Wednesday Reads: Trump’s Corruption on Full Display

Good Afternoon!!

Long-time friends Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump

Yesterday was a dramatic day in the efforts by Congressional Democrats and a few Republicans to force the release of the Epstein files held by the DOJ. Could the Epstein scandal along with the struggling economy finally bring down Donald Trump after all these years?

Jason Lange and Tim Reid at HuffPost: Brutal New Poll Shows Just How Badly Donald Trump Is Tanking On Epstein And The Economy.

President Donald Trump’s approval rating fell to 38%, the lowest since his return to power, with Americans unhappy about his handling of the high cost of living and the investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

The four-day poll, which concluded on Monday, comes as Trump’s grip on his Republican Party shows signs of weakening. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a measure to force the release of Justice Department files on Epstein. Trump had opposed the move for months while one of his closest supporters in Congress, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, turned into a harsh critic over his resistance. Trump reversed his position on Sunday as lawmakers prepared to move forward without him.

The survey showed Trump’s overall approval has fallen two percentage points since a Reuters/Ipsos poll in early November.

The poll, which was conducted online, surveyed 1,017 U.S. adults nationwide and had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points.

Trump started his second term in office with 47% of Americans giving him a thumbs up. The nine-point decline since January leaves his overall popularity near the lows seen during his first term in office, and close to the weakest ratings for his Democratic predecessor in the White House, Joe Biden. Biden’s approval rating sank as low as 35% while Trump’s first-term popularity fell as low as 33%

NPR: Poll: Democrats have biggest advantage for control of Congress in 8 years.

Heading into the 2026 midterm elections, there are some very big warning signs for Republicans in the latest NPR/PBS News/Marist poll.

The survey of 1,443 adults, conducted from Nov. 10-13 found:

  • Democrats holding their largest advantage, 14 points, since 2017 on the question of who respondents would vote for if the midterm elections were held today;
  • President Trump’s approval rating is just 39%, his lowest since right after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol;
  • A combined 6-in-10 blame congressional Republicans or Trump for the government shutdown; and
  • Nearly 6-in-10 say Trump’s top priority should be lowering prices — and no other issue comes close….

Coming off huge wins up and down the ballot across the country in this year’s off-year elections, Democrats lead Republicans, 55%-41%, when people were asked who they would vote for in their district if the election for Congress were held today.

It’s the largest Democratic advantage on this question, known as the congressional ballot, in the Marist poll since November 2017. The parallel is striking, considering that was at the same point in Trump’s first term as this poll now. Democrats wound up winning 40 House seats in 2018.

If the midterms were today, most say they would pick a Democrat. What’s more, independents chose Democrats by a 33-point margin on this question. It’s all quite the reversal of fortune from a year ago when, just before the 2024 elections when President Trump won back the White House, the parties were tied on the congressional ballot.

Historically, Democrats have needed a sizable advantage on the congressional ballot to signal that they would do well in upcoming midterms.

After months of efforts by Democrats to force the release of the Epstein files, suddenly yesterday their plans came to fruition in surprising fashion.

AP: Congress acts swiftly to force release of Epstein files, and Trump agrees to sign bill.

Both the House and Senate acted decisively Tuesday to pass a bill to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a remarkable display of approval for an effort that had struggled for months to overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

Congressman Thomas Massie speaks at a news conference on the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 18, 2025, with fellow Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Ro Khanna [Annabelle Gordon Reuters]

When a small, bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of the House floor, it appeared a longshot effort — especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.”But both Trump and Johnson failed to prevent the vote. The president in recent days bowed to political reality, saying he would sign the bill. And just hours after the House vote, senators agreed to approve it unanimously, skipping a formal roll call.The decisive, bipartisan work in Congress Tuesday further showed the pressure mounting on lawmakers and the Trump administration to meet long-held demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.For survivors of Epstein’s abuse, passage of the bill was a watershed moment in a years-long quest for accountability.“These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as she stood with some of the abuse survivors outside the Capitol Tuesday morning.“That’s what we did by fighting so hard against the most powerful people in the world, even the president of the United States, in order to make this vote happen today,” added Greene, a Georgia Republican.In the end, only one lawmaker in Congress opposed the bill. Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican who is a fervent supporter of Trump, was the only “nay” vote in the House’s 427-1 tally. He said he worried the legislation could lead to the release of information on innocent people mentioned in the federal investigation.

Read more about the bill and Trump’s sudden reversal at the AP link.

This morning,  the bill went to Trump. Politico:  Senate sends Epstein files bill to Trump.

The Senate has officially passed legislation forcing the Justice Department to release more information about the case it built against the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Senators had locked in an agreement to automatically pass the bill as soon as it was received from the House, which overwhelmingly passed it on Tuesday.

It now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk, where he has said he will sign it. That comes despite the fact that Speaker Mike Johnson sought eleventh-hour changes to the House-passed bill and didn’t rule out the possibility he would encourage Trump to veto it.

Assuming Trump follows through, the Justice Department will have 30 days to release the materials with redactions to protect Epstein’s victims.

Will Pam Bondi resist releasing the files? William Kristol at The Bulwark: ‘The Epstein Class.’

Who says Congress never gets anything done?

It was only a week ago that newly sworn in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) provided the final signature needed on the discharge petition to force a vote on The Epstein Files Transparency Act. Yesterday, the House approved the act by a vote of 427–1. About three hours later, the Senate deemed it passed by unanimous consent. The legislation will be transmitted to the White House today. President Trump has said he will sign the bill into law.

Epstein survivors speak at Capitol Hill news conference.

This act requires that the Justice Department make public within thirty days all the unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession related to any of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity, plea agreements, and investigatory proceedings. It specifies that “no record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

The authors of the legislation tried to make sure any exceptions were narrowly drawn. The attorney general can only withhold or redact information from personal or medical files—the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy—or information that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, “provided such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” The law requires that all redactions must be accompanied by a written justification in the Federal Register.

Obviously, there is no guarantee that Donald Trump’s attorney general will carry out these legislative instructions in good faith. Pam Bondi could try to turn tight and reasonable exceptions into wide open loopholes. Her boss, the president, has already ordered up an investigation of Democrats tied to Epstein—and she quickly said she’d comply. Could that be a predicate for withholding documents?

But would she even bother to cite that investigation? There are, after all, no assurances that the attorney general won’t try to simply withhold documents and information without telling us she’s done so.

And so “distrust and verify” should be the motto going forward. Congress, the media, the survivors—everyone committed to having the truth come out—needs to be prepared to keep the pressure on throughout, and to scream from the rooftops if there seems to be evasion or stonewalling.

Read the rest at The Bulwark.

Trump’s blatant corruption and his disdain for women reporters were both on display as he struggled to deal with his failure on the Epstein files issue.

Trump hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in his tacky, gold-encrusted oval office yesterday, and then held a state dinner in bin Salman’s honor last night. The U.S. intelligence community found that bin Salman gave the order to murder Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2019, but also Saudi Arabia was largely responsible for the 9/11/2021 attacks.

Kathryn Watson and Jennifer Jacobs at CBS News: Trump welcomes MBS for White House visit with fanfare for Saudi crown prince and military flyover.

President Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, to the White House with an elaborate military display Tuesday, praising the crown prince and insisting the U.S.-Saudi relationship has never been better as the two countries look to sign major business and national security deals.

Trump meets with Saudi Crown Prince in the oval office.

The pomp and circumstance — and the president’s praise and warmth toward MBS — were more typical of a visit from an allied Western democracy than an absolute monarchy with a troubled human rights record, pointing to the president’s focus on economic and business ties above virtually all else. The White House sees Saudi Arabia as a critical security partner in a turbulent Middle East, as well as an economic partner.

The White House arrival ceremony for the crown prince on Tuesday morning was laden with fanfare, complete with a U.S. military flyover, cannons, horses, and a red carpet. American and Saudi flags adorned the White House South Lawn, and a military band greeted the Saudi royal. Mr. Trump and the crown prince exchanged greetings as they shook hands, and then watched the formation of F-35 and F-16 fighter jets fly by before going inside the White House….

Ahead of bin Salman’s arrival, Mr. Trump told reporters Monday that the U.S. would sell F-35 fighter jets to the Saudis. In the Oval Office, MBS said the Saudis will increase a planned investment of $600 billion in the U.S. to closer to $1 trillion, an announcement that pleased Mr. Trump greatly.

Mr. Trump praised the crown prince in the Oval Office, calling him a “very good friend” and insisting his record on human rights is commendable, despite the State Department’s long list of concerns of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Arbitrary and unlawful killings, disappearances, torture, serious restrictions on freedom of expression and restrictions on religious freedom continue to plague the nation, according to the latest 2024 State Department report.

Trump’s businesses are heavily involved with Saudi Arabia.

During the meeting with bin Salman, Trump denigrated reporter Mary Bruce for asking questions about Jeffrey Epstein and Jamal Khashoggi.

CNBC: Trump calls for ABC’s license to be revoked after reporter asks about Jeffrey Epstein files.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday called for ABC’s broadcast license to be revoked as he angrily lashed out at a reporter from the network who asked why he has not released files on notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, his former friend.

ABC News reporter Mary Bruce

“I think you are a terrible reporter,” Trump told ABC News White House correspondent Mary Bruce.

The president said he did not like Bruce’s “attitude.”

“You ought to go back and learn how to be a reporter. No more questions from you,” Trump said in the Oval Office, where he was meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Trump’s tirade came shortly before the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill to compel the Department of Justice to release all of its records on Epstein.

Bruce also asked the Crown Prince about ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

Brian Stelter at CNN: Analysis: Trump’s anti-press outburst hits differently with a Saudi prince by his side.

President Trump frequently demonstrates his disdain for journalists. He expresses his admiration for authoritarians almost as often.

Tuesday showed how intertwined those two instincts really are.

Trump repeatedly objected to press questions during an Oval Office photo op with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, whose country does not have a free press.

He lashed out at an ABC correspondent, Mary Bruce, after she invoked the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents.

The president said his ally, Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, should “look at” punishing ABC over its news coverage.

“I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong,” he asserted.

Trump misstated how FCC licenses actually work, but his message was clear: He’d like his government to retaliate the way a dictator would.

The president also called Bruce “insubordinate,” a word he rarely ever uses, while sitting next to the son of the Saudi king.

According to Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom all around the world, “independent media are non-existent in Saudi Arabia, and Saudi journalists live under heavy surveillance, even when abroad.”

Trump even defended bin Salman. BBC: ‘Things happen’ – Trump defends Saudi crown prince over Khashoggi killing.

US President Donald Trump said Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman “knew nothing” about the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, as he welcomed the kingdom’s de facto ruler to the White House.

Trump’s comments appeared to contradict a US intelligence assessment in 2021 which determined the crown prince had approved the operation that led to Khashoggi’s death at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

Jamal Khashoggi

The crown prince, who has denied any wrongdoing, said at the White House that Saudi Arabia “did all the right things” to investigate Khashoggi’s death, which he called “painful”.

It was his first US visit since the assassination, which sent shockwaves through the US-Saudi relationship.

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump shot back at a reporter who asked a question about the killing.

“You’re mentioning someone that was extremely controversial,” the US president said.

“A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen.”

“But he [the Crown Prince] knew nothing about it,” Trump added. “You don’t have to embarrass our guests.”

The crown prince added that Saudi Arabia “did all the right steps” to investigate the murder, which he called “painful” and a “huge mistake”.

A US intelligence report made public in 2021 – under President Joe Biden’s administration – determined that the crown prince had approved of a plan to “capture or kill” Khashoggi in Istanbul. During his first administration, Trump White House officials declined to release the report.

While dozens of Saudi officials faced sanctions in the wake of the assassination, none directly targeted the crown prince.

Trump attacked another reporter on Air Force One on Friday for asking about the Epstein files. The Guardian: Trump faces criticism for referring to female Bloomberg reporter as ‘piggy’

Donald Trump, who has a history of making extremely personal attacks on female journalists, referred to a Bloomberg News correspondent as a “piggy” during a clash onboard Air Force One on Friday.

While the remark did not initially get much attention, it picked up some traction on Tuesday and has drawn backlash from fellow journalists, including some who have previously been attacked by Trump themselves.

Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey

Catherine Lucey, Bloomberg’s White House correspondent, had taken advantage of a press opportunity with the president – known as a gaggle – to ask a question about the unfolding Jeffrey Epstein scandal and the possibility of the House voting to release all of the files related to his case, which now appears likely.

As Lucey started to ask why Trump was behaving the way he was “if there’s nothing incriminating in the files”, Trump pointed at her and said: “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.” [….]

“Disgusting and completely unacceptable,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper wrote on X, sharing a clip of the incident. Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson also called the remark “disgusting and degrading”.

When asked about the incident, Lucey directed the Guardian to a spokesperson for her news organization.

“Our White House journalists perform a vital public service, asking questions without fear or favor,” a Bloomberg News spokesperson said on Tuesday afternoon. “We remain focused on reporting issues of public interest fairly and accurately.”

The New York Times on the guests at the state dinner for Crown Prince bin Salman last night (gift link): Who Attended Trump’s Dinner for the Saudi Crown Prince?

The world’s richest man. One of the world’s most famous soccer players. The president of soccer’s governing body. Dozens of executives from the finance, tech and energy sectors.

These are some of the guests who attended President Trump’s black-tie dinner for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia at the White House on Tuesday evening.

The red carpet welcome for Prince Mohammed is an extraordinary moment in diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. It is his first visit to the United States since the 2018 killing of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, which U.S. intelligence determined the prince ordered. Prince Mohammed has denied involvement.

After Mr. Khashoggi’s murder, some Western business executives and government officials backed out of Saudi Arabia’s global investment conference, including leaders of major American financial institutions. But by the following year, top deal makers were back at the event in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump and the crown prince cast their partnership as one that would reap benefits for both countries. Already, Mr. Trump has agreed to sell F-35 fighter jets to the kingdom, and the prince has promised to invest nearly $1 trillion in the United States.

Use the gift link to see the list of powerful people who saw fit to honor the Saudi Crown Prince at last night’s state dinner.

More stories to check out today:

Politico: Appeals court panel mulls $1M penalty for Trump in lawsuit against Hillary Clinton.

The Harvard Crimson: Harvard To Launch New Investigation Into Epstein’s Ties to Summers, Other University Affiliates.

The New Republic: Trump’s Plot to Rig 2026 Is Falling Apart, and Boy Is He Mad About It.

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate: Trump’s Scheme to Give the GOP Extra House Seats Just Blew Up in His Face.

Marisa Kabas at The Handbasket: Moral rot in elite journalism is killing the whole field.

That’s it for me today. What’s on your mind?

#abcNewsReporterMaryBruce #adelitaGrijalva #bloombergReporterCatherineLucey #dischargePetition #donaldTrump #epsteinFiles #epsteinFilesTransparencyAct #jamalKhashoggi #jeffreyEpstein #pamBondi #roKhanna #saudiCrownPrinceMohammedBinSalman #thomasMassie #trumpPolls

Trump's approval on government management drops sharply, poll shows

About one-third of U.S. adults, 36%, approve of Trump’s overall handling of the presidency.

https://sentinelcolorado.com/nation-world/nation/trumps-approval-on-government-management-drops-sharply-poll-shows/

#Trump #TrumpPolls #Shutdown

Trump’s approval on government management drops sharply, poll shows

About one-third of U.S. adults, 36%, approve of Trump's overall handling of the presidency.

Sentinel Colorado

Trump's approval on government management drops sharply, poll shows

About one-third of U.S. adults, 36%, approve of Trump’s overall handling of the presidency.

https://sentinelcolorado.com/nation-world/nation/trumps-approval-on-government-management-drops-sharply-poll-shows/

#Trump #TrumpPolls #Shutdown

Trump’s approval on government management drops sharply, poll shows

About one-third of U.S. adults, 36%, approve of Trump's overall handling of the presidency.

Sentinel Colorado

Lazy Caturday Reads

Good Afternoon!!

Raphael Balme, Three cats and wallpaper.

I’m feeling slightly more optimistic after Tuesday’s Democratic sweep of theoff-year elections on Tuesday. According to the polls, Trump is very unpopular, and I have to believe that his efforts to avoid giving food to starving Americans are not going to help him. Democracy is still in danger, but it is beginning look as if there’s still hope for saving it.

Julia Manchester at The Hill: Trump approval drops as Dems show more motivation for midterms: Poll.

President Trump’s approval rating is dropping as Democrats signal more motivation than the GOP ahead of next year’s midterm elections, according to a new Emerson College Polling survey released on Friday.

Forty-one percent of voters said they approved of the job Trump is doing as president, a four-point drop from Trump’s October approval rating of 45 percent. Forty-nine percent of voters said they disapproved of Trump’s job in office, up from 48 percent last month.

Meanwhile, the same poll found that 71 percent of Democratic voters said they were motivated to vote in next year’s midterm elections compared to 60 percent of Republicans. Forty-two percent of Independents said the same.

Fifty-seven percent of all voters said they were more motivated to vote than usual, while 12 percent said they were less motivated. Thirty-one percent said they were motivated as usual ahead of the midterms.

The polling comes after Republicans suffered losses to Democrats in Tuesday’s off-year elections, which were seen as a referendum on the first year of Trump’s second term in office….

The same poll found that 43 percent of voters said their vote in the midterms would be an expression of opposition to Trump, while 29 percent said their vote would be an expression of support.

The Emerson College national poll was conducted Nov. 3-4 among 1,000 active registered voters. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Here’s the full report from Emerson College polling.

I’ve been listening to/watching regularly a Daily Beast podcast called Inside Trump’s Head.” The show consists of interviews with journalist Michael Wolff, who has written 3 books about Trump. You can watch it on YouTube. Wolff is not only an expert on Trump (and Jeffrey Epstein), but also has numerous current sources inside the Trump circle. In addition, he is often funny.

Robert Davis at Raw Story: ‘Measure of optimism’: Analyst predicts ‘end of Trump’ after Democratic election wins.

Controversial journalist Michael Wolff made a bold prediction about the future of the second Trump administration on Thursday during a new podcast interview.

Wolff joined The Daily Beast’s Joana Coles on a new episode of “Inside Trump’s Head” that aired on Thursday, where the two discussed what Tuesday’s election results mean for President Donald Trump. Democrats won a spate of key races, including two governor’s offices and a host of statewide offices.

By Timothy Matthews

Trump and Republicans like Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) have tried to brush off the Democratic victories. Wolff argued that they reveal a troubling trend for the Trump administration.

“Let’s look at that in the context of we are not today in an autocracy and [with] a measure of optimism, which is that we’ve just spent a year since last Election Day with Trump as this omnipotent figure in politics,” Wolff said. “And while I would not say that today spells in any way the end of Trump, I would say that the end of Trump could well happen.”

Leading up to Tuesday’s election, Trump shared multiple social media posts attempting to help his preferred candidates win. However, Trump-aligned and Trump-backed candidates did not fare well in the election.

“That’s what happens in American politics,” Wolff continued. “That’s one of the great things in American politics. Reversals, landslides. Things that you would not dream of happening, happen.”

“This has been a horrifying year of Trump, and without any sense that anyone could stand in his way,” he continued. “But in American politics, that’s what happens. You think these people are permanent, and it turns out that they are fleeting.”

Late last night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson allowed Trump to continue withholding full SNAP benefits to the states after an appeals court ordered the payments to begin immediately.

Jennifer Ludden at NPR: Supreme Court temporarily blocks full SNAP benefits even as they’d started to go out.

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily granted the Trump administration’s request to block full SNAP food benefits during the government shutdown, even as residents in some states had already begun receiving them.

The Trump administration is appealing a court order to fully restart the country’s largest anti-hunger program. The high court decision late Friday gives a lower court time to consider a more lasting pause.

The move may add to confusion, though, since the government said it was sending states money on Friday to fully fund SNAP at the same time it appealed the order to pay for them.

Shortly after U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. issued that decision Thursday afternoon, states started to announce they’d be issuing full SNAP benefits. Some peoplewoke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries. The number of states kept growing, and included CaliforniaOregonWisconsinPennsylvania and Connecticut among others.

The Supreme Court’s decision means states must, for now, revert back to the partial payments the Trump administration had earlier instructed them to distribute. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the administration’s request for an administrative stay, the appeals court said it would consider the request for the stay and intends to issue a decision as quickly as possible.

SCOTUS whisperer Steve Vladeck quickly published an explainer at One First: SNAP WTF?.

Basically, Vladeck thinks that Jackson knew that if she didn’t issue the hold, the 5 right wing justices would go along with Trump’s wish for an administrative hold, and it might take a long time for them to get around to making a final decision on the SNAP payments.

I wanted to put out a very brief post to try to provide a bit of context for Justice Jackson’s single-justice order, handed down shortly after 9 p.m. EST on Friday night, that imposed an “administrative stay” of a district court order that would’ve required the Trump administration to use various contingency funds to pay out critical benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Willem den Ouden (NL 1928) Ferry with cat

It may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the Court’s behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court’s ruling in this case. But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.

In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.

Everyone agrees that, among the many increasingly painful results of the government shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can no longer spend the funds Congress appropriated to cover SNAP—a program that helps to fund food purchases for one in eight (42 million!) Americans. Everyone also agrees that there are other sources of appropriated money that the President has the statutory authority to rely upon to at least partially fund SNAP benefits for the month of November. The two questions that have provoked the most legal debate is whether (1) he has the authority to fully fund SNAP; and (2) either way, whether federal courts can order him to use whatever authorities he has.

The dispute in the case that reached the Supreme Court on Friday involves a lawsuit that asked a federal court in Rhode Island to order the USDA first to partially fund SNAP for November, and then, as circumstances unfolded, to fully fund it. Having already ordered the USDA to do the former, yesterday, Judge McConnell issued a TRO ordering it to do the latter (to fully fund SNAP for November)—and to do so by the end of the day today.

I won’t quote any more, but I hope you’ll go read the explanation. Vladeck thinks that Jackson did the right thing under the circumstances, because she wants to make sure that the full court debates the case and makes a decision quickly. Vladeck also notes that Trump could just approve payment of the SNAP benefits. There’s no need of a court order. Democrats should make sure people understand that Trump is willing to starve children and old people in order to get his way on the shutdown and the cruel cuts in his big ugly bill.

Meanwhile, Democrats have offered a new proposal to reopen the government. NBC News: Democrats make a new offer to end the shutdown, but Republicans aren’t buying it.

Senate Democrats made an offer Friday to reopen the government, proposing a one-year extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies alongside a package of funding measures in order to secure their votes.

By Kichisaburou Hirota

The offer, rolled out on the floor by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., includes a “clean” continuing resolution, which would reopen the government at current spending levels, and a package of three bipartisan appropriations bills to fund some departments for the full fiscal year.

“After so many failed votes, it’s clear we need to try something different,” Schumer said, calling it “a very simple compromise.”

The short-term health care funding extension would prevent a massive increase in insurance costs for millions of Americans on Obamacare next year. In addition, Democrats proposed creating a bipartisan committee to negotiate a longer-term solution.

“This is a reasonable offer that reopens the government, deals with health care affordability and begins a process of negotiating reforms to the ACA tax credits for the future,” Schumer added. “Now, the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We need Republicans to just say yes.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., called the Democratic offer a “nonstarter.”

“The Obamacare extension is the negotiation. That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up. … We need to vote to open the government — and there is a proposal out there to do that — and then we can have this whole conversation about health care,” he said.

Yeah, no. Republicans can’t be trusted to honor their promises.

Trump has started trying to get Republicans to get rid of the filibuster in order to reopen the government. Theodoric Meyer at The Washington Post: Trump wants to abolish the filibuster. GOP senators aren’t on board.

Senate Republicans have largely backed President Donald Trump’s agenda since he returned to office — but many refuse to support his campaign to scrap the filibuster.

Trump asked Republican senators at a meeting at the White House on Wednesday to end the government shutdown by getting rid of the filibuster and reiterated his demand Thursday at a news conference.

By Tatyana Rodionova

The filibuster, a long-standing Senate rule, allows a single senator to block most legislation unless 60 senators vote to cut off debate. Democrats have used the filibuster to block Republicans’ government funding bill for more than a month despite Republicans’ 53-seat Senate majority.

Some Senate Republicans returned from the White House saying they were open to ending the filibuster. But doing away with the rule would require the support of almost every Republican senator — and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) and many other Republicans say they are implacably opposed to it.

“There’s nothing that could move me on the filibuster,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) told reporters Wednesday after the White House meeting.

Senate Republicans’ unwillingness to scrap the filibuster underscores the limits of Trump’s influence in his second term, during which lawmakers have been reluctant to defy him.

There is quite a bit of immigration news out there today.

NBC News: Judge permanently bars Trump from deploying National Guard troops to Portland in response to immigration protests.

A federal judge in Oregon on Friday issued a permanent injunction barring the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard on the streets of Portland in response to protests against the president’s immigration policies.

“This Court arrives at the necessary conclusion that there was neither ‘a rebellion or danger of a rebellion’ nor was the President ‘unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States’ in Oregon when he ordered the federalization and deployment of the National Guard,” U.S. District Judge Karin J. Immergut, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in his first term, wrote in her ruling.

The Trump administration can appeal the ruling if it wants to.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek responded to the ruling Friday, calling Trump’s move to federalize the guard “a gross abuse of power.”

“Oregon National Guard members have been away from their jobs and families for 38 days. The California National Guard has been here for just over one month. Based on this ruling, I am renewing my call to the Trump Administration to send all troops home now,” Kotek said.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose justice department argued in the case objecting over his state’s National Guard’s deployment, called the decision “a win for the rule of law, for the constitutional values that govern our democracy, and for the American people.”

There are a number of immigration stories coming out of the Broadville neighborhood in Chicago where there is a large ICE facility.

Adrian Carrasquillo at The Bulwark: ICE Has Created a ‘Ghost Town’ in the Heart of Chicago.

DHS’S IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS continue to land like hammer blows on communities across the United States. Families are being torn apart, protesters are catching pepperballs, businesses are at risk, and, increasingly, entire neighborhood economies in areas with large Latino populations are grinding to a halt.

The worst consequences occur when these different aspects of the Trump administration’s deportation regime overlap. Case in point: Chicago’s food scene, specifically the capital of the Mexican Midwest, Little Village, where I got both a firsthand look at the compounding harms of ICE’s actions and the best gorditas I’ve ever had in my life.

By Cindy Revell

The first sign of how different things are come well before you take a bite of the gordita. It’s when you look around and realize that there is now an eerie emptiness to a once-vibrant place.

As I pulled into Little Village for dinner with some local Chicagoans, we experienced no traffic and had our pick of parking spots. “Traffic used to be bumper to bumper for decades and start blocks away, I’ve never experienced it like this,” Chicago food writer Ximena N. Beltran Quan Kiu told me. In a TikTok about the neighborhood, she noted that Little Village is the second-largest shopping district in the city after Michigan Avenue, which is home of the “Magnificent Mile” of luxury stores.

Our destination that day last month was Carniceria Aguascalientes, which sits on the main thoroughfare of 26th Street. We passed through a glittering Mexican grocery store at the street side to get to the large diner-style restaurant lined with tables and booths. Only two or three of roughly thirty tables were in use when we sat down. As we enjoyed our food, the largely vacant dining room became less and less comprehensible.1

When I told our friendly waitress, Michelle Macias, 24, what I do and why I was in town, she was eager to share what had happened to the restaurant. Aguascalientes, a staple of “La Villita,” has welcomed customers for half a century. But lately, its business has plummeted. Sales are down a staggering amount: more than 60 percent compared to last year.

Everything has been turned on its head, Macias explained. While in past years Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays were bustling, lately Mondays have become the restaurant’s busiest day—perhaps a result of people trying to avoid the usual crowds of the weekend. The restaurant announced this year that it would be closing an hour earlier, a money-saving measure. And as I had noticed, there’s now parking readily available, a fact that shocks longtime patrons accustomed to the gridlock that formerly surrounded the popular eatery.

Everything has been turned on its head, Macias explained. While in past years Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays were bustling, lately Mondays have become the restaurant’s busiest day—perhaps a result of people trying to avoid the usual crowds of the weekend. The restaurant announced this year that it would be closing an hour earlier, a money-saving measure. And as I had noticed, there’s now parking readily available, a fact that shocks longtime patrons accustomed to the gridlock that formerly surrounded the popular eatery.

The bleak reality facing Carniceria Aguascalientes weighs on its forty employees—especially Macias, whose parents own the restaurant.

As I took it in, I couldn’t help but think back to when Trump’s mass-deportation policy was just getting underway, and the many conversations I had then with Democratic lawmakers who wondered aloud about where we would be in three years. Forget three years: In the Latino enclaves of Little Village, and in Back of the Yards, in Pilsen, and on the North Side, they’re wondering how they will get through the next three weeks.

“Everyone is staying home, everyone is scared,” Macias told me. “There’s so much uncertainty. COVID was bad, but this is way worse.”

It sounds like what happened in Washington DC. Read the whole thing at the Bulwark link.

Charles Thrush at Block Club Chicago: Feds Tell Faith Leaders ‘No More Prayer’ Outside Broadview Facility.

BROADVIEW – Federal authorities told demonstrators Friday that there would be “no more prayer” in front of or inside the Broadview ICE facility, in a move that mystified local leaders and raised legal questions.

A federal representative delivered the news to a huddle of faith leaders and activists standing outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility Friday, speaking after faith leaders were denied entry to the building for the third time Friday.

By Miroslaw Hajnos

Broadview Police Chief Thomas Mills, whose department helped facilitate the phone call, said that he was “trying to figure out” in discussions with Mayor Katrina Thompson and an attorney if a federal agency could legally ban religious gatherings on land owned by the village. Religious groups previously have been allowed to practice outside the facility, he said.

“I’m just a messenger,” an anonymous voice stuttered over the phone to a huddle of faith leaders and activists standing outside the Broadview immigration processing facility on Friday.

During the call, which took place with a Block Club reporter present, the anonymous representative told a group of faith leaders and activists that “There is no more prayer in front of building or inside the building because this is the state and it’s not [of a] religious background.”

“I’m dumbfounded,” the police chief told Block Club. “Every time I talk with [federal officials], it feels like their rules keep changing. We don’t really know what’s happening, I’m sorry I can’t say more. We just want to keep people safe and let them peacefully protest without getting hurt.”

That sounds like a violation of the First Amendment to me.

Chicago Sun-Times: 14 suburban moms arrested in sit-in protest outside Broadview ICE facility.

A group of moms from the western suburbs were arrested Friday morning during a protest against the separation of families outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview.

Fourteen mothers jumped over the barricades and sat in a circle on Beach Street to “demand an end” to the immigration raids that have swept through the Chicago area since the Trump administration launched “Operation Midway Blitz” in September.

Less than a minute later, the women were arrested by Cook County sheriff’s deputies. The women were charged with obstruction, disorderly conduct and pedestrian walking on highways.

“We want to encourage other people who feel strongly about ICE’s actions to step off the sidelines and take our cities back,” said Teresa Shattuck, a mother from Oak Park. “We want to use our collective power and our white privilege in the way it should be used.”

Meghan Carter, another mother from Oak Park, said the women who were arrested understood the risks when they chose to take a stand, adding their experiences paled in comparison to what the detained immigrants inside the facility were enduring.

Carter said the suburban moms were a group of parents “fed up” with seeing immigration agents “terrorizing” their communities.

One more immigration/deportation story from NBC News: ‘Mega detention centers’: ICE considers buying large warehouses to hold immigrants.

The Trump administration is exploring buying warehouses that were designed for clients like Amazon and retrofitting them as detention facilities for immigrants before they are deported, a move that would vastly expand the government’s detention capacity, according to a Homeland Security Department official and a White House official.

By Timothy Matthews

The precise warehouses that Immigration and Customs Enforcement may buy have not yet been determined, but the agency is looking at locations in the southern U.S. near airports where immigrants are most often deported, the DHS official and the White House official said. Selecting such warehouses would “increase efficiency” in deportations, the DHS official said.

A deal to purchase the warehouses, which on average are more than twice the size of current ICE detention facilities, is past the early stages but not yet final, the DHS official and the White House official said. The DHS official described the warehouses as future “mega detention centers.”

Amazon would not be a part of any deal and would not profit from it as the warehouses were built by developers for Amazon but never used or leased by the company, the officials said.

An Amazon spokesperson said that the company is not involved in any discussions with DHS or ICE about warehouse space and that it leases and does not own the vast majority of its warehouse space.

It was not immediately clear who owns the warehouses that the government may buy and the DHS official and the White House official did not know how much the deals could be worth. The DHS official said some of the warehouses under consideration were built by developers with Amazon in mind but never used.

That’s it for me today. I hope everyone is having a relaxing weekend. I’m working on it.

#ACASubsidies #BroadviewICEFacility #Chicago #DonaldTrump #governmentShutdown #ICE #immigration #InsideTrumpSHead #JusticeKetanjiBrownJackson #MichaelWolff #SCOTUS #SenatorChuckSchumer #SNAPBenefits #SteveVladeck #TrumpPolls

The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump - 8Arc

5 (1) Title: The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump ‘The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump chronicles the tumultuous…

8Arc
The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump - 8Arc

5 (1) Title: The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump ‘The Grit and Glory of Donald Trump chronicles the tumultuous…

8Arc
Trump drops 6 points in post-debate GOP poll

Former President Trump saw a slight decrease in his support among Republican primary voters after he skipped the first GOP debate last week, according to a new poll from Emerson College. The poll, which was conducted Aug. 25-26, found 50 percent of GOP primary voters said they plan to vote for Trump, down from 56…

The Hill
The GOP primary is already decided. We’re just pretending it isn’t

Trump is running as an incumbent. Nobody poses a credible challenge to him in the GOP primary. Stop pretending otherwise

The Independent