Vance Quit His New Job after a Day

When Donald Trump TACOed about destroying the 2,500-year-old Iranian civilization and gave the Iranians 2 weeks to sue for peace, he sent his top negotiators—J.D. Vance, son-in-law Jared Kushner, and his real estate buddy, Steve Witkoff—to Pakistan to talk (down) to the Iranians. What could possibly go wrong? Vance presented Trump's list of demands and told the Iranians to sign on the dotted line. One of the demands was unconditionally opening the Strait of Hormuz and giving up any claim to sovereignty over it. Another was giving up all their partially enriched uranium and the equipment to make more of it. For some reason, they didn't sign. Then Vance repeated the demands and the Iranians still wouldn't sign. This "negotiating" strategy tends to work best when the other side does not hold any cards. Such is not the case now. This went on for 21 hours, with Vance making dozens of calls to Trump all day. During this time, Trump was in Miami watching a UFC fight. Vance eventually gave up and went home.

This is crazy on so, so many levels. First, Vance was strongly against the war in the first place. He accurately predicted the consequences, including regional chaos, mass casualties, and the U.S. depleting its stock of munitions. Trump didn't listen to him. Now Vance (very unexpectedly) got the job of dealing with the mess. He has no experience in foreign policy and his idea of negotiation is "put out your list of demands and just keep repeating it until the other side gives in." There is no Plan B in case they keep refusing.

Second, the U.S. really needs to have some cabinet official who deals with other countries on a regular basis, something like the "foreign minister" other countries have. Maybe Congress could create such a position some day... oh wait, there IS a cabinet official whose job is dealing with other countries. That person is called the "Secretary of State." The position was created in 1789. Is it vacant now? Oh, no. Marco Rubio holds the position and has for a year. Why wasn't he the negotiator? Because he was in Miami with Trump watching the UFC fight. OK, then. Why send bother to send a negotiator when you can send a bloviator?

Third, why was Trump at a UFC fight during these critical negotiations? Our guess is to show Iran how unimportant it is and how little he cared about the results. It was certainly intended to demean the Iranians, and it worked. If Trump wanted to get some results, he could have gone himself and been the lead negotiator. Iran obviously knew that Vance had no authority to agree to anything, hence the constant stream of calls to Trump. If Trump had gone personally, that would have shown some respect, and in an honor-shame culture like Iran has, that is a big deal. By contrast, as every negotiator knows, disrespecting the other side almost always guarantees failure. Trump went out of his way to humiliate the Iranians, and it worked—at least, if Trump wanted the negotiations to fail.

So, now what? Yesterday Trump said the U.S. will blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Huh? A naval blockade is an act of war—and remember, Congress has not authorized any wars lately. The goal was to open the Strait, not close it. Besides, the Strait is full of mines, Iran doesn't know where they are, and the U.S. doesn't have any minesweepers anymore. What's the point of a blockade if no tanker dares to enter the Strait on account of the mines? Maybe Trump is trying to show the Iranians who is the boss. Most books on negotiation emphasize telling the other side you understand their position and you are trying to help them as best you can, given your own needs. On CNN's State of the Union, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said: "I don't understand how blockading the strait is somehow going to push the Iranians into opening it." Warner is not the only one asking this question.

At this point, Trump has several options to choose from, none of them pleasant for him. He could go back to Iran with his tail between his legs and try to restart negotiations, but at this point Iran feels empowered and is still not likely to give in without major U.S. concessions. One concession could be to unfreeze the billions of dollars in Iranian money frozen in U.S. and foreign banks. But Iran would probably use those funds to buy more weapons and munitions from China.

Alternatively, Trump could continue the bombing, but Round 1 didn't work and probably Round 2 won't either. Besides, the U.S. is running low on munitions and China and Russia are keenly aware of that. China knows the U.S. probably isn't able to help Taiwan fend off an invasion, even if it wanted to, and Russia knows the U.S. can't even sell munitions to the E.U. anymore to give to Ukraine because it needs them all itself. In short, when you kick a hornets' nest (Hormuz' nest?), the hornets get to decide when it is over.

Another option for Trump is to take his marbles and go home. That is what Iran wants, and the result would be Iran selectively letting ships through the Strait (after they found all the mines) and after the ship owners had paid tribute to Iran so Iran could pay China for more weapons and to rebuild the country. In this scenario, energy, gas, and fertilizer prices would continue to rise. This morning, the national average gas price at gasbuddy.com was $4.08/gal., down from $4.17/gal. last week but probably going up ahain.

We can't see any of these options being acceptable to Trump. But he's boxed in. He may have to choose which unacceptable option is the least unacceptable.

If John McCain or Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush were president, before attacking Iran in the first place, they would have called the guy who negotiated a deal with Iran in 2015—Barack Hussein Obama—and gotten his advice on dealing with the Iranians. But talking to people named Hussein is just not Trump's thing. Sorry.

And finally, what is the politics of all this? A lot depends on how long it goes on and how it ends. When it comes to Trump's misadventures, Americans seems to have the collective memory of a swarm of gnats. Maybe it's because he floods the zone with so much new stuff, the stuff gets pushed out. But if the war is still unresolved by September, when early voting begins, a lot of people, including independents and people who voted for Trump because he promised no more forever wars in the Middle Eas, are going to vote for the Democrats to send him a message or at least are going to stay home.

Yesterday, Politico assembled a panel of their reporters who have been covering the war closely and asked them for their take. Here are some of their comments:

• Trump likes easy-to-win wars (like in Venezuela) but has no taste for long ones.
• There are deep fissures in MAGA with Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and others opposing him.
• Major blocs of Trump's 2024 coalition are not with him on this adventure.
• Americans DO. NOT. LIKE. high gas prices, nor does the stock market.
• The war would have to go on for more than 60 days before any congressional Republicans will start peeping.
• Iran didn't know how much power it had by its ability to close the Strait. Now the leaders know.
• Many countries will now speed up their own "Green New Deals," to Trump's great dismay.
• The diehard Trump base is still with him, but younger Republicans see MAGA as the Boomer Party.

The conclusion is that Trump is in way over his head, had no idea Iran would close the Strait (even though Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine told him they would), and doesn't have any idea what to do next except bluster and blunder some more. (V)

California Gubernatorial Race Is in Chaos

The race for governor of California was complicated and is suddenly getting even more so. The most recent poll of the all-party jungle primary has Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County, Fox News host Steve Hilton, and Rep. Eric Swalwall (D-CA) as the top three, with 14%, 14%, and 12%, respectively. If this were the final primary result, the November election ballot would feature just the two Republicans, due to the badly fragmented Democratic field. As we have written, this is likely to change, now that Donald Trump has endorsed Hilton. Some Republicans may now switch from Bianco to Hilton, moving the sheriff to third place or lower and making the general election between Hilton and some Democrat. We haven't seen Bianco dropping yet, but it could well happen.

This weekend it got even more complicated, as four women accused Swalwell of sexual misconduct. It ranges from one who received explicit photos from him to one former staffer who claims Swalwell raped her while she was drunk. CNN has investigated and found evidence that supports one of the women. She released medical records showing that she had requested and received pregnancy and STD testing just after the alleged rape. The women's experience also speak to a pattern about Swalwell's modus operandi, which often involved heavy drinking.

All this news has caused Swalwell's campaign co-chairs to quit. Other campaign staff have also quit. Nothing has been proven yet, but many people close to Swalwell are apparently convinced that the women are telling the truth and Swalwell is lying when he denies everything.

Many of Swalwell's top endorsers are de-endorsing him now. These include heavyweights like Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). An least one independent PAC is also stopping with ads. The California Medical Association, which was a strong supporter, has called an emergency meeting to decide what to do. Unions, including the California Teachers Association and the SEIU, have "paused" their endorsements. The chairman of the California Democratic party, Rusty Hicks, has called the charges "deeply disturbing." He called for all candidates to reassess their viability.

It keeps getting worse for the would-be governor. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and other House Democratic leaders have called on Swalwell to drop out of the gubernatorial race right now. He puts the Democratic leaders in a bind. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) has been accused of ethical and legal violations of campaign finance laws However, Democratic leaders want her investigations to play out as long as possible to avoid her being expelled from the House until the fall, since they know Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) won't call for a special election until Nov. 3. Although they want the process to play out slowly for Cherfilus-McCormick, they want Swalwell out yesterday, and certainly no later than today. They certainly don't want to have to vote on an expulsion resolution for Swalwell, who is not running for reelection.

Oh, and now the Manhattan D.A.'s office is investigating Swalwell because one of the women said she was intoxicated and woke up in a New York City hotel bed having sex with Swalwell in 2024. She said she tried to push him away but he refused to stop. The Alameda County D.A. is also considering charges against Swalwell for a similar incident in that county.

It is not plausible that Swalwell could survive this. There are too many women leveling accusations and too much supporting evidence. If the primary was already in the past, and the choice facing California Democratic voters was "Swalwell" or "some Republican," and if Swalwell refused to drop out, then maybe he could eke out a victory in blue California (but he would still be an underdog). But the primary is not over, and there are plenty of options for Democrats to choose from who do not have rape allegations against them.

Swalwell tried to save his campaign and his career over the weekend, with a series of videos denying the charges against him. But his heart did not seem to be in it, presumably because whether he is innocent or not, this was simply not survivable in the current climate, not with #MeToo and not with the Democrats working hard to use Jeffrey Epstein against Donald Trump. In that way, it mirrors the Al Franken-Doug Jones situation, where the blue team could not run a campaign based on Roy Moore's lascivious behavior without coming down hard on Franken. So, Franken got forced out, and Doug Jones went on to win that Senate race.

Note that Swalwell appears to be guilty of much, much more serious crimes than Franken. It's just that the political calculus is similar. Whatever Democratic leaders feel in their hearts (and most of them probably think he's guilty as sin), the politics of the moment dictate that he's gotta go. And late Sunday, the candidate bowed to that reality and dropped out of the California gubernatorial race.

Now what? In the Evitarus poll linked to above, taken March 31 to April 5, in English and Spanish, using telephones and online, billionaire Tom Steyer is fourth at 11%, former representative Katie Porter is fifth at 7%, and then Xavier Becerra, Matt Mahan, and Antonio Villaraigosa come next tied at 4% each. Being at 4% 7 weeks before the primary is not a good place to be. Our guess is that Steyer and Porter will get the lion's share of the support Swalwell loses. Actually, this mess might put Porter in a position to surge into the lead. Sometimes women candidates benefit from #MeToo-style backlashes. Further, there is some scuttlebutt that the information that brought Swalwell down came courtesy of the Steyer campaign. If voters believe that is true, they could withhold their votes from Steyer on the basis that he plays very dirty pool. Also keep in mind that an enormous number of voters say they are undecided, so it's not impossible that one of the other candidates could surge.

It is somewhat ironic that everyone's looking closely at the folks currently in third or fourth or fifth place in polling, because that person will be the next governor of California, assuming Bianco eventually loses momentum. Once again, the California top-two primary sucks. Californians should look north to Alaska for guidance. (V & Z)

Harris Is Running

Kamala Harris is absolutely convinced she ought to be president. After all, the voters have rejected her only twice, once in 2020, and once in 2024, and you get three strikes, right? So on Friday, she confirmed that she is "thinking" of running for president. We are absolutely flabbergasted. A true bolt from the blue. When was the last time that a "potential" candidate announced that he or she was possibly available for some office and later said: "Nah, I'm not really interested." This is different from someone "thinking" about running, discovering that no donors were interested, and that polling was dreadful, and dropping out. In that case it was other people who threw cold water on the project, not the candidate flipping a coin about whether to run and having it come up tails. Harris is definitely going to try to mount a campaign. However, it could get shot down during the invisible primary in 2026 and 2027.

While traditionally the invisible primary doesn't start until after the midterms, Harris is taking no chances. She is on the campaign trail already. She is planning to headline fundraisers for at least four state parties (Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) in April to test the waters. While going to Arkansas is pointless, Georgia and North Carolina are swing states and a majority of the Democratic voters in the South Carolina primary are Black. She is picking her venues with great care. Maybe going to help out the hapless Arkansas Democrats is a disguised ploy to get Bill Clinton's endorsement. Also, a few of the Walton billionaires are Democrats.

The 2028 presidential race will be wild and woolly on both sides. Democrats really, really want to win because there is so much damage to undo. Anyone other than a straight white man is probably too risky. We were tempted to say a "straight while Christian man," but Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), who is Jewish, virtually guarantees Pennsylvania's 19 luscious electoral votes and would play well in the other Rust Belt states as well. Maybe some day being "different" in America will not be a problem, but if Harris couldn't beat a truly awful candidate like Donald Trump, how will she fare against a stronger candidate, especially if it is Marco Rubio, who will get votes from independents, moderates, and Latinos?

Many Democrats want to see fresh faces, especially younger ones. Harris will be 64 on Election Day, a year shy of being eligible for Medicare. Compared to Joe Biden and Donald Trump, she is a spring chicken. Still, when Democrats talk about their desire for a new generation of politicians, they are usually not thinking about people who could get Social Security just by filing a form. In 2028, there will almost certainly be a flock of younger candidates, possibly including Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) (41 on Inauguration Day), Ruben Gallego (49 then), Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD) (50 then), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) (51 then), Shapiro (55 then), and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) (55 then).

The mess in the California gubernatorial race shows how bad Harris' political ear is. If she had jumped into the race for governor, she would have been the instant frontrunner and Swalwell and many of the others might not even have gotten in. She would even have made history. While 53 women have served as governor of a state and 3 Black people have been elected governor of a state, no Black woman has even been a governor. She would also be the first non-white-male governor of California, at least since it became part of the U.S. The last governor of California who was not a white guy was Pío Pico, who served as the final governor of Mexican California. Harris had an excellent chance of breaking some glass ceilings, but she was blinded by the light of the presidency. They all are. (V)

House Oversight Committee Will Interview Epstein's Victims

Last Thursday, Melania Trump dropped a small Epstein bomblet. She announced that she had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein, was not one of his many victims, and didn't meet Donald Trump through him. There are many questions about why she made the made her speech last week. If she was trying to get ahead of some news story about to break, well, it hasn't broken yet. If she is trying to revive the Epstein story to make the war in Iran story go away, that is unlikely to work. Maybe the key to the mystery is that she called for Epstein's victims to testify in public.

James Comer (R-KY), Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, picked up on the latter. He responded to Melania by going on Fox and saying: "I agree with the First Lady and appreciate what she said. We will have hearings." He had better be careful. One of the Democrats on the Committee might just decide to ask each victim: "Could you please give us the names of the people who assaulted you and the names of people who assaulted other Epstein victims?" Some of them might be brave enough to do that. If the perpetrators of the crimes sued for defamation, they would be exposing themselves to discovery and cross examination in court.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) tweeted: "If the First Lady wants to clear her name, she should come before the Oversight Committee and testify under oath. Otherwise, this is just a shameless book promotion." Even if she doesn't want to, Comer could send her a subpoena, but don't hold your breath on that one.

Meanwhile, a group of Epstein survivors tweeted their reaction to Melania's call for the survivors to testify. It read:

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have already shown extaordinary courage by coming forward, filing reports, and giving testimony. Asking more of them now is a deflection of responsibility, not justice.

First Lady Melania Trump is now shifting the burden onto survivors under politicized conditions that protect those with power: The Department of Justice, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the Trump administration, which has still not full complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

It also diverts attention from Pam Bondi, who must answer for withheld files and the exposure of survivors' identities. Those failures continue to put lives at risk while shielding enablers.

Survivors have done their part. Now it's time for those in power to do theirs.

The letter was signed by 13 women by name and two Jane Does.

Also relevant is a lawsuit filed by survivors against Bank of America for supporting Epstein. One of the plaintiffs said Epstein abused her on at least 100 occasions, including raping her and forcing her to engage sexually with other women for his amusement. Epstein paid this women's rent and gave her an allowance, nominally from a phony job. The suit alleges that the bank knew this and should have filed a "Suspicious Activity Report" with the feds and didn't, to protect their good client, Epstein. The bank knew—or should have known if it had done its "Know Your Customer" homework—that Epstein had been convicted of sex crimes in Florida in 2008, and that should have been a red flag. The suit also accuses BofA of ignoring the $170 million Leon Black paid Epstein and not filing a SAR about it.

The bank has agreed to pay a settlement of $72.5 million, but admits no wrongdoing of any kind. The payment is just to make this go away so the bank can go back to concentrating on making money. (V)

Democrats Can't Convince Their Base to Stop Demanding the Impossible

Many Democrats are loudly demanding that their leaders impeach Donald Trump or at least invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. This is causing a lot of trouble for the leaders of the blue team. The problem, which obvious to them but apparently not to the rank-and-file Democrats demanding action, is that Democrats are in the minority in the House so they would need Republican votes to impeach Trump, and even for Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Nancy Mace (R-SC), that is probably several bridges too far. Besides, even if the votes were there, when the articles of impeachment came over to the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) would either hold a vote as soon as they came over, which would lead to acquittal along party lines, or just not hold a vote at all.

As to the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, that is up to the vice president and the Cabinet. Congress plays no role in initiating the process. If the vice president and the Cabinet were to start the process and Trump objected, it takes a two-thirds majority in each chamber to remove a president. To many Democratic voters, these are just minor details about parliamentary procedure, which don't interest them. They just want Democrats to remove Trump, which they have no power to do.

Of course, using "we have no power" as the excuse will end abruptly on Jan. 3, 2027, if the Democrats get 218 or more seats in the House. Then the base will be demanding impeachment by Jan. 4. If the leaders are smart, they are already working on the first set of articles now, so they if the time comes, they have carefully written articles ready to file. There is a lot of material to work with, but the real audience should be the public, not the Republican senators. Articles need to list things ordinary Americans understand, like this:

• Article 1: He went to war in Iran without any authorization from Congress.
• Article 2: He abused his powers by using the Department of Justice to prosecute his political rivals.
• Article 3: He has instructed federal law enforcement agencies to detain and deport people without due process.
• Article 4: He has wildly abused the pardon power by giving pardons to cronies and selling pardons to others.
• Article 5: He has violated both the domestic and foreign emolument clauses by accepting illegal gifts.

So what's a Democratic leader to do? Jeffries has spent the past few weeks vigorous condemning Trump for waging an illegal and unnecessary war. He has also talked about impeaching Cabinet officials, especially Secretary of Defense War Pete Hegseth. Giving how badly the war is going, some Republicans might be willing to impeach Hegseth as a scapegoat to spare Trump and put the blame elsewhere.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Trump's official physician, Sean Barbabella, asking for him to make a full cognitive assessment of Trump and make the results public. However, other Democrats, like Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA), have said that if Democrats take Congress their focus should on passing bills that lower costs for Americans.

Other than these sporadic actions, there is not a lot the minority can do other than to try to explain the situation to the base and promise to take action if they get the power. But those promises had better be realistic, as in: "If we get a majority in the House, we will impeach Trump, but remember, we will need over a dozen Republican senators to vote for a conviction." (V)

The Big Checks Never Came

The job of the chairman of the DNC is to raise lots of money for Democrats. Chairman Ken Martin is failing at his job. After the massive wins in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races last year and the many blowouts in special elections around the country, he was expecting big checks to come pouring in. They haven't been any big checks, especially not from top donors.

The money is badly needed. The DNC has $15.9 million in the bank to go with $17.4 million in debt. The RNC has $109 million in the bank and no debt. The national committees are dependent on big donors who understand how things work. Small donors are willing to pony up for specific candidates they like in a race they understand, but giving $25 to help wipe out the DNC's debt or help state parties in the South hire full-time employees is a tough sell to most small donors.

Martin got the job based on the votes of the 448 voting members who represent 50 states, 6 territories and Democrats Abroad. He promised to give each of these entities $1 million/month and let them use it as they saw fit. He hasn't even made the first installment and sees no way to even come close. This situation has made it impossible for the DNC to play much of a role in 2026, whereas the RNC is sitting on a mountain of money and is busily plotting how to use it best.

This situation is not new. After Trump was elected in 2016, Democratic donors were also demoralized and shut their wallets hard. In Feb. 2018, the DNC was also in debt and the RNC had four times as much cash on hand. Nevertheless, 2018 was not a good year for the Republicans.

Nevertheless, as the midterms approach and the Democrats have high hopes of at least winning the House, larger donations are starting to pick up. Mia Ehrenberg, the DNC spokesperson, said there were 11 donations of over $100,000 in Q1 of 2026 that haven't been reported yet.

What also has been a problem is infighting within the DNC. It spilled out into public view when then-vice chair of the DNC, David Hogg, wanted to spend money to defeat incumbent House Democrats who he accused of being out-of-touch and ineffective. Having the vice chair using scarce funds to defeat incumbent Democrats really got Martin's back up. He told Hogg to cut it out or quit. Hogg quit. He is still trying to primary older blue dogs and replace them with younger other-colored dogs, but now outside the DNC.

Another sore point is that after Kamala Harris' defeat. The DNC commissioned an autopsy report to see what the cause was so they could learn from it. The report was completed and Martin refused to release it. Many DNC members didn't like that. They felt everyone in the party should be aware of what they did wrong so as to be able to correct it in the future.

Many members suspected that the report said that Joe Biden was at fault for not announcing in Jan. 2023 that he would not run for reelection in 2024, which would have allowed for a normal primary process. Then, when Nancy Pelosi finally made it clear to him that his debate with Donald Trump was an unmitigated disaster, he rammed Kamala Harris down her throat. Many voters resented that. Given the timeframe, it is not clear what could have been done, but delegates to the Democratic National Convention had already been chosen, and formally the Convention chooses the nominees. Biden could have released his delegates, arranged for interested and plausible candidates to each get 30 minutes to make their case before the Convention, and then have the Convention actually choose the nominee, just like in the old days. It would have generated massive publicity, to say the least. He didn't even try.

In any event, the DNC is in a deep hole and it is Martin's job to get out of it. (V)

Todd Blanche Could Act as AG for at Least 7 months

With Pam Bondi now gone, Donald Trump needs a new AG. He wants one who will focus exclusively on indicting people who have criticized him in the past. There are probably candidates who would be willing to break the law for him, but the problem is getting them through the Senate. Invariably one of more senators will ask the nominee: "If the president orders you to indict someone he hates but who has broken no law, what will you do?" If the nominee says he or she will follow Trump's orders, he or she won't be confirmed. If the nominee lies and does it anyway, a Democratic House in 2027 could impeach the AG for lying to Congress. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has already said that he will not vote for any nominee who excuses the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. There are plenty of other controversies senators could ask about. Also, AG nominations have not always been a glide path, as Matt Gaetz discovered the hard way. So what will Trump do?

One possibility is to keep his former personal lawyer, Acting AG Todd Blanche, on the job as long as possible. Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, a "temporary" appointee who is filling a vacancy can stay on the job for 210 days, as long as a permanent nomination is pending in the Senate. If John Thune refused to bring up the actual nominee for a vote, Blanche could lead the DoJ for 7 months, at the very least. There are two dangers here, though. First, some senators might not like the Senate losing one of its most important powers through inaction. Second, the 210 days would run out in the middle of November. Depending on how the election went and the mood of the Senate, this could be cutting it close. If the Democrats capture the Senate in November, it may be difficult for Trump to get anyone confirmed in 2027 or 2028.

Another possibility is to invoke a law known as Section 508 that allows a deputy AG to exercise all the powers of the AG while remaining the deputy. If Trump did that, Blanche could not put "Attorney General of the United States" on his C.V. but could prosecute Trump's enemies nevertheless. (V)

Which Justices Will Quit in June?

As we approach June, there will be increased speculation about whether any Supreme Court justices will retire in June (end of the current SCOTUS term) and give Donald Trump a fourth pick and maybe a fifth one. Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated five justices. Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated eight. Already we are seeing articles speculating about this, including recent ones in The NYT and Reuters.

Virtually all Court observers expect Justice Samuel Alito (76) to hang up his robe in June. He may have health issues (he was in a hospital briefly last month) and seems determined to have Donald Trump nominate his successor and have that person confirmed by the Senate. Alito is smart enough and political enough not to leave this to chance by staying on another year. If the Democrats capture the Senate, the chance of Trump getting his first, second, third... or forty-ninth pick confirmed is close to zero. A Democratic Senate could emphasize the "advice" part of the Senate's constitutional duty of "advice and consent" by giving Trump a list of five names and saying "no one off the list will be even get a hearing." All signs point to Alito announcing in June that he will formally retire as soon as the Senate has confirmed his successor. He will miss the free vacations Republican donors have given him upon occasion, but at least his wife can then fly any flag she wants at their country home without getting any flak.

With Justice Clarence Thomas, it is personal. He doesn't actually like being a justice and almost never says anything during hearings. He's clearly had it with the job and wants out to drive around the country in the $267,000 luxury RV financed by a wealthy healthcare executive, Anthony Welters, who has since forgiven the loan. The deal was structured so Thomas paid almost nothing for the RV. Thomas has also been treated to at least 38 exotic free vacations from billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow, many of them on private jets.

Thomas has two issues to consider before retiring. First, retirement will be the end of all the lavish free vacations with his soon-not-to-be-a-friend-anymore Harlan Crow. Second, Thomas could break a record if he wants to. If he continues to serve on the Court until August 2028, he will be the longest serving justice in history. He might very much like to stick it to the libs by setting that record. Imagine, the longest-serving justice in history could be a Black man born in a wooden cabin in Pin Point, GA, a small community of freedmen founded in the 1880s. His family consists of descendants of slaves, and who spoke Gullah as a first language.

So Thomas has a choice: retire in June 2026 and be guaranteed a conservative Republican successor or wait until 2028, set the record, and possibly have the seat be kept open for a year and eventually be filled by a Democratic president in 2029. This pits his personal interest against the interests of the Republican Party. What will he do? We don't know, but if pushed to guess, we think he will put his personal interest above that of the Republican Party. Besides, there is a good chance the Republicans will hold the Senate in November. If they don't, he could conceivably retire in December and force a lame-duck session of the Senate which could confirm his successor. We think that is unlikely, though. He has a chip woodpile on his shoulder and isn't likely to give up his glory to help the Republicans. (V)

Orban Concedes Defeat

And now for some foreign news with U.S. implications. Viktor Orbán, the strongman who ruled Hungary with an iron fist for 16 years, lost a record-turnout election yesterday (78% turnout) and has conceded defeat. Donald Trump sees him as a role model for how to be an authoritarian and now the voters sent him home, despite Trump sending J.D. Vance over there to help. Between Vance not helping Orbán and not being able to make a deal with Iran, he's taken a definite step back when it comes to the 2028 GOP primaries. All his opponents will call him a weak, hapless loser. This is why we keep reminding you not to take the media's assumption that Vance is a shoo-in for the Republican nomination in 2028 too seriously. Sh*t happens.

While most Americans don't follow Hungarian politics real closely, this one is was the lead story in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Politico, and many other news outlets last night.

The winner in Hungary was Péter Magyar (45), a center-right socially conservative member of the European Parliament, but definitely a small-d democrat and not an authoritarian or a fascist. Magyar's party will probably get about 138 seats in the 199 seat parliament (69%). That margin is significant, if it holds, because it takes a two-thirds majority to amend the Hungarian Constitution and undo much of the damage Orbán did to democracy in Hungary.

Magyar didn't campaign heavily on Orbán's being a near-dictator or a threat to democracy, even though the democracy there is much more eroded than in the U.S. He campaigned on the price of goulash, health care, education, and the widespread old-fashioned garden-variety corruption in the old regime. It worked. Maybe there is a lesson here. Magyar's base was young people tired of the old ways and demanding change. Unlike Trump in 2020, Orbán called his opponent and graciously congratulated him on his victory.

In addition to this being a black eye for Trump, it has a number of concrete consequences. The E.U. wants to "loan" Ukraine €90 billion ($105 billion) but Orbán blocked it. Now the loan will go through quickly. Vladimir Putin will not be a happy camper about this. In the somewhat longer term, greater cooperation among E.U. countries—especially military cooperation—was something Orbán blocked. Now that will go forward. A possible consequence is that the E.U. will eventually become not only an economic power, but also a military one. At the very least, there will be a powerful European weapons industry, which will make Europe far less dependent on the U.S. for defense. All in all, this election is bad news for Trump and for Trumpism. It was not a good weekend for Donald Trump. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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