I’ll leave the fine details to the experts, but here is the gist. If Team Red—or, of course, Team Blue—finds itself with a lot of extremely safe congressional districts, the partisan redistricting may be accomplished by spreading out those partisan voters, so that the team has somewhat fewer safe seats and a larger number of seats that it’s going to win by, say, only five percent or so.
That works just fine if you can accurately predict which way the political win will be blowing, come next election. But what happens if the political wind starts blowing against you?
If, let’s say, the wind unexpectedly blows against you—let’s say by seven percent in favor of Team Blue—then your bunch of five percent wins turn into a bunch of two percent losses. And you have well and truly shot yourself in the foot.
You will recognize this situation as a corollary of the general rule that the straight edge ruler is not your best tool for short term and long term planning.
Down in Texas, Team Red—having partaken generously of Trump’s Kool-Aid—thinks that Orange Man’s popularity in the Lone Star State will continue from strength. In particular, they think the Latino community is overjoyed by the ICE arrests, and will reward Mango Mussolini in 2026 by increasing their support in congressional districts bordering on the Rio Grande.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, His Most High Excellency has declared today that he will order his “Justice Department” to sue California for retaliatory redistricting on the part of Team Blue.
The Very Stable Genius did not, however, articulate a coherent legal principle that would condemn Team Blue in California while, at the same time, blessing Team Red’s efforts in Texas.
The exact quote is, “I want to try and get to heaven, if possible. I’m hearing I’m not doing well. I am really at the bottom of the totem pole. But if I can get to heaven, this [a peace deal for Ukraine] will be one of the reasons.”
Does the Archangel Michael Have Trump’s Cellphone?
The Times asks an excellent question:
This fear of perdition raised some questions. Chief among them: Who, exactly, has been informing the president that he is “not doing well” with regard to kingdom come? Did Michael the Archangel somehow get Mr. Trump’s cellphone number?
Your Chances of Getting into the Christian Heaven? Not Lookin’ Good, Donnie.
You know, Orange Man, the Gospel of Matthew is pretty damn specific about who’s a sheep and who’s a goat.
And, Donnie, you, sir, are a goat. (And that definitely doesn’t mean Greatest of All Time.)
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me in. Naked, and ye clothed me. I was sick, and ye visited me. I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat. I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink.I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.
And, Guess What, Donnie, You’re Also Going to Secular Hell for Megalomaniacs
And what, pray tell, is secular hell for megalomaniacs? I will answer my own rhetorical question. Secular hell for megalomaniacs is a fixed, enduring, well known and well established historical reputation for evil, vaingloriousness, inability to assess the relevant facts of a situation, inability to predict the consequences of your actions, refusal to recognize and accept good counsel, always valuing loyalty over competence, not recognizing the truth when it bites your own butt, and a love of performative cruelty.
Donnie, you and I are both 79 years old. We both graduated from an Ivy League university in 1968. AI tells us that deaths per year for 1968 Ivy League grads begin to reach their peak in our late 70s and early 80s.
Some, based on observation of your physical condition, your behavior, and your beginning to muse—in your own illiterate way—about the afterlife, ask, “Is Trump dying?”
Well, guess what, Donnie? Yeah, you’re dying. Maybe not next week. Maybe not next year. But you’re well on the way to your final reward.
And know this.
In future decades, in future centuries, for ages and ages to come, world without end, your name will be a byword.
It will be a byword for megalomania.
It will be a byword for wilful, pigheaded ignorance.
It will be a byword for joyous performative cruelty.
You will be a poster child for the President of the United States who possessed not a single character trait that made him worthy of his high office.
I join with those who say the legal case against Trump’s power grab under the purported authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 is overwhelming. That case, moreover, ought to appeal both to the Supreme Court’s progressives as well as to the other six justices, who achieved their high station through the good offices of the Federalist Society.
Notably, the litigation challenging Trump’s tariff power grab is being financed by Mr. Federalist Society himself, Leonard Leo, along the Cato Institute, the Charles Koch Foundation, and many others of their ilk.
In this context today, the Wall Street Journal waxed sardonic. I’ll share the Journal’s words, followed by a final hot take by my good self.
The Journal’s Editorial Board writes,
Mr. Trump justified his “reciprocal” tariffs by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare emergencies over fentanyl and the trade deficit. A lower court blocked the tariffs in May (V.O.S. Selections v. Trump) as an illegal exercise of presidential power, and Mr. Trump is appealing.
The Federal Circuit put a stay on the lower- court ruling so it could hear the President’s appeal. Oral arguments before the full Federal Circuit late last month didn’t go well for the government, which may explain the Justice Department letter, which echoes a tirade by Mr. Trump against the judges.
“If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor,” Mr. Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social. “It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!”
Wow. Ending a tax increase means depression. Who knew? Mr. Trump also seems to think any judge who rules against him is a radical leftist. But the 11 judges who heard the appeal include Republican and Democratic appointees. Messrs. Sauer and Shumate parrot Mr. Trump’s doomsday prophesies in their letter.
“The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin,” the lawyers write. We doubt the President believes that, but in any case it isn’t true.
It is true that foreign countries have pledged to increase investment in the U.S. in return for avoiding even higher tariffs than Mr. Trump has imposed. But these are nonbinding commitments, and the government wouldn’t have to pay anything back to countries if the tariffs are blocked. It would have to compensate U.S. businesses that paid the illegal tariffs—and with interest.
Obtaining a refund could be a bureaucratic mess and take years. But putting an end to this tax increase would also be a relief to thousands of businesses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that the Trump tariffs will cost the average small business importer $856,000 a year. Consumers notably won’t be able to seek refunds for tariff costs passed on to them.
The letter to the Federal Circuit judges illustrates the Trump style: try to intimidate by exaggerating the impact of a decision he doesn’t like and suggest he’ll blame the judges. We trust the judges won’t fall for it. If they do rule against the President and he appeals, we hope the Supreme Court quickly takes the case.
A Final Hot Take: Perhaps You Have Heard the Old Proverb, “Give a Fool Enough Rope and He’ll Hang Himself”
Along with Leonard Leo and his many close friends, thirteen states are suing to get a judicial finding that Trump is making a lawless power grab on tariffs: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont.
Ironically, a victory by these assorted plaintiffs would not only save the country from a lot of economic grief, it would also save Trump’s bacon by depriving him of the rope he needs to keep on hanging himself.
My hot take: If I were on the Supreme Court, I’d consider voting for Team Trump on this one, just to spite him.
Four days after JD Vance reportedly asked top Trump administration officials to come up with a new communications strategy for dealing with the scandal around the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, he appears to have put his foot in it, sparking a new round of online outrage even as he tried to defuse the furor.
In an interview with Fox News broadcast on Sunday, the vice-president tried to deflect criticism of the administration’s refusal to release the Epstein files by blaming Democrats. He accused Joe Biden of doing “absolutely nothing” about the scandal when he was in the White House.
“And now President Trump has demanded full transparency from this. And yet somehow the Democrats are attacking him and not the Biden administration, which did nothing for four years,” he said. Epstein’s former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse multiple minor girls and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison during the Biden administration.
If Vance’s attempt to switch public blame onto Democrats was the big idea to emerge from his strategy meeting with attorney general Pam Bondi and FBI director Kash Patel, which according to CNN he convened at the White House last week, then their labours appear to have backfired. (Vance denied to Fox that they had discussed Epstein at all, though he did acknowledge the meeting took place.)
Within minutes of the Fox News interview being broadcast, social media began to hum with renewed cries of “release the files!”
Clips of Vance smearing Democrats quickly began to circulate on X. “We know that Jeffrey Epstein had a lot of connections with leftwing politicians and leftwing billionaires … Democrat billionaires and Democrat political leaders went to Epstein island all the time. Who knows what they did,” he said. Vance also repeated Trump’s previously debunked claim that Bill Clinton had visited Epstein’s private island dozens of times. Clinton has acknowledged using Epstein’s jet, but denied ever visiting his island.
“Fine. Release all the files,” was the riposte from Bill Kristol, the prominent conservative Never Trumper who urged the documents to be made public with “no redactions of clients, enablers, and see-no-evil associates”.
Jon Favreau, Barack Obama’s former head speechwriter, replied: “Release the names! Democrats, Republicans, billionaires, or not. What are you afraid of, JD Vance?”
Favreau added that Trump’s name “is in the Epstein files”. That was an apparent reference to a report in the Wall Street Journal last month that a justice department review of the documents conducted under Bondi had found that the president’s name did appear “multiple times”.
Epstein died in August 2019, during Trump’s first presidency, while the financier and socialite was awaiting trial in a Manhattan jail; the death was ruled a suicide.
The White House has been caught in a bind over the Epstein affair which spawned conspiracy theories among many of Trump’s supporters, which now senior figures in the administration had actively encouraged during the 2024 campaign.
In July the justice department announced that there was no Epstein client list and that no more files would be made public, a decision that clashed with earlier statements from top Trump officials, including Bondi’s statement in February that a client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review”. The decision triggered an immediate and ongoing uproar that crossed the partisan political divide.
Among the most viral clips in the aftermath of that reversal was video of Vance himselftelling the podcaster Theo Von, two weeks before the election: “Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list, that is an important thing.”
In his Fox News interview Vance also warned that “you’re going to see a lot of people get indicted” after Trump accused Obama of “treason” and called for his predecessor to be prosecuted.
The director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has passed documents to the justice department that she claims show that the Obama administration maliciously tried to hurt Trump by linking Russian interference in the 2016 election to him.
Obama has dismissed Trump’s call for his prosecution as weak and ridiculous.
Business owners use labor statistics in making decisions about planning, hiring, and setting wages. From now on, these kinds of decisions will be based on unreliable data—or, certainly, data that are perceived as unreliable.
Politicians, and everyone concerned with politics, relies on labor statistics to inform them about whether the economy is healthy, unhealthy, or mediocre and as an essential source of information for setting monetary and fiscal policy. From now on, they will lack an important source of reliable information on which to base their decisions.
Career counselors, students, job seekers, and workers use BLS data as a significant source of information about salaries and job prospects. From now on, their ability to plan will be materially diminished.
Several people advised Nixon just to burn the Watergate tapes. Looking back after he left office, Nixon concluded that the “lesson of Watergate” is “burn the tapes.”
From the perspective of Mango Mussolini, the least bad alternative for him would be to have a bonfire on the White House lawn and burn all the Epstein files. It would be a terrible alternative for him, but it would nevertheless be the least bad alternative for him.
Right now, he’s just flailing—bleating random bullshit and throwing spaghetti at the wall.
I was writing this post in my head when the Wall Street Journal served up this treat today at dinner time.
Donald Trump is, and has been for a long time, a bully, a liar, a con man, and a sociopath. Now he is something else as well—a doddering old fool. Whatever coherence his ramblings once had is disappearing fast. That said, one can construct something out of his disjointed utterings.
When Trump says that Thing X is a “hoax,” he means that
Thing X actually occurred or is now occurring, and that
Public knowledge about Thing X would reflect very badly on him—worse even than public knowledge that he routinely grabbed adult women by their genitalia, and bragged about this behavior.
I won’t regurgitate the whole sordid business. But it seems clear beyond peradventure of doubt that Trump is in the voluminous Epstein investigatory files, and that he is drenched in flop sweat.
To address this predicament, Trump now wants everyone to believe that Epstein was not in fact a pedophile; that he should not have been prosecuted (during Trump’s first administration) because Epstein did nothing wrong; and—by implication—that Epstein’s lover and co-conspirator, now in jail, did nothing wrong either; and that these wrongful prosecutions were the result of evil Democrats, just like the January 6 prosecutions.
To this end, Trump will cast James Comey’s daughter and career federal prosecutor, Maureen Comey, as chief villainess in the purportedly unjust prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. That’s why he fired her yesterday.
From Team Trump’s perspective, firing Ms. Comey was a very bad idea.
As a former corporate advisor, I always told people to be careful about firing unsatisfactory employees who had dirt on you.
Firing Ms. Comey is mistake number 796. She has dirt on Trump.
Meanwhile, In Late Evening Developments
Trump says he is suing the Wall Street Journal, and all its corporate uncles, cousins, and aunts, for publishing the Epstein birthday letter.
It is widely reported that MAGA influencers—trying to play both ends against the middle—are asserting that the WSJ story about the birthday letter is fake news.
And Trump says he’s ordered the Justice Department to go to court to seek public disclosure of grand jury materials relating to Epstein.
Facing MAGA 