Republicans, even the one who steps away from Donald Trump, can be very slick.
Ingraham: Why did the Republicans lose that judicial race in Wisconsin?
Miller: You got to remember, candidates do matter. In this case, we did not have a particularly good one. Democrats also have a ton of out-of-state money that came in pic.twitter.com/mczSlQwOQN
Democrats did raise a lot of money from out-of-state. However
With ideological control of the court again at stake, the
race shattered the record set just two years ago. Through today, WisPolitics
had tracked $107 million in overall spending through independent expenditure
filings with the state, data from AdImpact, information from media buyers and
sources with knowledge of the efforts. That includes $58.2 million by Schimel
and those supporting him and $48.8 million by Crawford and those backing her.
The spending was dominated by big donors. George Soros
donated $2 million to the state Dem Party, while Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker
chipped in $1.5 million. The party then poured $11.4 million into Crawford’s
campaign.
On the GOP side, Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks has
given $3.6 million to the state Republican Party since Jan. 1, while Illinois
businesswoman Liz Uihlein kicked in $2.2 million, and her husband Dick Uihlein
gave the party another $1.7 million. It transferred $9.5 million to Schimel’s
campaign.
Still, no donor was more influential than Musk, who appeared
in Green Bay over the weekend.
The billionaire business owner and top aide to Trump plus
two aligned PACs put in more than $24
million, according to the WisPolitics tally. That includes $12.6 million by
America PAC and another nearly $8.7 million by Building America’s Future PAC.
Musk personally gave the state GOP $3 million. And the $24.3 million doesn't include what America PAC handed out to registered voters who signed a petition opposing "activist judges." Those who did that- and provided personal information the PAC could use for GOTV efforts- received $100 per person.. The PAC offered other incentives as part of its turn out the vote efforts, including three $1 million awards to people who signed the online petition.
In the land of Trump- with which Jason Miller no longer is directly involved- Miller is nowhere near the most vial nor most dishonest. He's not even the most vial Trump acolyte named Miller because that honor clearly goes to Stephen. But complaining about spending by Democrats when Elon Musk is on the other side is a little rich.
President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of
seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the
Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with
NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not
joking.”
“A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a
Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies. “But, I mean,
I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in
the administration.”
“I’m focused on the current,” Trump added, in some of his
most extensive comments to date about serving a third term.
Coyly
When asked whether he wanted another term, the president
responded, “I like working.”
“I’m not joking,” Trump said, when asked to clarify. “But
I’m not — it is far too early to think about it.”
When asked whether he has been presented with plans to allow
him to seek a third term, Trump said, “There are methods which you could do
it.”
NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice
President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump
responded that “that’s one” method.
“But there are others, too,” Trump added.
Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded “no.”
Not joking and not diverting attention from anything else. This is floating an idea to see if it flies. There are at least four ways Trump can possibly occupy the Oval Office sometime beyond January 20, 2022. While more sanguine than I am of keeping King Trump from doing so, Chris Cillizza (video below) explains
There is clearly a will for it. He wants this to happen. He is making very clear that he wants it to happen. He talked about this in his first term. He's talked about it now in his second term. It's moved from "oh, I'm joking" to "I am not joking" and, you know, this is a step in that direction.
This is a step in that direction. If Trump waited, till, say, December of 2027 to declare his intention to hang on to the presidency or return to it, it might come as a shock to the public and the mainstream media. Therefore, he has decided to normalize the possibility. At this point, it sounds preposterous to many people but as he consolidates power and periodically raises the possibility of a third term, the notion will become more mainstream, hence more acceptable.
There won't be a constitutional amendment erasing the limit of the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency. A Vance-Trump ticket is an option. Alternatively, martial law may be declared or Trump will cling to power by initiating a war or claiming one is under way. National emergency. If he has no other choice, he will refuse to leave office or force a confrontation with the U.S. Supreme Court. If he loses there, his rallying cry will be: you and whose army?
The Overton Window will continue, perhaps subtly, to shift. Whatever route he eventually takes, the President, Bannon, and others will periodically float the idea that Trump will serve one or more additional terms.. Donald J. Trump may not survive the remainder of this term, but will not give up power willingly otherwise.
With proper credit given to the source of the report, The Guardian on Saturday noted
The wife of the US defense secretary Pete Hegseth attended
two meetings with foreign defense officials during which sensitive information
was discussed, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.
The Journal’s report on Hegseth arrived late on Friday as he
faced scrutiny for detailing plans of a military strike in a group chat on
Signal, made public by a journalist at the Atlantic who had been added to the
chat. Multiple Democrats have called for his resignation while a bipartisan
group of senators sent a letter to the defense department calling for an
inquiry into the group chat.
Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer Hegseth, has been present at two
meetings where sensitive information was discussed, according to the Journal,
citing multiple people who were present at the meetings or have knowledge of
her presence at them.
The first meeting reportedly was a high-level discussion at
the Pentagon with top UK military officials, including the UK secretary of
defense, John Healey, that took place in early March, a day after the US
announced it would stop sharing military intelligence with Ukraine.
The second reportedly took place in Brussels in mid-February
at Nato headquarters during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a
forum of about 50 nations meant to help coordinate military support for Ukraine
as it tries to fight off the invasion Russia launched in 2022.
A defense secretary has the discretion to invite anyone to
meetings with foreign counterparts, but officials cited by the Journal said
that those attending these types of meetings usually have high-level security
clearances. While the spouses of defense officials sometimes receive low-level
security clearances, it is unclear whether Hegseth’s wife has any clearance.
Advice to Hegseth: stay on your wife's good side. She now has plenty to blackmail you- and the country- with. If she gets angry with you or decides to brag to a friend about the information she has, it might get to Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin faster than you can say "Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein- Perfect Together." Also, Mrs. Hegseth's mere presence makes our nation out to be a laughingstock among our allies..... even more than President Trump has already done.
Earlier in the week, we learned of the national security breach in which Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in a Signal group text chat of timing and weapons details for an impending American attack upon Houthis in Yemen. Fox News' Laura Ingraham interviewed the National Security Advisor, central to the scandal, and asked (at 1:19 of the 5/26 Comedy Channel video below) how someone unknown could have gotten into the conversation.
Mike Waltz replied "I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where you- it said one person and then a different phone number." Daily Show host Ronny Chieng comments "no one's ever had- no one's ever had that, all right? People don't have a contact with a phone number for, like, a different person- unless they're having an affair."
An affair? Well, that's intriguing, especially because now there comes an interesting, prurient, though unreliable report from something called "WIOZ." Wikipedia says World Is One News
is an Indian-English language news channel headquartered in Noida, India. As of March 2025, Media Bias Fact Check rated WION "Mixed" for factual reporting due to a lack of sourcing "in most articles and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19." It has faced scrutiny from multiple foreign countries over its coverage and in 2022 was blocked from YouTube before being reinstated.
On X, Dan Cohen, the founder of Uncaptured News, claimed
that Waltz follows what he describes as a "gay pornographic account".
Posting a series of screenshots, Cohen alleged that Waltz
"married to @JuliaNesheiwat since 2021 – follows a gay pornography
account."
Also read | Who is Jeffrey Goldberg? The journalist
accidentally sent classified Yemen war plan
The screenshots show Mike Waltz's official X account
@michaelgwaltz among the followers of account 'Big D**k Bottom'.
Cohen in his post stated that while "Waltz and
Nusheiwat’s personal lives are their own," it is "well-known that
secret sexual improprieties can be used to compromise political figures, and
Waltz is in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the US
government."
"The question must be asked: Does Waltz’s apparent
secret lust for black male make him susceptible to blackmail?," he added.
It very much would, if true. Perhaps it is a hoax.
Apparently, in the meeting there were nineteen individuals, including the J.G., Goldberg. Yet, for some bizarre reason, no one (as far as I can tell) in politics or the media writ large has inquired as to why no one of the 18 (all except Goldberg himself) asked who this unknown "J.G." was.
Perhaps everyone was intimidated, finding it awkward to ask about the identity of the mystery man or woman, believing they were expected to know, and were loathe to reveal their ignorance. Or (less likely) there was a widespread suspicion that Waltz knew who it was, whether it was a professional or personal contact of his.
After the news broke, Fox News' Laura Ingraham can be seen asking Waltz at 1:20 of the 5/26 Comedy Channel video below how someone unknown could have gotten onto the group chat. Waltz replied "I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where you- it said one person and then a different phone number." In response, Daily Show host Ronny Chieng commented "no one's ever had- no one's ever had that, all right? People don't have a contact with a phone number for, like, a different person- unless they're having an affair."
An affair? Well, that's interesting. A little funny, and possibly not a joke. No one evinced any curiosity about this unknown individual and Waltz certainly did not know that it was a journalist. Conceivably, though, Waltz feared it may have been someone he personally knew, in which case he would not want to say who it was and would be understandably confident that the individual wouldn't reveal anything publicly.
If it is for real, we probably won't find out about it. The media is unlikely to touch it unless one of the two political parties brings it up. The Republican Party won't mention it, for obvious reasons. The Democratic Party won't bring it up because it wouldn't want to be seen casting aspersions on something gay and black.
In the unlikely event that Mike Waltz knew who it was, it presented a national security risk. If he (and everyone else) did not know who it was, it presented a national security risk. In either case, the National Security Advisor screwed up.
So did the Defense Secretary, he who welcomes his wife in on national security secrets, and who should have not presented plans without being certain the venue was completely secure. Also participating was President Trump's untouchable Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, who has overall responsibility for staff operations. Somewhere, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and who knows who else are having a good laugh at our expense.
Evidently, anyone could earn a law degree at Fordham University in the 1990's. Last week, Steve Bannon told Chris Cuomo (at 1:36 of the video below) on the latter's show on NewsNation
...and President Trump, I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028. So I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky. We've got him now. He's on fire and uh, I' a huge supporter, want to see him again in 2028.
Cuomo, who got his Juris Doctor degree from the Bronx institution in 1995, replied "... and you know he's term-limited. how do you think he gets another term?"
Afterward, Cuomo brought on regulars Bill O'Reilly and Stephen A. Smith to argue about the possibility of Trump serving as President after January, 2029. O'Reilly remarked "O.K., so that's a fantasy and I don't really consider those kinds of things. It's not going to happen, never will happen, not worth my time or your time." Smith responded
Respectfully, Bill O'Reilly, it doesn't matter whether it's not going to happen. It matters that people on the right who preached for decades upon decades about following the Constitution suddenly come on national television and they say there's nothing wrong with circumventing it. That's the issue.
The Twenty-Second Amendment says it, O.K.? It explicitly states in the Constitution that for the presidency, there will be a two-term limit. No person can serve more than two terms. They know this. They're the same people that spent decades and decades telling us "the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution, we're going to follow the Constitution. But now that they've got a guy in office that they swear by, suddenly the rules don't apply.
So I understand what you're saying when you say it's not going to happen. But to dismiss it and act lie it means absolutely nothing, well, I got news for you. The election ain't till 208, o.k., and there's going to be a hell of a lot, a hell of a lot of millions of American citizens, that people on the right who are supporters of Trump, have absolutely no problem echoing and articulating and parroting that kind of speech that Steve Bannon just threw out there. I'm very alarmed by it and I don't even think it's going to happen myself. But the gall, the audacity for him to come on national television and say such a thing. I think it's incredibly alarming.
Credit "Stephen A.," as he likes to be called for condemning the GOP for its hypocrisy because for decades many Republicans would claim that they were "constitutionalists" or "strict constitutionalists." And suggestions by Bannon, the President, and others that Trump may run for a third term are alarming, though perhaps they may eventually wake Democrats up to the possibility that Trump may still be in the White House after 1/20/29.
Nonetheless, he's wrong (as is Cuomo) about the 22nd Amendment, Section 1 of which reads (with relevant portion here placed in asterisks)
No person shall be elected to the office of the President
more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted
as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was
elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than
once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of
President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent
any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President,
during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the
office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
This Amendment is commonly misunderstood. According to The Independent, "the 22nd amendment of the constitution limits any one person to a maximum of two four-year terms as president." A Newsweek reporter writes that "Bannon has already said Trump should run for a third term in 2028, though the 22nd Amendment bans any one individual from serving more than two terms." Peter Nicholas of NBC News writes "yet others believe that if the Constitution is somehow amended to permit a third term..." and thereby strongly implies that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow that third term.
But it wouldn't. Neither the 22nd Amendment, nor anything else in the document, precludes a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) term for a President. It precludes election to a third term. Presumably, the authors of the Amendment assumed that no tyrant would become President and if he did, he would get the hint.
Lindsey Choo of Forbes is the rare reporter or pundit who clearly appears to have read the Amendment and not assumed that which isn't present. She notes
The 22nd Amendment specifically bars anybody from being “elected” president more than twice, so some experts think Trump could serve in a temporary presidential role under specific circumstances, such as if he were to become vice president and ascend to the presidency.
Such an ascension would occur if Donald Trump in 2027 or 2028 conditioned his support for a candidate in the GOP primary upon his or her agreement to place Trump on the ticket. If the ticket were victorious, the winning presidential candidate presumably would resign shortly after taking the oath of office. For added effect of the best Nielsen numbers ever for an inauguration, the news could leak that the winning candidate would announce his/her resignation during the acceptance speech. Trump would find the attentions and the ratings absolutely orgasmic.
The Ukrainian parliament has postponed elections until Russia's war against Ukraine ends. President Trump might reasonably (albeit dishonestly) claim in 2028 that the nation is at war, whether in the wake of a missile strike against Iran, fentanyl or immigrants crossing the border, or European leaders defying him on any matter. There also is a legitimate possibility that President Trump would declare a different national emergency or martial law for some reason or another. The man's creativity is virtually endless.
Alternatively, Donald Trump, 78 years old as of now, may die before the next Republican National Convention. Or maybe he will decide voluntarily to give up the presidency on January 20, 2029. When pigs fly.
Crudely, tastelessly, and without redeeming social merit, Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas' 10th Congressional District
mocked her state’s governor
during a weekend appearance, referring to Greg Abbott — who uses a wheelchair —
as “Gov. Hot Wheels” while speaking at a banquet in Los Angeles.
“You all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there. Come on,
now,” Crockett, a Dallas Democrat, said about Abbott, a Republican, while
addressing the Human Rights Campaign event. “And the only thing hot about him
is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.”
Abbott was paralyzed in 1984 after a tree fell on him while
he was running. The accident severely damaged Abbott’s spinal cord. Abbott, now
67, was elected in 2014.
An estimated 34,000 people gathered Friday evening at Civic
Center Park in Denver to hear Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York push a number of progressive policies.
Just hours later, they spoke before a crowd of about 11,000
at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley.
The two stops for the progressive leaders in Colorado were
part of what they dubbed the "Fighting Oligarchy Tour."
The figure of 34,000 is not objective because apparently it originated with a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez herself. Still, a lot. A heck of a lot, a number Donald Trump circa 2016 would have been happy about. And then, there is Scott Jennings, a regular on CBS NewsNight (Usually) with Abby Phillip
Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV
"I don't know how the Democrats," Jennings says, "came to appoint Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your Party But thank God...."
Let's not play the How About Game. Of course, we remember Donald Trump when he mocked a disabled reporter.
:
But that happened several years ago, and we know that if Donald Trump were videotaped shooting someone in the back on 5th Avenue, most of his supporters would respond with something akin to "it was a Democrat and he stuck his tongue out at the greatest President ever."
However, this is 2025. Now, strategist Jennings is a CNN contributor and may end up running for the GOP nomination to succeed Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, who is retiring and for whom Jennings once worked.
It is not up to Scott Jennings to anoint someone as leader of the Democratic Party. Nor is it necessary for there to be one leader for the entire Party at this time. Hakeem Jeffries is the leader in the House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer, whatever his worth, in the Senate. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are now the de factor leaders of the activist wing of the Party, to whatever extent there is an activist wing and it has leadership.
After Mitt Romney followed in John McCain's footsteps by losing a presidential race to Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee launched an "autopsy," the "Growth and Opportunity Project." It cited the need for the rudderless GOP to become more inclusive, including welcoming racial minorities and immigrants. Four years later, the Party nominated for President a reality television star who filled a vacuum by condemning immigrants because "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." He won the election and the Republican Party lost fewer seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives than expected.
So much for the importance of leadership the year after a presidential election.
In the wake of the Signal fiasco, the lies are coming fast and furious from the Trump Administration, with some officials acting as if trying to undo Donald Trump in mendacity. Scott Jennings is a serious Republican operative who may become something even more prominent and significant. His guile must not go unchallenged, and the Democratic Party must not go undefended.
Hey, Senator Sanders! I could have answered the question and stayed on message and I've never been a United States Senator, United States Representative, or mayor. Figuratively standing with the Vermont senator and former presidential candidate is popular podcaster Brian Taylor Cohen, who remarked (at 1:40 of the video below)
Here's what I hope we can take out of not just this interview but this political era. Americans are tired of watching our media focus on the horse race of politics instead of the implications of it. The reason that Bernie Sanders is doing this massively successful Stop Oligarchy tour is not because he wants to fuel speculation about a 2028 run because quite literally he wants to stop oligarchy. It is right there in the title and yet when given the opportunity to speak with Senator Sanders,, the fact that the media cannot shake its old habits is a testament to the fact that they're not willing to meet this moment with the urgency it deserves.
In the interview Bernie Sanders took with ABC's This Week with Occasionally George Stephanopoulos (transcript here), correspondent George Karl asked these questions before he set Sanders off:
- So what are you trying to accomplish with this tour?
- Well, I hear you telling people out there, fight back. What do you mean, though? How do these people- how do they fight back?
- I've been covering you for a long, long time. I've hear you railing against millionaires and billionaires for a long time.
- Is there anything that you think Trump has done right?
After asking Sanders for a comment about President Biden's record on immigration, Karl asked
- So, realistically, Republicans control the House. They control the White House. They control the Senate. So what, realistically, can be done?
- You said that the passage of this bill, the continuing resolution, was a "absolute failure of Democratic leadership." What are you talking about?
After days of speculation about Democratic leadership in the Senate, and even about Chuck Schumer remaining as minority leader, Karl introduced the Sanders interview by noting that more than 30,000 people appeared for the Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez rally in Denver, and the Vermont senator (legitimately) bragged to the ABC audience "and we have done a lot of big rallies. 32,000 people here is by far the largest rally I have ever done." Then the interviewer had the temerity to ask Sanders "would you like her (i.e., Ocasio-Cortez) to join you in the Senate?"
The nerve of that man!
It wasn't the most important question but as one people have been talking about, it begged to be answered. And it could have been answered with something as simple as "you'll have to ask her about her plans." A little more problematically, the Senator might have said "she'd be a very good Senator, just as Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have been." (Admittedly, that would have been a lie about Gillibrand.)
Bernard "Bernie" Sanders is not far removed from his New York City roots. His response to an innocent question that could easily have been brushed away reveals a somewhat nasty and belligerent old white man who easily takes personal offense.
This should remind us all of the White House occupant who has been elected to the presidency twice, not the least because of his damaged character. In much smaller measure, a degree of arrogance and belligerence attracts tens of thousands to a rally, and a cantankerous old man may be what voters nationally are drawn toward in this irascible and hostile period.
At her briefing on Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi remarked
We certainly think it’s despicable the violence that is
taking place against Tesla, the company, its employees, and also just Americans
who have chosen to drive an electric vehicle. Many of them are Democrats, by the way.
Democrats were big supporters of Tesla and of electric vehicles until Elon Musk
decided to vote for Donald Trump. So, we would like Democrats to also come out
and condemn this heinous violence that we have seen.
Tweeters have indiscriminately blamed "liberals" or "leftists" or "Democrats," and this is not surprising:
An investigation has found 5 ActBlue-funded groups responsible for Tesla “protests”: Troublemakers, Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project and Democratic Socialists of America.
ActBlue funders include George Soros, Reid Hoffman, Herbert Sandler, Patricia Bauman,…
That is ridiculous. However, as a late-night talk show host, Jimmy Kimmel is associated with the Democratic brand and it's not helpful when
During Tuesday night's monologue, Kimmel had fun at the
expense of Tesla CEO and DOGE chief Elon Musk over his company's stock tanking
"almost disastrously so," sparking massive cheers from his audience.
"People have been vandalizing Tesla vehicles, new Tesla
vehicles. Please don't vandalize— don't ever vandalize Tesla vehicles,"
Kimmel said to the camera before smiling with a comedic pause.
Democrats should denounce the vandalism and crime being committed- but not by spanking fellow Democrats. The congressman from Silicon Valley, Ro Khanna, on Thursday stated "until yesterday, I think I was one of the only Democratic elected officials to vigorously condemn the violence and destruction against Tesla."
This statement is accurate and denouncing the violent behavior was commendable. However, proclaiming ".... I was one of the only Democratic elected officials..." is not commendable. Nor is it helpful to his Party because the comment self-righteously placed himself in opposition to other Democrats, suggesting that he did it despite being a Democrat.
Democrats should unequivocally rebuke what is happening but not by suggesting that the stance is bold because they are Democrats. "As a Democrat," should be the starting point. If they then go on to condemn Musk for being knee-deep in the unparalleled corruption and extremism of the Trump Administration, all the better.
However, clearly and skillfully separating the two remarks is essential lest the Democrat be legitimately accused of applying a "yes, but" or bothsiderism standard. Flouting the U.S. Constitution, as Donald Trump is doing, is undermining the rule of law and laying bare the falsehood that the law applies equally to everyone. "No one is above the law" has become a cruel joke.
We do not know who is committing the Tesla attacks, with the possibility that anarchists or even supporters of Musk (in a false flag operation) are responsible. Yet, right-wingers on social media, Musk, Bill Maher, and others are laying the blame for the Tesla attacks upon Democrats and/or liberals with no rebuttal from Democrats. If Democrats remain relatively silent, the assumption that it must be the left grows.
"Heinous violence" and "Democrats" should not be, must not be, synonymous in the mind of the voter. The prevailing narrative must be squashed at a least, and reversed if possible.
