Kennedy Is Heard

Robert Kennedy Jr. was thrown into the lions' den yesterday, when the Senate Committee on HELP (Health, Education, Labor, Pensions) grilled him for 3½ unpleasant hours. It was very contentious. Democrats pressed him on the many inflammatory and outrageous things he has said about vaccines over the years. These are all extremely well documented.

Sen. Tina Smith (DFL-MN) queried Kennedy about what causes the bird flu. He said it was the H5N1 virus. Smith was pleased to hear that, since in a recent book, Kennedy questioned Louis Pasteur's germ theory of disease and questioned the power of vaccines and antibiotics to fight disease. Smith also brought up abortion and stated that she thought both Donald Trump and Kennedy were dangerous to mifepristone.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) was not convinced. He asked about Kennedy's former statements against vaccines and his current ones not being against them, merely "questioning" them. Wyden said: "He gave us a word salad and dumped the issue." Wyden called Kennedy's testimony untrustworthy and unprepared. Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) said: "This is not just about a debate on vaccines, it's a debate about qualifications, experience and priorities." He made it clear that he thinks Kennedy, a lawyer, doesn't have any experience in government and knows nothing about running a major government organization.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) brought up a remark Kennedy once made comparing the CDC to Nazi death camps. Kennedy said "I don't believe that I ever compared the CDC to Nazi death camps." Then Warnock read him a verbatim transcript of a statement Kennedy had earlier made comparing the CDC to Nazi death camps. Kennedy said he was merely comparing the injury rate of our children to other atrocities. Warnock didn't seem impressed.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) brought up the subject of baby onesies with an anti-vaccine message sold by a antivaccine nonprofit Kennedy set up. Sanders noted that Kennedy now claims he is pro-vaccine, yet he is selling children's clothing with an antivaccine message for $26. He even held up a photos of one of them taken from the nonprofit's website. Kennedy said he had resigned from the board but didn't say why. Sanders asked him if he supported the onesies. Kennedy refused to give a straight answer.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) repeatedly asked Kennedy if he would continue to collect finder's fees off lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. She also noted that as secretary, he could make changes that would result in more lawsuits and more finder's fees for him. He refused to state tha he would stop collecting fees from lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) asked about false claims Kennedy has made about COVID-19, pesticides, and AIDS. Bennet started out by asking: "I'm asking you: Yes or no, did you say that COVID-19 was a genetically engineered bioweapon that targeted Black and white people but spared Jews and Chinese people?" Kennedy said he was just quoting a report that said that. Bennet said: "I'll take that as a yes." Then Bennet asked if Kennedy once said that Lyme disease is a military engineered bioweapon. Kennedy admitted that he did. The mild-mannered Bennet then said: "I want all of our colleagues to hear it, Mr. Kennedy. You said 'yes.'" Later Bennet noted that Kennedy once said that exposure to pesticides makes people transgender. The Democrats were well organized. Each one attacked Kennedy from a different direction. Kennedy will probably get zero Democratic votes on the floor of the Senate.

Most Republicans were sympathetic to Kennedy, but some actually wanted answers. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), a doctor, and chairman of the committee, asked Kennedy about his plans to reform Medicaid, which covers 80 million people, including many poor children. Some Republicans want to make deep cuts in the program to fund tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. Kennedy was evasive. Finally he said, I don't have a broad proposal for dismantling the program. He also made numerous mistakes during his testimony—for example, wrongfully stating that Medicaid is paid for by the federal government (it is not; it is a joint federal-state program). When asked about abortion, he said abortion is a tragedy but he deferred to Trump.

Kennedy also took some flak outside the hearing room. His cousin, Caroline Kennedy, said that as a young man, he liked to show off how he put baby chicks and mice in a blender to make dinner for his pet hawks. She said: "It's no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator." Kennedy clearly has a strange relationship with animals. He once barbecued and ate a dog (claiming it was a goat). He also one dumped a dead bear cub in Central Park. Finally, his daughter, Kick Kennedy, said he once sawed off the head of a beached whale and took it home.

But there is more (flak, not weird dead animal stories). A letter signed by 700 people in public health urged the Senate to reject Kennedy, saying: "He has little to no relevant administrative, policy or health experience or expertise." Another letter signed by over 75 Nobel laureates urged the Senate to reject Kennedy. As if that is not enough, even Rupert Murdoch opposes Kennedy. Both the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal and Murdoch-owned New York Post have written editorials calling for the Senate to reject Kennedy.

Not all senators are geniuses. In fact, most of them aren't although a few are reasonably smart. Nevertheless, you don't get to be a senator unless you are fairly good at reading people. Probably every senator, with the possible exception of those who played one football game too many years ago, know that Kennedy is not only unqualified to be secretary of HHS, but an active threat to the country's health. Yet almost every Republican will grudgingly vote for his confirmation because they are scared to death of what Trump will do to them if they don't. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY is probably a "no" vote because he had polio as a child and understands the importance of vaccinations. The two women who voted against Pete Hegseth probably are "no" votes again. Susan Collins (R-ME) has a tough race next year and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) actually tries to do what is best for the country, at least from time to come. So in the end, it may come down to Cassidy, a physician, who knows very well how important vaccinations are. Unfortunately, he is up for reelection next year. If he votes "no," he will probably be challenged by Louisiana State Treasurer John Fleming. That doesn't mean he is a dead duck. Beating a sitting senator isn't easy, even one with $100 million from Elon Musk. If Cassidy kills the nomination, he will become a hero among Democrats and he will probably get lots of money from Democrats around the country. Cassidy is about to get the full Tillis treatment (see next item). This is definitely a Profiles in Courage moment for him. (V)

How Hegseth Was Confirmed

Pete Hegseth was confirmed as secretary of defense by the smallest possible margin, 51-50. Politico did some digging and talked to a bunch of people about how this happened. It almost didn't, because Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is up in 2026 and may have to face popular former governor Roy Cooper, was worried that a "no" vote would sink him. The pressure that was exerted on him and others to get him to "yes" was enormous.

Tillis was upset by Hegseth's history of drunkenness, sexual assault, and lack of any leadership experience. The job of the secretary isn't so much to fight wars. The Joint Chiefs handle that. The secretary's job is to think about America's long-term defense needs and to referee disputes. Suppose the Army wants to design a brand new invincible remote-controlled tank and order 500 of them, the Navy wants a few nifty new aircraft carriers with the latest laser-powered anti-drone weaponry, and the Air Force wants a fleet of supersonic stealth bombers, but the budget allows only one service to get what it wants. Who wins? Answering that is the secretary's job. Hegseth is totally incapable of long-range planning for the Armed Forces. Tillis understood that. He wanted the Senate to kill the vote and the nomination. That's when an incredible 24-hour pressure campaign revved up. No stone was left unturned, on all fronts.

One team worked reporters who had reported on Hegseth's past to punish them and make sure they never did it again, in part due to death threats. Another went after the people who had tried to discredit Hegseth and have them recant their accusations. Still another bullied the Democrats. Yet another let loose a squad of Internet MAGA goons to bully not only Tillis, but other senators who might be privately encouraging him to vote they way they wanted to, but were afraid to vote against him themselves. The women who had accused Hegseth of sexual assault were kindly informed that talking to reporters or Democrats would not be a wise thing to do. Ditto for the whistleblower who leaked the fact that Hegseth has mismanaged the one little group he once ran. And of course, the MAGA apparatus was hurling "RINO" accusations at Tillis on every outlet they could and threatening to primary him.

When nothing seemed to be working, John Thune talked to Tillis to try to cajole/bully him into getting to "yes." Tillis still wanted to cancel the vote, to spare all Republicans the pain and also to spare him from a vote that the Democrats are going to put front and center in 2026, especially, in the event that Hegseth screws up or another, bigger scandal, comes to light this year or next. No matter what, Tillis still wanted to scrap the vote. Thune refused, thus forcing Tillis to vote on it. Donald Trump also worked Tillis by calling him repeatedly.

Another factor that Team Hegseth thought might influence Tillis was the opinion of Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). The feeling was that if a combat veteran and rape survivor and one of the two senators fighting to eliminate sexual assault in the military (along with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY) supported Hegseth, Tillis would cave. Ernst was quickly informed that unless she quickly supported Hegseth, Iowa AG Brenna Bird (R) would primary her and Elon Musk would make sure Bird had enough money to buy every commercial slot on every TV station in all of Iowa for a year. Ernst caved. So did Tillis, although now he has to worry even more about 2026. In the end, the pressure was too much.

This process represents a paradigm shift. The standard rules of politics have never applied to Telfon Don, but they did apply to people around him. Former HHS Secretary Tom Price was forced out for jetting around on private jets funded by the taxpayers. Former NSA Michael Flynn was fired for lying about his contacts with Russia. And more. Trump is now able to protect people he wants to serve him, no matter how bad they are or what that have done. His forcefield seems to have been extended to protect others within its range. (V)

Trump Declares War--On Congress

It is perfectly obvious to anyone paying attention that Donald Trump wants absolute untrammeled power. That is something new. In Trump v.1.0, he had some policy goals, like building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, but now that he has had a taste of power and didn't wield it effectively in round 1, he wants to emasculate all possible sources of opposition and become an autocrat. There are three real sources of opposition to a would-be all-powerful president: Congress, the courts, and the media. He is working on managing all three.

In the first week of this term, he is focusing on making Congress behave like a trained seal. In quick succession, he violated three laws, all of them passed by Congress with large margins, to dare Congress to do something about it. First came TikTok. The law required him to ban TikTok unless there was substantial progress toward a sale of its U.S. operations. There has been no progress but he granted an extension anyway. Take that, Congress!

Then, Trump fired at least 17 inspectors general, despite a law requiring him to tell Congress about his plans to fire IGs 30 days before doing so. Take that, Congress!

Most recently, Trump impounded funds due to be disbursed, despite: (1) the Constitution granting Congress the power of the purse and (2) a specific Watergate-era law mandating that the president spend all funds as directed by Congress. Take that, Congress! He was waiting to see what Congress did. The heat got a bit too hot on this one, so yesterday he ended the impoundment—for the time being.

If all that Congressional Republicans do is cheer him on or at best remain silent, Congress will have been completely neutered and senators and representatives will bark when he asks for it, in the hopes of getting a small fish thrown in their direction. Some Congressional leaders have gone on the record approving of being stripped of their power. House Majority Whip, Tom Emmer (R-MN) said: "You need to understand, he was elected to shake up the status quo." House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain (R-MI) aid: "I think it's a long time coming. I hope this sets a precedent." It will be interesting to see how she reacts next time there is a Democratic president who tries to stifle Congress. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said it [the freeze on distributing funds Congress has appropriated] is "a normal practice at the beginning of the administration until they have an opportunity to review how the money is being spent." Actually, no. No president since Richard Nixon has tried this and his attempt led to Congress passing a law specifically banning the president from impounding funds.

Democrats, by contrast, didn't bark and then roll over. However, they have almost no power (except the fililbuster, for which they are probably thanking former senator Joe Manchin daily). Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) called the situation a "constitutional crisis." Sen. Angus King (I-ME), who is not even really a Democrat, said: "I can never recall a time where the executive essentially tried to usurp the clear constitutional authority of Congress to authorize and fund programs." In 1972, King, then 28, was chief counsel to the Senate subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics. As a trained lawyer working for a Senate subcommittee, he knew very well that the president usurping Congress' authority was one of those constitutional no-no's. Who's he kidding when he says he cannot recall such a time?

The second obstacle to Trump's becoming an autocrat is the court system. It is widely expected that Justices Clarence Thomas (76) and Sam Alito (74) will hang up their robes in June or shortly thereafter. Thomas is yearning to drive around the country in his luxurious RV provided by a "friend." The freebie vacations will suddenly stop, although he may not yet realize it. Alito can spend more time with his lovely wife, so she doesn't go around flying flags at their country house without even telling him. Trump is likely to choose replacements that are the Trumpiest hero worshipers he can find, without much regard to their qualifications. We doubt he will pick Aileen Cannon. It is too big a jump and four Republican senators might actually draw the line there. She will have to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit first. Then he can do it if he gets another opportunity later on. But if Thomas and Alito retire, Trump will have appointed a majority of the Supreme Court. No president since Dwight Eisenhower will have made this many appointments.

The third obstacle is the media. As you surely know, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have already bowed to the emperor, when the owner overrode the staff's wish to endorse Kamala Harris. The New York Times has been also been cowed, but it is more subtle. Paul Krugman has written about this. CNN just dumped reporter Jim Acosta, who has challenged Trump. There are more, but most of them hope and pray they can do it quietly and not be called out for their cowardice.

In short, Trump's top priority in his first week is not the border or cutting taxes, as he promised, but starting down the road to muzzle all potential sources of opposition. It is a bit early to see how well that works out. Sometimes in politics things don't always turn out as you expect. (V)

How Is It Going with the Price of Eggs?

One of the main reasons Donald Trump got elected is that people felt that eggs cost too much and that Trump would lower the price. Given that, one would have expected that among the dozens of XOs so far, there would have been an eggsecutive order lowering the price. There wasn't any. The president can't do that, but it is a secret. The voters don't know that. Here is a graph showing the price of a dozen eggs since 2013. That price is now at an all-time high:

The reason for the current spike is the avian bird flu, which is requiring egg producers to cull their flocks of chickens. There is nothing the president can do about this. Still when voters are unhappy, they blame the president.

Trump's promise to lower prices is about to hit reality in multiple ways and he is ill-prepared to deal with it. The only XO so far touching on prices is a five-paragraph XO that devotes the first four paragraphs to saying that things are expensive and it is Joe Biden's fault. The fifth one orders the bureaucracy to do things to lower prices, like eliminating "coercive climate policies." It is worth reading because it appears that Trump wrote it personally. Former and future director of the OMB Russell Vought doesn't whine like that.

But most of the actions Trump will take are going to drive prices up, not down. Tariffs, which he has promised by Saturday, will make imports more expensive. He also has tried to get the Fed to lower interest rates, but lower interest rates give people more money in their pockets, so they spend more, which drives up prices. Drill, baby, drill, could take years to have any effect. Besides, oil companies generally only expand drilling when world oil prices are high and seem likely to remain so. That is not the case right now.

People are not confident that Trump will succeed in lowering prices. An AP/NORC poll taking in January shows this clearly

:

The conclusion here is people don't have much faith in Trump to lower prices. And again, keep in mind that when people are unhappy, they blame the president. Democrats are sure to remind the voters in 2026 that they gave Republicans total power in 2024 and they did nothing to help them. Time to try the other team. (V)

Trump Floods the Zone

During Donald Trump's first campaign, Steve Bannon said: "The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with sh**. This is not about persuasion. This is about disorientation."

Trump has fully absorbed Bannon's message. The vast number of XOs, pardons, laws broken, and other actions—not to mention threats to Colombia, as well as talk about buying Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal—has just overwhelmed the media and the public. They don't know which outrage to address first, so it is scattershot at best, even at those publications that have not adopted "anticipatory obedience" as a protective measure. Democrats don't know where to begin. And responding to the outrage du jour means that the previous outrage is quickly off the radar.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said: "It's been an overwhelming sensory overload." Just when they were ready to go after Trump on the birthright XO, he pardons Ross Ulbricht. When they start talking about that, Trump orders another 1,500 troops to the border and tells ICE to invade churches. Before the Democrats can start talking about that, Trump gives an incoherent and threatening address to the World Economic Forum. Then he threatened a trade war with Colombia, America's closest ally in South America. Next he said Jordan should absorb all the Palestinians so Gaza can be cleaned up. And it goes on and on. Democrats (and the media) simply can't manage the flood. They don't know where to begin. The MAGA base is ecstatic.

Bannon is not in the loop right now (although he is cheering from the sidelines) so the main architect of the continuous stream of noise is Stephen Miller. He believes that Trump's enemies have a limited bandwidth for opposition and once it is filled with old stuff (from this morning), there will be no room for new stuff (from this afternoon) unless they forget all the old stuff. If opposition to something lasts only 3 hours and there is an endless stream of targets, the public just tunes it all out. That is the goal.

Democrats are hoping that Trump will eventually run out of steam, but that seems unlikely. The Project 2025 document has 900 pages of stuff he can announce to generate outrage. He doesn't actually have to do things, just announce that he is going to do them. Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) said: "They're going to stumble. They're going to screw up, and we're going to pounce when they do. In their haste to remake the federal government, they're going to make big, big mistakes."

One mistake they already made (and tried to correct) is the freeze on government payments. It was rescinded yesterday. It was very unpopular and the intended recipients of the various payments noticed it quite quickly and began squealing. The damage didn't last long, so it will be forgotten by tomorrow, but tomorrow, or maybe next week, or next month, Trump could easily overreach, do something that is unpopular, and defend it for weeks to his detriment.

So, Connolly could be right. The more Trump does, the bigger the attack surface. All it takes is one serious mistake somewhere to cause a scandal big enough to get independent voters angry with Trump. Suppose, for example, in the indiscriminate raids on immigrants, ICE gets too trigger happy and shoots and kills a number of American citizens. That could allow Democrats to say to Latinos: "He wants to deport all of you, even if you are citizens, and if you object, his thugs will kill you." All it takes is one event. Look how much mileage Republicans got from the killing of Laken Riley. Suppose ICE kills a dozen American citizens in a week? Democrats have to pick their case carefully, but with so many, they might be able to find one that resonates.

Maybe polling can help pick winners. Birthright citizenship, for example, seems to be one point where the public strongly disagrees with Trump. Also, the huge flurry of activity has not helped Trump in the polls. His disapproval rating in a Jan. 20-21 poll was at 46%, up from 39%. Democrats' goal should be to get it to at least 60%. The higher it is, the fewer senators and representatives will want to be attached to him. (V)

The Score: Trump 25 Million, Meta 0

Donald Trump was furious when Mark Zuckerberg suspended Trump's Facebook account on account of all the lies he was telling. So Trump did what was natural to him: He sued Facebook (now Meta). Yesterday, Zuckerberg decided that becoming Trump's toady would be good for the company, so he ponied up $25 million to make the case go away. Trump accepted the bribe, no, settlement. Wait, Trump is in the hospitality business, so call it a gratuity.

Supposedly, $22 million will go to Trump's presidential library and the rest will go to pay legal fees and to other plaintiffs. Zuckerberg is hardly the first billionaire to kowtow to Trump. It is all the rage these days. Jeff Bezos and others went before him in various forms. ABC News also gave Trump $15 million in the hope he won't ruin the company. That is theoretically supposed to go to his library, too, but we'll believe it when we see it. After all, how much can you really spend on coloring books?

Oh, and Facebook also got rid of its fact-checking department, so if Trump wants to lie his head off on Facebook now, Zuckerberg won't lift a finger to get in his way. (V)

Warren Is Calling out Musk--for Being a Chicken

Co-President Elon Musk said he was going to root out government waste and cut the federal budget by $2 trillion. Once he started to actually get to work, he realized that was impossible and reduced his goal to some much smaller, but unspecified number. Now Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is calling him out on it, and demanding he cut $2 trillion.

However, her targets might be slightly different from his. She said: "I crunched the numbers and found $2 trillion that we could cut over the next 10 years by focusing on the guys who are getting rich off our government." She also said the cuts could be bipartisan. She wrote a 21-page letter, complete with 158 footnotes, revealing her past as an academic, describing in detail where cuts could be made. A large number of cuts could be made to wasteful programs in the Dept. of Defense. Among other examples are a company that overcharged the Air Force 7,493x on soap dispensers. Do they have to work at Mach 2? Another is a pin that the Army pays $71 for that should cost 5¢. She says that by better bargaining, the DoD could save tens of billions of dollars that are going to defense contractors for no valid reason.

Another target is Medicare Advantage plans. The idea was that private companies could help cut costs for seniors by administering Medicare more efficiently than the government. Experience has shown this to be completely false. Still another place big savings could be made is in funding for charter schools. Much of the money given to them has been mismanaged or wasted. She wants to drastically cut money here and also eliminate all eligibility to for-profit colleges.

Warren notes that the prison at Guantánamo Bay is extremely expensive. It costs about $13 million per prisoner per year to keep someone there. Why not close the prison and keep those prisoners inside the U.S.? There is even a nice one in beautiful Florence, CO.

Still another target is tax expenditures. These are not "costs" in the sense of the military paying $800 for an $8 hammer. Rather, there are many provisions in the tax code that allow (wealthy) taxpayers to get a deduction for no good reason other than they got their own personal senator to stick it into a bill once. She notes that getting rid of these provisions and cracking down on tax cheats would reduce the deficit by many billions.

Warren's letter is very detailed with numerous cost-saving items. Will Musk thank her and put them in his plan? We're not counting on it. We expect Musk to determine that big companies ripping off the DoD is not a problem at all, but programs that help poor people are a huge extravagance that needs to be curbed. But the mere fact that she has put out such a detailed plan is important because if and when a bill with his cuts comes up in the Senate, she is going to list many other ways to cut expenses and will surely get a lot of publicity. It could make some senators nervous about voting to keep the military-industrial complex well-funded, so the Army can buy $800 hammers, but to get rid of school lunches for poor kids because they are a waste that needs to go. (V)

Democrats Will Elect a New Leader on Saturday

The Democrats are leaderless. No one really speaks for them. The nominal leader of the party when it doesn't control the White House or either chamber of Congress is the chair of the DNC. On Saturday, the DNC will elect a new chair to replace outgoing occupant of that position, Jaime Harrison.

The election is important because the Democrats are semi-adrift and don't know what to do. They are hoping the new chair will help cheer them up and pull them out of their rut. Actually, they should not be in such a deep depression in the first place. Kamala Harris jumped into the presidential race at the last minute, raised a billion dollars, and lost by only 1.5 points in a tough environment, saddled down by a president who was way beyond his best-by date. Democrats did lose four seats in the Senate, but three were in deep red states where they were going to lose eventually anyway. Only Pennsylvania was unexpected. And in the House, they picked up a seat. It was really not the end of the world.

Technically, eight people have filed to be the new DNC chair, but candidates like Marianne Williamson and Bernie Sanders' campaign chief, Faiz Shakir, are the longest of longshots at best, The main candidates are the chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, Ken Martin, and the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Ben Wikler. Both are relatively low profile, which might be what the party needs right now. Also, neither one is a radical calling for major change. The big questions in the election revolve around money, strategy, and diversity.

Both Martin and Wikler are well-known and well-liked by the 448 voting members of the DNC. One insider said: "The party leadership wants a nerd." Maybe that isn't so bad though. If Trump acts like a crazy man, a calm, reassuring young Midwesterner who talks kitchen table issues that people understand, might not be so bad. The contrast could make the Democrats look like the adults in the room.

One thing that the new leader is going to have to deal with, though, is the erosion of support among young Black men, young Latino men, and working-class men of all ages. As a consequence, the Democratic presidential candidate lost the popular vote for the first time in 20 years. Maybe that is due to their running a Black woman (a message the Democrats absolutely do not want to hear). Maybe Donald Trump will be so unpopular that in 2028, almost any white male governor or senator could win.

Speaking of 2028, one of the things that the DNC will have to deal with within a couple of years is the primary process. It didn't matter much in 2024 because there wasn't one, but in 2028 there will probably be 20 candidates and the DNC will have to manage that. Who gets to debate? How many debates will there be and in what format? What states will get to go first in the process. Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire went first, but they do not represent the demographics of the Democratic Party well, so the DNC changed the rules. Only New Hampshire didn't go along with it and probably won't in 2028. That is something the DNC will have to deal with. The Republicans will undoubtedly let Iowa go first followed by New Hampshire. How will the new chair deal with this?

One of the DNC chair's responsibilities is fundraising. The easiest way to raise a lot of money fast is to get cozy with a bunch of Democratic billionaires. They definitely exist. But some Democrats don't want to get cozy with billionaires, not even their own ones. How will the new chairman deal with this?

Another issue is diversity. Since 2011, the DNC has been led by a woman or a person of color. It has produced mixed results. It has escaped no one that white, working-class men have left the party in droves. Is putting a woman of color in charge going to fix that? It appears the DNC doesn't think so, which is why two white men, Wikler and Martin, are the leading candidates. Can they bring white working-class men back into the fold? Maybe by being boring and talking about kitchen-table issues they can. (V)

Democrats Capture the Minnesota State Senate

For a while now, control of the Minnesota legislature has been a matter of inches. It has been a strange ride. During most of the 2024 legislative session, the DFL (Minnesota Democrats) had a (very bare) trifecta. Both parties thought they had a shot at winning both chambers in the 2024 elections. Initial results showed that the DFL had a one-seat majority in the Senate, 34-33, with a 67-67 tie in the House. One House DFLer won by 14 votes. Then it turned out that 20 votes had not been counted. And on Dec. 20, a judge ruled that the winning DFLer was ineligible because he didn't meet the state's residency requirement. The DFLer conceded that the judge was right and resigned. This gave the Republicans a 67-66 majority in the House. The next day, state Sen. Kari Dziedzic (DFL) died, creating a 33-33 tie in the Senate. So, a tied state House and a DFL-majority state Senate very quickly became a GOP-majority state House and a tied Senate..

A special election was called for Jan. 28 (Tuesday) and DFL candidate Doron Clark won the special election, giving the DFL the 34-33 state Senate majority again. He beat Republican Abigail Wolters.

When Clark takes his seat, that will end the power-sharing agreement and the DFL will have full control of the Senate. However, the Republicans control the state House 67-66 with one vacancy, so the Democrats are just shy of the trifecta. There will be a special election for the contested House seat. There is a conflict over the date of the special election, with the Republicans citing one law and the DFL citing a different law. One law states that the governor must wait 22 days after the start of a legislative session to call a special election, but another law states that the governor shall call a special election at the earliest possible time. A judge will have to decide that. But even in the best case for the DFL, they will control the Senate and have a tie in the House. (V)

Menendez Gets 11 Years

In January of last year, after a bunch of ill-gotten gold bars and other goodies were seized from his residence, then-senator Robert Menendez was indicted on several counts related to corruption and accepting bribes. He was convicted, of course, and yesterday was sentenced to 11 years in the hoosegow. It is interesting that some people who get caught with illegal stuff in their bathrooms get justice in just about a year, while others never do. Hard to figure out what might explain the difference. In case you are wondering, Menendez was never the president of the United States, and so did not appoint the judge who oversaw his case. Nope, U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein was appointed by Bill Clinton.

In court, before sentencing, Menendez showed much contrition, shedding many tears and lamenting that he's "lost everything." Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, after the sentence was imposed, the former senator was suddenly not so contrite, and said that he was the victim of a vendetta from prosecutors. It would seem that his contrition was not so genuine, and those courtroom waterworks were alligator tears. Clearly, Stein saw right through it.

The fact is, Menendez got exactly what he deserved. First, he grossly abused the trust the voters of New Jersey placed in him. Second, in so doing, he compromised national security, by virtue of his position as his chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Third, he was colossally stupid. He was put on trial for this same thing a decade ago, and got off on a technicality. How foolish do you have to be to go right back to your old, corrupt ways?

Menendez will, of course, work through every possible appeal available to him. However, he thinks his very best hope is a presidential pardon. Joe Biden said "No, thank you," so now the former senator is working on Donald Trump, Much of the post-sentencing press conference involved very obvious invocation of Trumpy rhetoric, like when Menendez claimed that the prosecution was a "political witch hunt."

It is not clear if Menendez is engaging in wishful thinking, or if there is a real chance of Trump granting a pardon. Maybe Trump would like to "confirm" that witch hunts happen, and that they must be corrected for. Or maybe the President could conclude that freeing a Democrat would demonstrate "fairness" and would give the impression that his pardons are not partisan (even though they clearly are). It's also possible that Trump enjoys the bootlicking, and would like to incentivize other Democrats to participate, if circumstances warrant it. Heck, it could even be that Trump, while he doesn't have much in the way of empathy, might feel kinship with a fellow convicted felon.

Menendez very much needs to hope Trump is thinking along these lines since, at 71 years of age, an 11-year sentence is a tough stretch. Since federal sentences are not much reduced, even for good behavior, he'd be in the big house into his eighties. Further, sentences of 10 years or more are not eligible for minimum security facilities, so no playing bridge and making lanyards in a "Club Fed." If Trump does bestow the pardon, and if Menendez then does the rounds praising the Donald and criticizing the Democrats (as happened with another corrupt Democrat, Rod Blagojevich), you should obviously pay the former senator no attention. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger