Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Pete Hegseth... War Criminal?
We concede, as we have in the past, that we're not 100% sure where the line is between legitimate operations against unfriendlies and/or criminals, and, well, war crimes. Our gut feel tells us that firing on apparently unarmed boats, without giving them a chance to surrender, based on the unproven claim that they were running drugs, is probably on the wrong side of the line.
Even more probably on the wrong side of the line is an incident that happened in September, but was only reported this weekend, first by The Washington Post. According to the Post's sources, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told Adm. Frank Bradley to "kill everybody" during the attack. The first assault left two people alive, and so Bradley did what he was told to do, and ordered a second volley, in which those two survivors were killed. This is not substantively different than giving no quarter to prisoners of war who have tried to surrender. And killing—in effect, executing—people who have surrendered is definitely a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Since the news broke, Hegseth and the White House have done so much dancing around the facts of the story that they might as well launch a revival of Soul Train. Initially, Hegseth sent out a laudatory tweet complimenting the admiral for his good work. Then, when questioned by reporters, the Secretary called the Post story fake news, while very pointedly neglecting to comment on the "kill everybody" order. Yesterday, both the White House and Hegseth tried to throw Bradley under the bus—well, he's an admiral, so under the boat—and to suggest that this was mostly/entirely Bradley's call.
You would presume that, with something as significant and as problematic as this, the President would be looped in on the decision. However, when Donald Trump was asked about it, he was first confused and said he didn't know about the attack. Then he said that while the first assault was OK, he did not agree with the second assault. Assuming that is true, and we tend to think it is, this would seem to be another example of Hegseth behaving as a law unto himself. Remember, his order to all the high-ranking brass to report for that bizarro pep talk/chest thumping was also on his own authority, and also left Trump confused.
And as to the war crimes issue, there's more than just our gut feel here. Leon Panetta was Secretary of Defense, and so he surely oughta know. He said yesterday that "I don't think there's any question that that's a war crime, if it happened in that way." Ryan Goodman, who once served as General Counsel in the Department of Defense, and who also oughta know, agrees. In an interview yesterday, he observed that the Pentagon's Law of War Manual has examples of illegal orders that servicemembers should refuse, and one example is... attacking shipwreck survivors. Perhaps it begins to make sense that Hegseth is going after the six Democrats in the "You can refuse illegal orders" video with such fury.
And on that point, guess who has become the go-to interview for military affairs, particularly abuses of military authority? Yep, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ). For example, he did a press briefing yesterday where he was peppered with questions about Hegseth and about the attack. And, among other things, Kelly commented:
[H]e runs around on a stage like he's a 12-year-old playing army. And it is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. I cannot imagine what our allies think looking at that guy in this job — one of the most important jobs in our country in my view. After the president of the United States, it is the next most important job. He is in the national command authority for nuclear weapons.
Pete Hegseth, meet the Streisand Effect.
The Secretary might well have bit off more than he can chew this time, as he is being lambasted from both sides of the aisle in Congress, with both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees announcing they will launch investigations. We may well be getting to the point that Hegseth becomes a liability for this administration. And everyone knows what happens once Donald Trump decides you're more trouble than you're worth (Hint: He has someone else fire you, because he's too chicken to do it himself, as in TACO). (Z)
Trump MRI Reveal Is... Unrevealing
Back in October, as readers will recall, Donald Trump headed over to Walter Reed Medical Center for an annual physical—his second one in a 6-month period. It's certainly possible that the White House is calculating "annual" using the same math that says the tariffs are working, the price of milk is going down, health insurance is still affordable, and Trump is the most popular president since Abraham Lincoln. Or, it's possible the administration has something to hide.
Inasmuch as the second theory is the much better bet, there has been enormous pressure on Trump to release more information about the procedures he underwent. The White House press pool has clearly learned that if you nag the President enough, he will sometimes pop off in a fit of pique, and give you exactly what you want. So it was here; they kept asking him about his MRI, and he finally said, in effect "You want to know about the MRI? Fine. I don't care."
Consequently, White House Physician Sean Barbabella released a letter yesterday in which he explained that Trump underwent a "preventative" MRI of his heart and abdomen, that the results were normal, and that this is standard for an "executive physical." In other words: "Nothing to see here. Move along."
Nobody seriously believes this is the full story. Even The New York Post, which tends to be pretty Trump-sympathetic, put "preventative" in quotes in its headline, which is the written equivalent of an eye-roll. The thing is, "preventative" MRIs, particularly for heart issues, aren't really a thing. We went looking for backup for that assertion since, after all, we are not physicians, and the first two preventative-MRI-skeptical articles we found were from a research group at Michigan and a research group at Ohio State. If people from THOSE two schools are in agreement on something, you can pretty much take that something to the bank.
Or, if you would like another perspective, Dr. Jonathan Reiner was Dick Cheney's cardiologist for 30 years. That means he must be pretty good, since Cheney's ticker was a ticking time bomb for half a century. It also suggests the doctor is not in the bag for the Democrats. Anyhow, he was interviewed yesterday, and he said Barbabella's letter doesn't pass the smell test. The Doctor's exact words: "There really is no preventative cardiac MRI. This is not a standard test for an 80-year-old man to undergo advanced imaging."
Reiner believes that there must have been some precipitating factor that led to those specific tests being ordered, and he says the White House should just be honest about what it was. Of course, this White House really doesn't do "honest," so don't expect the administration to follow Reiner's advice anytime soon. The real question is whether Team Trump is: (1) hiding something fairly mild/commonplace (say, a slight heart murmur) because of Trump's ego and because he doesn't want there to be ANY suggestion that he's mortal, or (2) if this is a Woodrow Wilson 1919/Franklin D. Roosevelt 1944/Ronald Reagan 1988 situation, and something really serious is being covered up. We suspect the only way we could possibly learn the answer to that question before January 20, 2029, is if Trump succumbs to whatever it is that has him toddling over to Walter Reed for surprise MRIs. (Z)
You're Not the Boss of Me!
A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba, who was again found to be serving unlawfully as the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. The panel, which consisted of two George W. Bush appointees and one Biden appointee, held that Habba's appointment as "acting" U.S. Attorney violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
This saga began when Donald Trump nominated Habba—yet another of his former personal defense lawyers with no prosecutorial experience—to be U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. While she was awaiting Senate confirmation, she was serving as "interim" U.S. Attorney. In that capacity, she could serve for 120 days. After that, absent confirmation, the law states that the district court decides who should serve in the position. The two Democratic Senators from New Jersey did not return their blue slips, so her nomination did not move forward. Nonetheless, Trump kept her on the job. And even in the short time she was serving, she was carrying out Trump's marching orders for political and retributive prosecutions. She vowed to "turn New Jersey red" and initiated investigations into New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matthew Platkin and filed felony assault charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver, all Democrats.
When the 120 days expired, the district court did not extend her appointment and instead put the First Assistant, a career prosecutor named Desiree Grace, into the position. So, what did Trump and "Attorney General" Pam Bondi do? They accepted the outcome and complied with the law, because that's how they roll. Ha! Not really. Instead, they thought they could be really clever and evade the law by first yanking Habba's nomination. Then, Bondi fired Grace and installed Habba as First Assistant. And lo and behold, since the U.S. Attorney's position was now vacant, Habba was installed as the "acting" U.S. Attorney. Problem solved, right? Not so much.
The Court held that only the First Assistant who is already in the role when the U.S. Attorney position becomes vacant can serve as the Acting U.S. Attorney. So, when Grace was fired, whoever was serving as the First Assistant (before Bondi tried to put Habba in that role) would have been automatically elevated. The Court also pointed out that Trump could have put a different person in as acting U.S. Attorney, but only if they had already been confirmed by the Senate or had experience within the agency. Habba had neither of those qualifications.
So, now what happens? The Court has already held that cases brought by career prosecutors can continue under Bondi's supervision, but Habba has no authority to initiate any cases or supervise any attorneys in that office. And yet she's still there. Bondi could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or, alternatively, Trump could nominate someone qualified to serve as U.S. Attorney. And this administration has done that in other jurisdictions. While there have been several other U.S. Attorneys disqualified for the same reason as Habba (i.e., they passed the 120-day mark), many others' tenures have been extended by the district courts while they await Senate confirmation. The difference is that they are qualified, experienced, career prosecutors. Apparently, for some people, that matters. Go figure.
And then there's Lindsey Halligan. Trump and Bondi are reportedly considering re-indicting both James Comey and Letitia James after a court disqualified Lindsey Halligan from serving as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It's unclear whom they can get to present the cases to the grand jury and even Bondi and Trump don't even seem to have an idea. They haven't yet filed an appeal of the district court's order dismissing both cases and finding that Halligan's appointment was unauthorized. They have 30 days to do that.
The thinking could be that they could try to re-indict before the deadline to appeal. But that's pretty risky. Even if they find a prosecutor to present the cases to the grand jury, getting an indictment will be difficult. In the Comey case, Halligan had to mislead the grand jury and misrepresent the law and still only barely got an indictment. One has to assume that if the prosecutor accurately presents the facts and the law, they'll be facing a skeptical grand jury in both cases.
And that's before you get to the statute of limitations problem with the Comey case, which expired on September 30. In her ruling, Judge Cameron Currie addressed that issue and opined that because she held that the indictment was invalid, the government cannot rely on a 6-month grace period that usually applies when indictments are dismissed on substantive grounds. Because that issue wasn't directly before Judge Currie, that aspect of the decision is considered "dicta," or non-binding, but it offers important clues as to how the courts view that aspect of federal law.
Meanwhile, Halligan has still not stepped down. The petulance of Trump and his cronies is astounding. John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it best: "It's a procedural morass. The uncertainty that all of these machinations have created is sort of alarming. It's all in this place because the administration has decided it does not want to proceed under normal order." Indeed, they just can't bring themselves to follow the law—they're like toddlers in charge of the government and Justice Department. And so we wait to see the outcome of this latest temper tantrum. (L)
Hoosier Daddy?
Donald Trump's grip on the Republican Party appears to be weakening, but he's still king of the hill, at least for now. That means that when he says "Jump!" there are still plenty of Republicans who say, "How high, sir?"
Among Trump's current crusades, of course, is the effort to gerrymander the congressional district map in every Republican-trifecta state with at least one Democratic member in its House delegation. Why is he so obsessed? Only he knows. He could be specifically concerned about a Democratic House majority, and the subsequent impeachment(s) it might vote for. Or, it could just generally be that everything in his life is about winning and losing, and he wants to "win" the midterms.
The President has already gotten what he wants (or, at least, movement in the direction of what he wants) in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri, while the maps in Georgia and Alabama are tied up in court. That means the juiciest plum currently available for picking is Indiana, with its 7R, 2D delegation. And so, in the past few weeks, Trump has been laser-focused on the Hoosier State, twisting as many arms as he can to try to get what he wants.
Yesterday, Republicans in the Indiana State House unveiled the map they have cooked up. With it comes two pieces of good news for Trump. The first is that the proposed map chops up the D+21 IN-07 (which contains the vast majority of Indianapolis) across four districts, and also tweaks the D+1 IN-01 (basically, the northwest corner of the state). If the map is adopted, the bluest district in the state would be R+10, and not even a blue monsoon would likely be enough to produce two Democratic seats. The other piece of good news for Trump is that state House Speaker Todd Huston (R) said he's ready and rarin' to go, and that when he brings the new map to the state House floor, he has the votes for passage.
Now the bad news. As with the federal legislature, the Indiana state legislature is much more MAGA in the lower chamber than in the upper. Thus far, the Republican-dominated state Senate, which could easily pass a new map (it's 39R, 10D), has resisted Trump's pressure, declaring that this kind of monkeying around with district maps is not what Hoosier voters want. In case anyone needs a translation, here's what that means: "Making the Congressional districts Democrat-proof does not make the state Senate districts Democrat-proof, and if anyone is going to get thrown out on their ear for this stunt, it's those of us in the state Senate."
To take a specific example, after the proposed map was made public yesterday, state Sen. Michael Bohacek (R) said that he was a "no" on the map, if it should come up for a vote. His stated reason is that, in his recent attack on Gov. Tim Walz (DFL-MN), Trump used the word "retarded" as a slur. Bohacek, who has a daughter with Down Syndrome, said that was a bridge too far for him, and he's not interested in doing Trump's bidding.
Obviously, it's possible this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. However, it strikes us as potentially being a "safe" way to vote against Trump without confronting MAGA head on. We also doubt that Bohacek would venture out on an island, all by himself. He must know that there are other members of the state Senate who remain "no" votes on the new map.
Whatever is going to happen, it's going to happen soon. The state Senate, which is in recess, will hold a special session on December 8 to decide whether or not to do Trump's bidding. That's going to be a final answer, at least for the 2026 cycle, because thereafter there won't be time for map alterations, since candidates have to be able to file for the primaries, which will take place on May 5 of next year. (Z)
Upcoming Elections, Part II: 2026
The real fun, election-wise, is going to unfold in November of next year. But for politics junkies who need their fix before that, there are some meaningful elections in the much more immediate future. We did a rundown of the election calendar for the rest of 2025 yesterday; today it's the first several months of 2026.
Let's start with the special elections for the House. The 2026 election cycle will start with the runoff in TX-18, which is scheduled for January 31. Unfortunately, it is going to be a very boring start, because the runoff pits a Democrat, Christian Menefee, against another Democrat, Amanda Edwards. They are both Black, they are both fairly liberal, they have both held mid-level political offices. We cannot imagine any result here that would tell us anything, other than a majority-minority D+21 district tends to elect minority Democrats. When the winner is seated, it will fill a seat that has been open for nearly a year, as Rep. Sylvester Turner died on March 5 of this year. This is a travesty, and another anti-democratic black mark against Gov. Greg Abbott (who has plenty of those to his credit).
Next up will be NJ-11, which was vacated by Mikie Sherrill (D) when she was elected as the state's governor. On February 5, about a week after the good people of TX-18 find out who their new representative will be, Democrats in NJ-11 will get to select their nominee from among 13 candidates, some of them plausible, others the longest of long shots. It will probably end up being Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill, though with the vote being split 13 ways, you never know. That person will then go on to face the already-nominated Joe Hathaway, who is the mayor of Randolph (pop. 26,547). Apparently, Hathaway was the only Republican to throw his hat in the ring, which is a little strange, because the district is only D+5. That's not "easy" for a Republican, but it's not impossible. That said, with that kind of lean, and in the current climate, you have to assume the Democrat will win. If they win big, it will be more evidence that Donald Trump is creating strong headwinds for his party.
Eventually, the folks in GA-14 will have to pick a replacement for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). However, her resignation isn't official yet, and won't become so until January 5. As chance would have it, and this is undoubtedly just a coincidence, that is exactly 2 days after she qualifies for a lifetime pension and healthcare. By state law, Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA) can't set the dates for the special election until Greene formally vacates her seat; assuming a reasonably normal timeline, a replacement will be seated sometime in May or June. Greene's district is very, very red, obviously (it's R+19), but this could turn into a TN-07 situation, wherein a much-closer-than-it-should-have-been win for a Republican ends up being a harbinger of trouble for the GOP.
Moving along, on March 3—after the first two vacant House seats are filled, but before the third is—there are primaries in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas. Texas is hugely important because if AG Ken Paxton (R), who is both corrupt and crazypants, is the GOP nominee for the Senate, he might actually lose the seat. North Carolina will be closely watched during the general election, but probably not too much during the primary. Roy Cooper is sure to claim the Democrats' nomination in a walk, while the Trump-anointed Michael Whatley, who is facing only one (pretty weak) opponent, will surely be the Republican nominee. The only possible development of interest would be if Whatley had to sweat a bit due to a close race. That would certainly be a bad sign for the general, since Cooper is many orders of magnitude stronger than the no-name Whatley is facing in the primary. Arkansas will have little of interest, since the four members of the House delegation, all of them Republicans, along with Sen. Tom Cotton, who is also a Republican, are running for reelection and will win their primaries bigly.
A week later, Mississippi holds primaries. Nothing to see there. A week after that, Illinois holds primaries. The latter could be important if Illinois legislators draw a new map and try to send two or three Republican representatives to the unemployment office.
Then, we get a biggie: Wisconsin holds a state Supreme Court election on April 7. In the past three Wisconsin Supreme Court elections, liberal (nominally nonpartisan) candidates have wiped the floor with conservative candidates. On April 1, 2025, Susan Crawford, backed by the Democrats, crushed Brad Schimel, backed by the Republicans, 55% to 45%, despite Elon Musk chucking $25 million into a super PAC supporting Schimel. Musk could look in his couch for some lost coins to help the Republican again, but the potential embarrassment of being crushed again might deter him. It is an open-seat race as conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley declined to run for retention.
The Republican has to decide whether to embrace Trump or reject him. With his approval rating moving into the 30s, that is a tough call. Or maybe not that tough, after all. The GOP candidate is Maria Lazar, who sat for an interview this week, and said: "This is not a Republican versus a Democrat. This is a judicial race, and the reason why it's going to be different is that I am, through and through and all the way, a judge, not a politician." When a candidate says, "You know, I'm not REALLY a Republican at all and, in fact, I'm not REALLY a politician at all," that is not exactly hugging Donald Trump close.
If Democrats continue their winning streak, they can turn their thin 4-3 majority into a rather more hardy 5-2 majority. Since Wisconsin is the mother of all swing states, control of the Court is important for any 2028 election disputes, guaranteeing a huge battle for next year's election.
In any event, there's enough to keep politics-watchers engaged before things really start to get cooking in summer of next year. We guess the conversion of this site into a one-stop resource for knitting patterns and vegan, gluten-free pizza recipes will have to wait another year. (V & Z)
Twelve Days of Christmas... Games, Part II: Christmas Movie Trivia
Some of the games we put together this month will involve a lot more planning and preparation. But planning and preparation are not especially compatible with "we just decided to do this 48 hours ago" nor with "finals week is upon us." So, today it will be another pretty simple one. Maybe consider these first few a warm-up?
Here's the concept for today's entry. We're going to run down, in reverse order, a dozen of the highest-grossing Christmas films (adjusted for inflation). This list, and the box office numbers, come from Box Office Mojo, so if you have objections to any entry on the list, take it up with them.
We are not, of course, going to give you the names of the films. What we will give you is (1) the ranking on the all-time Christmas-movie grosses list, (2) the inflation-adjusted gross, (3) the year of release, and (4) the first piece of trivia listed on the film's IMDB trivia page. From that, you have to identify the movie. We think these are manageable enough that we're not doing multiple choice today—you will have to operate by your wits alone (please note: Google, IMDB, etc. are not part of ANYONE's wits—no peeking!).
And with that out of the way:
Rank: 15
Adjusted Gross: $180 Million
Year: 1989
Trivia: Final film of Mae Questel, whose film career began in 1930 as the voice of Betty Boop.
Rank: 14
Adjusted Gross: $190 Million
Year: 1993
Trivia: Tim Burton has said the original poem was inspired after seeing Halloween merchandise display in a store being taken down and replaced by a Christmas display. The juxtaposition of ghouls and goblins with Santa and his reindeer sparked his imagination.
Rank: 12
Adjusted Gross: $315 Million
Year: 2006
Trivia: This film was written specifically with Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet, Jude Law, and Jack Black in mind.
Rank: 11
Adjusted Gross: $375 Million
Year: 2003
Trivia: The scene when Buddy eats different candies and pastries with the spaghetti noodles had to be shot twice, because Will Ferrell vomited the first time.
Rank: 10
Adjusted Gross: $380 Million
Year: 1994
Trivia: One of the children in Charlie's class during Parents Day is an elf with pointed ears, which can be clearly seen when Charlie pulls the snow globe out of his backpack. When Charlie tells the class that his dad is Santa Claus, the elf boy is the only one who doesn't laugh.
Rank: 9
Adjusted Gross: $400 Million
Year: 2003
Trivia: When casting the part of Sarah, writer and director Richard Curtis auditioned a great many British women, but kept saying, "I want someone like Laura Linney." The casting director eventually snapped and said, "Oh, for fu**'s sake, get Laura Linney then." Linney then auditioned and got the part.
Rank: 8
Adjusted Gross: $440 Million
Year: 2009
Trivia: In the Cratchit home, there is a portrait of the story's author, Charles Dickens, hanging by the fireplace.
Rank: 7
Adjusted Gross: $470 Million
Year: 2004
Trivia: The film is listed in the 2006 Guinness Book of World Records as the "first all-digital capture" film, where all acted parts were done in digital capture.
Rank: 5
Adjusted Gross: $590 Million
Year: 1992
Trivia: Burgess Meredith was asked to play the Penguin's father in the opening of the film, but illness prevented him from it.
Rank: 3
Adjusted Gross: $630 Million
Year: 2000
Trivia: According to Rick Baker, the prosthetic makeup Jim Carrey wore took about two hours to apply and one hour to remove. Carrey revealed on The Graham Norton Show that he felt so confined and uncomfortable in the latex skin that he sought counseling from a CIA agent who taught him torture-resistance techniques.
Rank: 2
Adjusted Gross: $790 Million
Year: 1992
Trivia: Donald Trump owned the Plaza Hotel at the time and insisted on being given a cameo in the film in return for letting the crew film in his hotel. Chris Columbus considered editing it out but decided to keep it in after it went over well with test audiences
Rank: 1
Adjusted Gross: $1.1 billion
Year: 1990
Trivia: Joe Pesci deliberately avoided Macaulay Culkin on-set because he wanted Culkin to think he was mean.
Tiebreaker: How much did the #1 film gross in UNADJUSTED dollars, to the nearest million?
Care to try your luck? Then click here. (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones