Senate Delivers for Trump

If there were any doubts that the United States Senate is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, those doubts were dispelled yesterday, as Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) & Co. delivered the budget bill the President wanted, and on the timeline he demanded.

There are a lot of moving pieces here, so we're going to do what we often do in these situations and run down the ten storylines that seem most important to us:

1. 51-50: Officially speaking, the vote was very close, with J.D. Vance's tiebreaker needed to get the legislation over the hump. All the Democrats and independents voted against it, as did Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC). Magically, Collins once again managed to "rebel" against her party without actually casting a decisive vote. Funny how it often works out like that.
   
   
2. Megabill: The Senate took the House's version of the budget bill and added and subtracted, subtracted and added, added and subtracted. When all was said and done, the Senate bill checked in at around 1,000 pages, which is actually a bit longer than the House bill. If you're a glutton for punishment, you can read through it at that link. Should you actually read through to the end, you'll do something that no member of the Senate has done, that's for sure.
   
   
3. What's In It?: There are undoubtedly things squirreled away in the bill that won't be discovered for days or weeks. But the big things that made it into the bill, things that have been on the table for days or weeks, are: Tax cuts for wealthy people, tougher Medicaid requirements, cuts to green energy subsidies and electric vehicle credits, reductions in SNAP funding, changes that make it harder to discharge student loans, a $5 trillion increase in the debt limit, and tax credits for donations to "school choice" scholarships. The exact amount of money involved for most of these things is not clear yet, because the CBO hasn't had time to score the final version of the Senate bill. However, there is little question that the final bill will dramatically increase the deficit.
   
   
4. What's Not?: Here are some of the major things that ended up on the cutting-room floor: the plan to sell vast swathes of public land in the West, a tax on wind/solar installations that use Chinese parts, and a provision that forbade states from regulating AI. In other words, the 100 senators did not cut nearly as much stuff from the bill as the one Senate Parliamentarian did.
   
   
5. Murkowski: This was undoubtedly not how she planned it, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was a major part of the story yesterday. To fully understand what happened, it's actually necessary to go back in time about 7 years. Remember the famous John McCain "thumbs down" that saved Obamacare? Well, McCain's thumb wouldn't have mattered, except that Murkowski was also a "no." Then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) offered to exempt Alaska from the killing of the ACA, and Murkowski rejected the deal, out of a sense of fairness.
   
   Over the past couple of days, the same basic sequence played out. Thune needed one vote from among Murkowski, Collins, Tillis and Paul. Paul opposes everything, and Tillis is now a short-timer, so they were pretty much lost causes. Collins is unpopular and already facing a tough reelection bid in less than 18 months. So, the Alaskan was the easiest target. Thune offered the same basic deal as 8 years ago, saying he would exempt Alaska from cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, and this time... Murkowski took the deal. The Parliamentarian struck down the Medicaid part of that, but it was semi-replaced with $50 billion in new funding for certain types of rural hospitals, the types that just so happen to be common in Alaska. Afterwards, Murkowski cried crocodile tears, and whined about how very difficult her "yea" vote had been. But, she said, it's a process, and time was tight, and she did the best she could, and she makes no apologies for prioritizing the needs of Alaskans.
   
   It is absolutely the Senator's prerogative to vote as she sees fit. And it's absolutely her prerogative to concern herself only with the needs of Alaskans. However, don't buy any of her performative nonsense. She was the decisive vote, and the others (except MAYBE Collins) weren't gettable. If Murkowski wanted more time to negotiate, she could have had it. If she wanted to save Medicaid for everyone, and not just Alaskans, she could have made that her line in the sand. She does not get to disclaim responsibility for her choices just because she says she has the sads about voting for the bill.
   
   After Murkowski cast her vote, Paul slammed her, saying that she accepted a bailout for Alaska and threw the rest of the country under the bus. As Murkowski left the Senate chamber, NBC News' Chief Capitol Hill Correspondent Ryan Nobles asked her about Paul's remark, and she was furious, staring Nobles down for about 10 seconds. You can see it if you watch the first 15 seconds of this clip:
   
   
   
   She eventually stammered out an answer that began: "My response is, I have an obligation to the people of the state of Alaska, and I live up to that every single day." She also admitted that she does not like the final bill. And later in the day, she added: "We do not have a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination. My hope is that the House is going to look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
   
   Presumably, the Senator thinks she's done her damage control, but not so much. Her hope that the House will somehow "fix" what's wrong here is either dishonest or naive (probably the former). The House, as we've seen time and again, is far and away the more conservative and reactionary chamber. The House, in fact, is the chamber that took a chainsaw to Medicaid in the first place. There's a good chance the House passes the exact budget the Senate passed. There is zero chance the House passes a budget more friendly to Medicaid than the one the Senate just passed.
   
   
6. In the House: Speaking of the House, the Freedom Caucusers are characteristically unhappy, and say they cannot vote for the Senate bill. Every time they make such grandiose claims, they eventually fold like a cheap suit. So, we simply will not believe they are going to hold out until they actually do so. The House begins discussions at 9:00 a.m. ET today, so we may have clarity soon.
   
   
7. July 4: The deadline that Donald Trump has set for the legislation to reach his desk is July 4—Friday. The stated reason for this is that he wants the pageantry of Independence Day as a backdrop. People can celebrate their independence from having health care, perhaps.
   
   We seriously doubt pageantry is his real reason (or, at least, that it's the real reason of whoever is serving as his legislative strategist). Deadlines serve as a useful way to force rapid compliance from spineless members of Congress, before they can actually read what they are voting for, or can get feedback from all those annoying constituents. Further, Trump has regularly shown himself to be an enthusiastic practitioner of the Nixonian practice of muting bad coverage by making news over the weekend. Tricky Dick preferred Saturday nights, while Slippery Donald likes Friday afternoons and evenings, such as... this Friday afternoon/evening. That it's also a holiday weekend is a bonus.
   
   
8. MuskWatch: Elon Musk is angry about the bill, and is feuding with Donald Trump again. On Monday, the South African posted this to eX-Twitter:

   Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!
   
   And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.

   He's since posted a bunch of other tweets along the same lines, and has also threatened to start a third party.
   
   As with the Freedom Caucusers, we'll believe it when we see it. Musk, like Trump, is a hothead and a walking id. Musk, like Trump, has the attention span of a fruit fly. Musk, like Trump, is mercurial, and says one thing today, and the opposite tomorrow. If Musk still has a belly full of steam at this time next year, then maybe he'll act on that. But we wouldn't bet on it. Remember, we're just a few weeks removed from him saying that he was done spending money on politics.
   
   
9. The 2026 Elections: The Democrats can't do much to change the big, beautiful budget bill, except maybe bring things to the attention of the Senate Parliamentarian. But they CAN start getting their ducks in a row, in preparation for making Republicans in the House and the Senate own their votes for the bill. The DCCC has already sent a memo to "Interested Parties" that concludes:

   Polling consistently shows that the more the public hears about the GOP Tax Scam, the less popular it becomes. To their own detriment, Republicans have been openly touting the very worst of the bill for the past six months. What has it resulted in? The most unpopular piece of legislation in modern American history. From now until November 2026, the DCCC will continue to communicate the harm this bill will cause, uplift stories of the everyday Americans negatively impacted, and mobilize voters through traditional and non-traditional organizing tactics, earned media, and paid communications in order to hold vulnerable Republicans accountable for abandoning their central promise to voters. Republicans will lose the majority in 2026 and the Big, Ugly Bill will be the reason why. (Emphasis theirs.)

   Yesterday, we ran down the polling, which is indeed grim for the GOP. Barring some major new development, like Trump dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran, Democratic leadership would be committing political malpractice if they didn't make this bill the centerpiece of their argument in 2026.
   
   
10. The 2028 Elections: The Democrats are also thinking about the 2028 elections. Specifically, J.D. Vance was the deciding vote in the Senate. And J.D. Vance is the most likely Republican presidential candidate in 2028. So, the blue team is already working to make Vance, even more than Trump, the face of the big, beautiful bill.

And there you have it, as of Tuesday night. Now, it's Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-LA) problem. (Z)

Abusing the System, Part I: Paramount Pays Its Protection Money

Donald Trump is the man who puts the "frivolous" in "frivolous lawsuits." He's been abusing the legal system for decades, usually to avoid making payment or to escape consequences for his actions, but also sometimes to extract money or concessions from his perceived enemies. The latter approach has become a much bigger part of his toolkit in the last year, as his mafia-like efforts to shake down both people and organizations are no longer just backed by his army of lawyers, but also by the powers of the presidency.

One of the very most frivolous suits Trump filed was the one against 60 Minutes, wherein he asserted that: (1) The program had edited its interview with Kamala Harris to misrepresent what she said and to make her look better; and that (2) He was therefore personally damaged, under defamation law. It would be difficult to come up with a more meritless claim; if we assert here and now that, say, the Green Bay Packers are the greatest football team in the NFL, we cannot be sued by one of the other teams that are therefore NOT the greatest football team in the NFL. That is simply not how defamation law works.

Still, Trump has a virtually unlimited ability to drag out court proceedings, which means that even a successful defense could get very expensive. On top of that, the more he rails against CBS/60 Minutes, the more he turns his loyal followers against that station and that program. That means less viewership and less advertising revenue. Finally, The Donald has no problem abusing the powers of the presidency to hurt those who do not do his bidding. Paramount, which is CBS' parent company, has a pending merger with Skydance that Trump could complicate or kill outright. That could result in losses of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.

For all of these reasons, Paramount decided that its only recourse was to settle, thus minimizing its losses and creating some level of cost-certainty. The amount of cash that will change hands is $16 million, though it's expected that Paramount will also kick in another $14 million or so in free advertisements/public service announcements that will promote conservative causes. And, in a further bit of kowtowing, the company also agreed that from here on out, it will release unedited transcripts of all future interviews with presidential candidates. Paramount's press release made much of two "silver linings": (1) that the company was not forced to issue a formal apology to Trump, and (2) that the $16 million is not going to Trump himself, but to his presidential library foundation.

These silver linings are just laughable. If you are forced to eat several barrels' worth of dirt while your opponent looks on and smirks, it does not matter if you pause between fistfuls to say "I'm sorry"—everyone still knows that you ate dirt. Meanwhile, the lines between Trump the private citizen, Trump the business, Trump the library foundation, Trump the PAC, etc. are all but meaningless. Trump can easily find a way to spend that $16 million on something personal, whether it's refurbishing Mar-a-Lago in anticipation of it becoming a "museum," or paying for fuel for the Qatari jet (which, remember, will ALSO belong to the Trump library foundation), or paying every member of the Trump family $1 million a year to serve as directors of the foundation, or whatever. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes' old line about Theodore Roosevelt, Trump has a second-class intellect, but he's a first-class grifter. (Note: The original remark is often said to have been uttered about Franklin Roosevelt, but that doesn't make sense, since Holmes did not know FDR very well, while he knew TR very well, indeed. Plus, it fits TR much more than FDR.)

If Paramount were to give this money and these other benefits to Trump directly, then it would be plainly illegal. But frame it as a settlement of a lawsuit and... it's apparently all kosher. In other words, Trump has found a very effective way to use the powers of the presidency for personal financial gain, and at the same time to force private business concerns to promote his political agenda. The former trick is, as we note above, very mafia-like—basically, Trump's collecting protection money. "That's a nice TV network you've got there. I'd hate to see it become less nice... " The second trick, well, even the mafia didn't go there. That part of it is more in tune with a different organization of Italian origin, namely the Blackshirts.

There's no way to prove this, but we suspect that this whole scheme was cooked up before Harris ever sat for that interview, and that the lawsuit would have been filed regardless of what was said by Harris, or what edits were made. Remember, major-party presidential candidates have been sitting for these interviews for decades. And Trump became the first major-party nominee since the 1970s to buck the trend. This is the same Trump who loves, loves, loves any free publicity that he can get. If he had actually sat for HIS interview, then CBS could point out that both candidates got the same treatment, and both had responses that were edited for broadcast. Only by skipping his sit-down could Trump argue that Harris got special treatment, while leaving CBS/Paramount with no easy way to prove otherwise.

In any case, Paramount has dodged a bullet... for now. One wonders, however, if the company's executives have considered that, having shown themselves to be pushovers, they are inviting Trump to return in a few months or a year with yet another frivolous claim, and yet another demand for more protection money a settlement. (Z)

Abusing the System, Part II: The Next Wave of Sham Lawsuits

When it comes to B.S. lawsuits, Donald Trump always has many irons in the fire. And so, even as the Paramount situation was drawing to a close (for now), his team was busy at work on other shenanigans. There were two stories along those lines this week.

First up is a story that bears a striking resemblance to the Paramount situation (see above). As readers will recall, Ann Selzer's last poll of the 2024 cycle (and, as it turns out, her last poll ever) predicted that Kamala Harris would win Iowa. She did not, which means Trump did. How he could possibly be damaged here is anyone's guess—again, he WON the state—but he nonetheless sued both Selzer and The Des Moines Register for fraud.

On Monday morning, Trump's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss without prejudice the federal case they had filed. This was a little bit of a surprise, but pretty much every legal analyst concluded that with a meritless case and defendants who don't have deep pockets or a national platform, Team Trump had concluded there was little value in proceeding. Wrong! A new Iowa law that makes it much harder to pursue claims just like this one went into effect yesterday. So, Trump and his team refiled in state court on Monday afternoon. In other words, if you are having trouble keeping score, the President's lawyers took advantage of their very last opportunity to litigate under the more friendly version of Iowa law. Trump will use the case to do much bloviating about how he's a victim and he was treated unfairly, and when he loses in state court, he'll still be able to refile in federal court, and then do more bloviating.

All of this said, one wonders if this is a fight that actually makes sense for Trump. Again, he's not going to get an eight-figure settlement like the one he got out of Paramount, nor is he going to get a bunch of free media. All he's going to get is a chance to kvetch about his victimhood (and he's already got no shortage of those). Meanwhile, the defense is being handled pro bono by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. They would love, love, love to battle Trump in the court of public opinion, and since this is literally their bailiwick, they are very good at it. Iowa may be known for its pork and its corn, but in this situation, Trump is at risk of ending up with lots of egg on his face.

Moving on, the second silly lawsuit of the week is taking place a bit west of Iowa, in Los Angeles. The Department of Justice, as part of its anti-immigrant propaganda campaign, has sued the city, Mayor Karen Bass and the L.A. City Council, arguing that Los Angeles' sanctuary city policies are responsible for "the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles" and led to "lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism."

There is an argument to be made that some aspects of L.A. immigration policy tread upon federal prerogatives. That is not to say we agree with that argument, or disagree with it, merely that it exists. However, the DoJ is not making an argument. It's posturing and expending lots of hot air because L.A. is a blue city in a blue state, and is full of brown people, particularly brown people of Mexican descent. It's also led by a brown person. So, it's the most useful bugaboo available, right now, for purposes of Trump administration political theater. We will see if that changes if Zohran Mamdani is elected in New York. (Z)

Abusing the System, Part III: Trump Minions Pay a Price

For the next 3½ years, Donald Trump is above the law. He may be above the law even after that, since he's very good at dragging out legal proceedings for years and years, and since, well... he is likely to travel the way of all men sooner than most.

On the other hand, his underlings' armor is far less impenetrable. There are many reasons this may be the case, among them: (1) many of them don't enjoy the protections afforded to someone who is a government employee; (2) many bad acts are state-level crimes, and so beyond a presidential pardon; (3) many bad acts are civil torts, and so are also beyond a presidential pardon and (4) many of the people who commit bad acts on Trump's behalf are lawyers, and, in general, it's easier to lose in a State Bar Court hearing than it is in a civil/criminal case.

In the past couple of weeks, a number of the "stars" of Trump v1.0 have managed to reap what they sowed. To wit:

• Kenneth Chesebro: "The Cheese" is the fellow who crafted the plan to send fake electors to Congress to overturn the 2020 election. A couple of months ago, a court stripped him of his law license for unethical behavior unworthy of an attorney. And now, an appeals court in New York has rejected his appeal. He is no longer allowed to practice law in New York state.
  
  
• John Eastman: For Eastman, you can pretty much just repeat the paragraph above, with "California" in place of "New York." Eastman helped promote the plan to steal the election on 1/6, and then lied in court several times in service of the plan. He was disbarred late last year for "multiple acts of moral turpitude," and this week his appeal was rejected. He cannot practice law in California anymore.
  
  
• Mike Lindell: The MyPillow guy has already wrecked his business empire and his reputation with his obsession over (addiction to?) conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. He is most certainly going to go to his grave believing that Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden and, at the rate he's going, that might be all Lindell has when his time is up. This week, he lost yet another lawsuit, this one to Eric Coomer, the former security and product strategy director at Dominion Voting Systems. Lindell accused Coomer of being a traitor and of stealing the 2020 election for Biden.
  
  Lindell's defense in the case was an... inventive one. He and his lawyers claimed that a statement cannot be defamatory if the person making it believes that it is true. It is, of course, impossible to prove what someone believes or does not believe, so if that standard were to be accepted, there would be no such thing as a defamation suit. Anyhow, the jury didn't buy it, and awarded Coomer $2.3 million. Presumably, he won't see a penny of that, since Lindell is broke and has several other unsatisfied judgments, as well. Still, there is some value in having a court and a jury say that the lies told about you were, indeed, lies.

And all of this is just in the last week. Before this, Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in New York and D.C. and was hit with a whale of a judgment in Georgia, while Jenna Ellis was disbarred in Colorado. Also, every one of the people listed here, excepting Lindell, is facing fake-elector-related criminal charges in at least one state.

During Trump v1.0, some members of the administration were willing to do the jobs for which they were hired, but were unwilling to cross lines that could result in sanctions, disbarment, or criminal charges. Pat Cipollone is one example, and Eric Herschmann is another. One wonders if the people who are doing Trump's bidding right now, from "Attorney General" Pam Bondi on down, are taking note of what is happening with "The Cheese," et al., and are getting nervous about the risks they might be taking with their careers and with their lives. (Z & V)

Never Forget: Saving Private Ryan

Over the weekend, we leveled some criticism at the movie Saving Private Ryan. We've also gotten several "never forget" reminiscences that speak to how much the movie—or, at least, the D-Day sequence—meant to people who actually served in World War II (in fairness, we did say the D-Day portion is magnificent). Anyhow, we thought we would share those stories. First, here's N.A. in Asheboro NC:

My grandfather, Captain Lloyd William Allen Sr., served in the European theater of World War II. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge, and came back familiar with the unmarked graves A.G. in Scranton described. According to my dad, Lloyd Sr. "moved out for a while" due to alcoholism while my grandmother Gertrude, a formidable achiever in her own right, raised five kids without him for some unspecified time. Eventually they reconciled, and in one of his last acts on earth, he and she went to see Saving Private Ryan. He felt it showed some things better than he could say them. To hear my dad tell it, Gertrude asked Lloyd Sr. "Were things really that bad over there?" to which he replied "Even worse." She forgave him the worst of it and he died at peace. So goes the story my dad tells; I was 9 at the time and won't ever know. But I'll never forget that my grandfather earned a Silver Star and is interred in Arlington National Cemetery. And every time I think about that, I think of the ones who didn't make it home, AND the ones who did, but lost something else along the way.

My other grandfather served as a Marine Gunnery Sergeant in the Pacific, and an air traffic controller for 30 years in civilian airports afterwards. Semper Fi. My sincere thanks to all who serve.

As for my personal opinion on World War II movies, Dunkirk needs a spot on the list. Say what you will about Inception; Christopher Nolan is a visionary.

And now, E.S. in Providence, RI:

In 1998 I went to the theater to see Saving Private Ryan. I saw my uncle Stanley and my aunt in the crowd, and sat next to them. I knew that he was part of the D-Day landing force, but he never talked about it. About 10 minutes into the opening battle scene, he stood up and walked out of the auditorium. My aunt brought him back in after the battle scene was over. After the film I asked him if that was what the invasion was like. He just whispered "That's exactly what it was like." He died on Christmas Day 2020 at the age of 97.

And finally, F.C. in Sequim, WA:

My dad, shown above, enlisted in the Army after completion of high school. He learned of the attack on Pearl Harbor while out rabbit hunting on a friend's farmland during his senior year. He first tried to enlist in the paratroopers, but he was underweight. He was a part of five different invasions, and lost his best friend and basic training buddy on the first of those. His buddy never got a chance to use his weapon. They belonged to the 166th Gunnery.

When dad wasn't involved with an invasion, he was protecting airfields with a .50-caliber machine gun. The 166th was credited with downing 18 Japanese Zeros over the course of the war. The 166th was also what they referred to as a "bastard battalion." When they were in invasion mode, they were shoved to the head of the line. First wave! Meanwhile, the generals fought over their favorite outfits to wear when going in during later waves. Talk about politics!

The last invasion the 166th was involved with was Leyte Beach. The Battle of Leyte Gulf, as it was referred to, was the largest naval battle in history. As you can guess, the land invasion was no picnic. The Battle of Leyte was the triumphant return of General MacArthur. After Leyte, they were put on a troop transport headed to Japan. The US military will say this is not true, but I'll buy my dad's version over the government's version any day! Fortunately, fate would lend a hand, as they were notified after a few days of travel that Japan had surrendered. And that brings to a conclusion what I know. My two brothers and I would pester for more info, but we rarely got anything. As for the Japanese language, dad only remembered one word: "Banzai." One word? That's it, dad? He said that one Japanese word was plenty, as back in that era, banzai meant "suicide attack."

After he retired, my dad drove to Wisconsin to meet with the five sisters of his basic training buddy. They saw their big brother off at the train station when he left for war. And they received his coffin back at the same railroad station a year later, and had no idea what happened to him. My dad said that when he met the sisters at the restaurant, he talked to them for about two hours. They were very attentive and thankful.

The only other time World War II would make an appearance later in his life was going to the movie Saving Private Ryan. He didn't make it through very much of the movie. The invasion part was too much. He ended up back in his car crying like a baby! After almost 55 years, he got some closure.

Thanks to all three of you. (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