," Collins decreed.

That is a very weak, almost desperate, line of attack. "But Joe Biden!" surely must have an expiration date, and that date is probably somewhere before November 3, 2026. In particular, is anyone who wasn't already voting for Collins going to believe that the high gas prices are due to the Green New Deal and not to, oh, the war in Iran?

Because Ossoff's white supremacist material really landed, and because Collins flopped around like a dying fish, this is the one debate among the four that was an absolute blowout. Game, set and match to the Senator. Ossoff is good at zingers, especially that what Trump really wants is to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie. That could come in handy in 2028 when he may well be on the ballot again.

Maine: This one was pretty similar to the matchup Sen. Susan Collins (D) and Troy Jackson had earlier this week; she was shaky, he was fidgety and they both brought their boxing gloves. Once again, Jackson painted Collins as a foot soldier in the MAGA army, and Collins insisted she's her own woman and doesn't take orders from Trump.

What was new the second time around is that Jackson really hammered on Iran, and said that most of Maine's problems won't go away until that war is ended. He also accused Collins of profiting off the war, though he did not specify how, nor provide any evidence, leading the Senator to demand an apology. There was also a question about term limits, which is a wee bit of an Achilles heel for Collins, since she promised to serve only two terms when she was first elected, and now she's gunning for a sixth term. She basically blew off the question.

Incidentally, several readers wrote in to tell us that Collins' shaky voice is because, as she revealed earlier this year, she has an essential tremor. She says it is benign, and that she's had it for years. We see no reason to doubt that, though it remains the case that it makes her sound very old, in a year where "old" is a liability with many voters.

As with the debate earlier this week, Jackson is your winner, but not in a rout.

Michigan: If you are looking for drama, this is probably the debate you'll want to watch, because the mud was flying. Abdul El-Sayed (D) said that former Rep. Mike Rogers (R) is "Weak. Cowardly. Won't stand up until his poll numbers drop." Rogers slurred El-Sayed as a "con man" and a fake doctor because he did not practice clinically.

Rogers' main strategy was to find ways to remind voters that El-Sayed is a Muslim. The Republican managed to work that subject into the debate at least a half-dozen times, with some of the mentions being pretty obvious dog whistles. For example, Rogers said that El-Sayed has "taken money from individuals on his campaign who openly support Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda," and that El-Sayed refused to condemn the terrorist attack on a Michigan synagogue that took place in March. The former assertion was unsupported, the latter is not true. Still, the message couldn't be clearer: "El-Sayed is a terrorist sympathizer." Oh, and if anyone did not already know, Rogers said he supports Israel, while El-Sayed noted he is pro-Palestine.

El-Sayed's main strategy was to paint Rogers as an out-of touch elitist and a flip-flopper. On the former point, there was an exchange where El-Sayed asked Rogers how many yachts he has, and then held up two fingers when the question went unanswered. It's a fair point; it's not easy to get through life without at least one yacht, but does anyone really need two? As to the flip-flopping, El-Sayed observed (correctly) that Rogers was for the tariffs on Canada before he was against them.

When the two candidates weren't insulting each other, much of Rogers' time was spent on distancing himself from Donald Trump. At various points, he expressed opposition to ICE, to the tariffs and to the Iran War. Because Rogers was on defense so much, and because he was compelled to repudiate the three most notable policies of the leader of his party, we think he was the clear loser here.

Sorry to give it to the Democrats 4-0, but we have to call them as we see them. Note that two of them (Maine and Iowa) were very close, and that the real issue is that Donald Trump is the focal point, and trying to hold him close but not too close (which the Republicans have to do) is a near-impossible task.

We know there will be two more Maine debates next week, and there's supposed to be a second Georgia debate. There may be others; they are often pulled together at the last minute. (Z)

Legal Bytes: Hearn Beats the Rap

We once again have a large backlog of legal developments to catch up on:

Pool Position: David Hearn, who was indicted for allegedly damaging the liner of the reflecting pool, won a motion to have his case dismissed with prejudice. Readers may recall that D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's case against Hearn fell apart when the company hired to install the liner admitted that the damage was caused by a botched and rushed installation.

Our Take: We already mentioned this outcome briefly, but it's worth noting that Pirro agreed to dismiss the case, but wanted to do so without prejudice in case they decided to further harass Hearn and use him as red meat for the base. The D.C. Superior Court judge was not buying it and held that the "political pressure brought by the President of the United States upon his subordinate officers" means that despite the lack of evidence, prosecutors are likely to cave to the pressure and prosecute him again. The embarrassing defeats just keep piling up for this DoJ. Once the midterms are over, look for even more resignations from this beleaguered institution.

---

You're Un-Fired!: Speaking of fighting back, Roger Rogoff has been reinstated as the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington after a judge ruled that his firing was illegal. The judges of the Western District appointed Rogoff to the post after the Trump administration failed to install a Senate-confirmed nominee. Under the law, the vacancy is to be filled by the judges in that district until a nominee is confirmed by the Senate. After Rogoff was appointed, he was promptly fired. Rogoff sued to get his job back.

Our Take: Trump appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which granted his request for a stay of the ruling while the appeal is pending. So, Rogoff is not currently serving in the position. But other ousted U.S. Attorneys could decide to follow suit if he prevails. As we've learned, the only way to stem the tide of illegal conduct is to fight back.

---

SCOTUS Is a Bunch of Tossers: A violation of immigration law is a civil violation, not a crime. And yet, the Trump administration is indiscriminately snatching people off the street to detain them indefinitely while it determines if they can be deported. Some of those people are being flown to countries they have never set foot in, and where they are likely to be tortured. They are given no opportunity to challenge either their detention or whatever destination Generalissimo Stephen Miller sees fit to send them.

So far, DHS has sent more than 25,000 noncitizens to third countries (nations that are neither the U.S. nor the person's nation of origin) since Donald Trump took office for his second term. On September 18, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit unanimously agreed that this practice violates due process by failing to give deportees a chance to challenge being dumped in a third country. The ruling upholds a lower court decision from February granting summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor. DHS immediately applied to the Supreme Court for an "emergency" stay of the decision while it appealed. Without a word of explanation, the right-wing majority once again blessed a blatantly illegal and inhumane practice. It agreed to take up the merits of the case, with oral arguments scheduled in December, but in the meantime, the government can choose a country to summarily toss people in—South Sudan, Eswatini, Rwanda, Uganda, etc.

Our Take: In his recent, self-serving book, Samuel Alito complained about Trump's increasing use of the shadow docket and whined that there was nothing the Court could do about it. Actually, if the Court would stop being a rubber stamp for the Trump administration and start applying the same criteria it uses for every other party's stay application, they would see far less of this. A stay is only supposed to be granted under extraordinary circumstances and where the party applying for the stay is not only likely to prevail in their appeal but will also suffer irreparable and extraordinary harm in the interim, in a way that outweighs the inevitable harm to the other side. Here, the government's only articulable "harm" is that they can't implement this policy as quickly as they want. Contrast that with the documented torture and other atrocities suffered by those already dumped in third countries without notice or opportunity to contest the decision. And that raises another important point: The ruling does not say the administration cannot do this; it only requires some due process. But SCOTUS once again ignores the lengthy decisions of the district court and court of appeal and its own criteria for these types of applications and gives the green light to the cruel treatment of humans, many of whom have lived, worked and contributed to their communities in the U.S. for decades. When people look back at this era in Supreme Court history, they will be shocked by the Court's treatment of immigrants, both citizens and non-citizens.

---

Do It for Team GOP, John Roberts: The Supremes also agreed to hear a case testing the Trump administration's expansion of the indefinite detention of those suspected of being undocumented immigrants no matter where they are in the U.S.

As we've written before, ICE now claims they can arrest anyone they suspect of being in the country unlawfully and hold them without affording them a bond hearing. In truth, the law allows those "seeking admission" at the border to be detained pending a removal hearing, while anyone already in the country can't be rounded up and detained indefinitely without bond. Lower courts and nine of the federal appeals courts have held that Trump's novel interpretation is unlawful. The Justices granted cert in a case from the Second Circuit, which ruled against the Trump administration.

Our Take: The policy of mandatory detention of noncitizens anywhere in the country has not only led directly to ICE abuses and violations of civil rights but has also needlessly disrupted communities, torn families apart and led to employee shortages nationwide. Conditions in immigration detention facilities are widely known to be filthy and barbaric. Politically, these aggressive roundups, which often sweep U.S. citizens in the dragnet, are extremely unpopular and are driving down Republican poll numbers. If the Court wants to help the Republican Party, as it so often does, it will uphold the Second Circuit and put an end to this practice.

---

Truth and Consequences: Donald Trump has been testing court orders and the limits of courts' enforcement abilities by pushing the boundaries of judicial rulings if not outright defying them. In many cases, compliance comes only after the administration has been hauled back into court. Judges are typically reluctant to hold the government in contempt, but more and more are no longer giving administration lawyers the benefit of the doubt and are now demanding they jump through all the hoops that any ordinary litigant has to.

For example, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has been holding contempt proceedings to find out who disobeyed his order to turn the planes around that were bound for CECOT in El Salvador. The Trump administration appealed and claims that Boasberg has no authority to conduct an investigation into who violated his order. Instead, they claim that only the DoJ has that authority. In April a divided 3-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the government, but in June the entire appellate court agreed to hear the case. At oral argument last week, most of the judges appeared likely to allow the contempt proceedings to continue.

Our Take: If the appeals court gives Boasberg the green light, and assuming the Supreme Court doesn't grant another "emergency" stay to let Trump officials off the hook, many DHS and DoJ officials could be implicated here. Famously, one prosecutor claimed that Emil Bove, now an appellate court judge, told government lawyers they could say "fu** you" to any judge who tried to stop deportations. Until there are real consequences to violating court orders, the administration will continue to violate them.

---

Cox Blocked: A 1996 federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. Prosecutors indicted a Jamaican woman, Chelsea Cox, for allegedly voting in the 2020 federal election in Broward County, Florida. But U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida David Liebowitz just ruled that the law is unconstitutional because only the states can determine who is eligible to vote in federal elections.

Our Take: Republican pundits have gotten very excited because they think they've found an opening to claim that Democrats want noncitizens to vote. But Liebowitz, a Biden appointee, based his decision in part on an amicus brief that he solicited from Paul Clement, one of the most conservative lawyers in the country and the former solicitor general under George W. Bush. As to whether Congress had the power to enact the law, Clement concluded that, "with respect to noncitizens in the States, the best answer given a fair reading of [it] as a whole appears to be no." Moreover, assuming Cox actually cast a ballot, there is no indication who she voted for. But given that Broward County is not far from Palm Beach, it's very possible she registered to vote in order to pull the lever for Trump.

And with that, court is adjourned. (L)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Happy Birthday, John Rock

John Rock is one of the many historical figures who should probably be better known, but... people's brains can only hold so much information. He was an abolitionist and one of the most accomplished Black men of his day—among the first Black Americans to earn a medical degree, and the very first Black American to be admitted to practice law before the Supreme Court (a fact that is noted on his tombstone). Though he did not use the phrase himself, Rock's speeches inspired people to start saying "Black is beautiful." And he did all of this despite dying at the age of 41, having lived just long enough to witness the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and the end of slavery. This upcoming Tuesday is his 201st birthday, so a tip of the cap to him, whatever plane of existence he may currently be occupying.

There were two hints last week. The first was: "the profile of Mark Cuban, as a potential presidential candidate, was supposed to run today, but we ran out of time and space. Too bad, because it was that item that inspired the theme." The second was: "Donald Trump would be unable to solve [the theme] because it relies on a particular book, and he most certainly has not read the necessary book. Admittedly, he probably hasn't read any book. But definitely not this one."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader R.P.E.H. in London, England, UK:

Today's theme is books of the Bible:

• New Revelation Makes Clear This Thing Isn't Going to End Anytime Soon
• Trump's Poll Numbers Continue to Be Very Poor
• The Hill Judges the Presidential Fields
• Can You Get a Job with a B.F.A. in Puppet Arts?
• Cue Up Your Favorite Proverbs about Pride
• California Acts to Legalize Balcony Solar Panels

Not bad for a communist, heathen Brit!

No, not bad at all. Mark, from the clue, is also a book of the Bible as is John from the headline of this item. And surely we can agree that Donald Trump would have no idea that both of those are gospels, and that he would be unable to name or identify the other books of the Bible. If only there was a gospel according to Donald.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

M.W. in Altea, Spain J.P. in Fredericksburg, VA M.S. in Canton, NY D.C. in Teaneck, NJ F.W. in Nijmegen, The Netherlands T.J.M. in New York City, NY T.K. in Manchester, MO J.N. in Zionsville, IN A.D. in Gaithersburg, MD R.S. in Landing, NJ K.R. in Austin, TX W.L. in Springfield, MO W.M. in Livonia, MI T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts M.T. in Simpsonville, SC G.M. in Tunis, Tunisia T.T. in Conway, AR D.L. in Springfield, IL T.M.M. in Odessa, MO J.U. Chicago, IL C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL B.U. in St. Louis, MO N.K. in Cleveland Heights, OH A.F. in Minneapolis, MN J.W. in Ellicott City, MD N.C. in Columbus, MS D.P. in Minneapolis, MN P.H. in Bozeman, MT M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO S.J.S. in Mt. Holly, NJ

P.A. in Redwood City, CA M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada D.S. in Fort Collins, CO S.P. in Harrisburg, PA A.A. in Branchport, NY B.A. in Edmond, OK M.V. in Aurora, CO J.R. in Austin, TX J.T. in Philadelphia, PA C.G. in Pflugerville, TX D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI P.J. in Quakertown, PA R.P. in Brooklyn, NY D.D. in Bucks County, PA M.B. in Albany, NY D.T.P. in Short Hills, NJ C.D.K. in Yorkshire, England, UK S.I. in Minneapolis, MN J.S. in Chevy Chase, MD W.V. in Hemet, CA D.W. in Gurnee, IL S.K. in Ardmore, PA E.B. in North Liberty, IA H.M. in Paris, France J.P. in Pine Grove Mills, PA M.S. in Royal Oak, MI D.M. in Crystal Lake, IL G.M.K. in Mishawaka, IN P.S. in Atlanta, GA M.K. in Long Branch, NJ

The 60th correct response was received at 6:21 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Arts and Literature. For a hint, we'll say the theme should strike a chord with readers. And the first headline is not part of the game.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 9 Headlines.

And, incidentally, this is always the last item we do on Fridays. If we are running late—and we usually are—then we sort the inbox by subject line to look for all the responses. So, if you have the subject line "October 9 Headlines," then we will certainly see the message in time. If it's "Headlines" or "Oct. 9 Headlines" or "This Week's Theme," that alphabetizes WAY differently, and we might not see it. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Artist Captures the Soul of Donald Trump

Donald Trump is doing a fair bit of harm to people in Europe, who had no say in his being elected, and who have limited tools for pushing back against him. That lack of tools did not stop Danish artist Jens Galschiøt from giving it the old college try, though:

As you can see, it is titled "The Orange Plague." That is a naked Donald Trump, covered in 24-karat gold leaf, being held up by a much smaller man. In one (small) hand, Trump holds a tiny scales of justice. In the other (small) hand, Trump holds a giant golf club. There is also a golf ball that is modeled to look like Earth. The artist says that because Trump likes gold so very much, "In a way, I think he would like this sculpture."

We are not exactly sure how to interpret the symbolism built into the piece, though we imagine that perhaps an extra-long golf club is intended to compensate for... something. Certainly, the central message of the piece is made clear by the title, and by the poem inscribed on the base:

I am sitting on the back of a man.
He is sinking under my burden.
I will do anything to help him.
Except stepping down from his back.

                —The King of Injustice.

Not terribly subtle.

At the moment, the work is on display in the front lobby of the European Parliament. That does not necessarily imply endorsement by the whole body; the rules allow each member to choose a work from their home country to display, and MEP Per Clausen chose this one. That said, the rules also say that members cannot choose works that are "contradictory to the values on which the Union is founded," and apparently this one isn't. Further, many MEPs have been photographed looking admiringly at the piece.

Oh, and our thanks to reader W.M.T. in Vienna, Austria, who brought the story to our attention. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Some Folk in Canada Aren't Taking This Lying Down

Sorry, but this piece is also about people making fun of Donald Trump—in this case, a bunch of Canadian teenagers who have demonstrated that board games can be a form of protest:

Although it looks like a version of Trivial Pursuit (another Canadian invention), it's actually a Monopoly-style game.

Players are afforded the opportunity to buy 20 different U.S. cities (the most expensive are Los Angeles and D.C.), and then to populate them with rent-earning hotels and golf courses. There's also a space where you can buy a Supreme Court justice (though it's not clear if you pay money, or just give him an RV). Here are some of the "Chance"-style cards that come with the set:

CHEAT AT GOLF! Collect $100.

BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL! Take $200 from the player with the least cash and give it to the player with the most cash.

NAUGHTY BY NATURE! A jury finds you liable for naughty things. Pay all female players $200.

DOBBS DECISION! All female players must move backwards five spaces on the board.

RENAME A BODY OF WATER! Pay $50 for new maps.

FIFTY-FIRST FOLLY! Your hotel goes bankrupt because Canadians stop visiting. Return your most expensive tower to the Treasury. If you don't own any, pay $500.

QUIET PIGGY! Your witty response stuns reporters! Any player who speaks before their next turn pays you $50. Except you. You can talk as much as you want.

FOUL PLAY! You phone a soccer friend to overturn a red card. Pay $15 in long distance phone charges.

There's also one that we just have to show you, because we can't capture it in typed form:

Hm. Hard to imagine what island the game makers might have been thinking of. Maybe Thousand Island.

So, why is this freudenfreude rather than schadenfreude? Well, first, because it's teenagers finding their political voice, and trying to be the change they want to see in the world. Second, because a chunk of the proceeds are going to charitable causes, including scholarships for high schoolers who helped improve their community in some way. If any readers would like to buy a copy, or to buy a red baseball cap that says "MAKE BOARD GAMES GREAT AGAIN," then the link is here.

As a side note, the 2026 Nobel Prize for Peace was announced not long before we posted this, and it's been awarded to Navi Pillay of South Africa, primarily for her work highlighting atrocities the Israeli government committed against Palestinians. Pillay, in addition to being a woman, is brown, highly educated, and an advocate for peace, human rights and the rule of law. It's almost like the Norwegian Nobel Committee said "Finn oss en motpol til Trump" ("Find us the anti-Trump").

Oh, well, Mr. President. Better luck next year, right?

Thanks to reader T.W. in Norfolk, England, UK, for bringing this to our attention, and have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Today's Senate Polls

In all cases except Florida, these are better numbers for the Republican than is usual these days. Of course, the Democrats are still up in two of them, tied in a third and within spitting distance in the remaining two. So, it's not quite time to throw a party at RNC HQ. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
Florida	Angie Nixon	45%	Ashley Moody*	47%	Oct 05	Oct 07	St. Pete Polls
Iowa	Josh Turek	43%	Ashley Hinson	45%	Sep 29	Oct 05	SSRS for CNN
North Carolina	Roy Cooper	50%	Michael Whatley	43%	Sep 30	Oct 03	East Carolina U.
Ohio	Sherrod Brown	49%	Jon Husted*	43%	Sep 09	Oct 05	SSRS for CNN
Texas	James Talarico	45%	Ken Paxton	45%	Sep 18	Sep 28	U. of Massachusetts

* Denotes incumbent

---

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.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger