CBP Is Going to Get Someone (Else) Killed...

Which department is more unprofessional, more probe to slapdash actions, more reckless right now: Defense or Homeland Security? It's a tough call, though DHS put in yet another claim to the title this weekend (although they were enabled by DoD, so both get at least some of the credit).

What happened, in brief, is that some geniuses in the employ of DHS, who were working out of Fort Bliss in Texas, thought they sighted a Mexican drone headed in their direction. So, they got out the laser that they had borrowed from the DoD in order to shoot it down. As it turns out, the "drone" was actually just a balloon (shades of "99 Luftballons"). Apparently, the shot was "successful," and that balloon will never threaten anyone again. However, the laser shot forced the closure of airspace around El Paso Airport.

This was... bad. We are not experts in lasers, but we have a reader who is, and can explain why it's bad. Take it away, R.R. in Pasadena, CA:

I work with lasers in adaptive optics, where we use a laser to create a spot in the sky as a reference source, so I know what it takes to fire a laser into the sky in the U.S. The events in El Paso this week were a shock, because the use of lasers fired into the sky is highly regulated. Even the military has to get clearance from the FAA and the Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC, which was in the Air Force but is now in the Space Force) to fire a laser into the sky. The more powerful the laser, the more restrictions that are in place. I suspect those get relaxed in an emergency (like an invasion), but to this point there has not been news of any such emergencies released publicly.

To fire a laser the FAA has to clear it for operations. We use an ultraviolet laser that cannot damage a plane or even hurt a helicopter flying over the dome (pilots can't see it and it isn't powerful enough to cause damage), so we're fully cleared to operate at all times. If it's a visible, infrared, or more powerful laser, the FAA goes through a process of approval, and you have to show them that the laser can't harm aircraft, or you have to have a system in place to avoid hitting aircraft. There's a system in use in astronomy that avoids aircraft using the transponder information transmitted by aircraft... if they fly into range the laser has to shutter. I believe the FAA requires aircraft to use transponders in the area around telescopes using this system. They used to require people outside watching the sky for aircraft in order to operate the laser. We avoided that by using UV (we do robotic ops), while some observatories without the transponder system still work that way. The military tightly controls their ops, with humans involved, so they probably have someone dedicated to watching for aircraft or a similar radar system, and they work in military areas where there shouldn't be any civilian airplanes close by.

Satellites are another thing, it's possible to hit a satellite in space with a laser, with the militaries of the U.S., Russia, and China testing the capability. It's a State Department-level event if you hit another nation's satellite, even if you don't cause any damage (our laser won't, but some big astronomy lasers might, and the military lasers are much more powerful). The U.S. has a system where you submit what you want to look at beforehand, and JSpOC sends back a list of times that you can fire the laser while avoiding satellites. They do this for a variety of targets (stars, satellites, and more esoteric things), and they also will close you down if there's an event (like a secret rocket launch) that they didn't know about when they sent your files.

With all this in mind, the idea of some yahoos in Texas randomly firing their lasers (which could damage stuff by design) without notice, scaring the bejesus out of the FAA, and causing a shutdown of the El Paso airport is insane. They should not have been firing willy-nilly, they should not have been firing in a way that might have struck aircraft in the area, and they endangered a lot of things by lighting up the sky to shoot at a floating object (which turned out to be a balloon), which will have a moving position that the laser may not have in its database on where it can fire into space at that time. Someone flipped out and fired the laser at something drifting at low altitude across the border, which was an excessive response to a minor target. It's very possible someone just decided to try out a new toy and took this as their chance to shoot something up. I really can't stress enough how dangerous this was, especially if those lasers were able to damage aircraft or flash-blind pilots, as people could have died as a result of what happened.

I guess the news that it was Customs and Border Patrol that did it shouldn't be surprising; recent events have shown that they don't believe that the rules or law apply to them. Hopefully the military has clamped down on their ability to do this kind of thing, because it's already challenging to operate lasers and anything that puts more pressure on us to avoid events like this just adds to the difficulties.

Thanks, R.R.

We really don't have much to add, except that we look forward to the day that the federal bureaucracy is no longer led by a bunch of incompetent bootlickers cosplaying as Ernst Stavro Blofeld. (Z)

...And So Is Donald Trump

We think you can make a pretty good argument, at least based on the information currently available, that Donald Trump's rhetoric played a considerable role in Charlie Kirk's death. And it's beyond argument that his rhetoric played a major role in the assassination of state Rep. Melissa Hortman (DFL-MN).

We mention this because Trump is currently in (yet another) squabble with former representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. She seems to be one of the few Republicans still interested in making sure the Trump-Epstein files see the light of day, and she says that if they don't, Trump and the GOP will lose a lot of votes from women. Trump's very profound counterargument to this is that Greene is "wacky" and all that she knows how to do is "COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN." That is what a statesman looks like, folks.

As part of her current crusade, Greene revealed that since she and Trump became enemies, she and her kids have received at least 773 death threats. The actual number is apparently much higher, but a certain bar has to be cleared to make the threat "official" and thus reportable to the Capitol Police. There are some folks who think it is instructive that Greene was despised by the left for years, but that she did not have to hire security until she crossed Donald Trump. We are among the folks who think that way.

Another person who has reason to be nervous is Trump's nemesis in Congress, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). who decided there was wisdom in sending this message via eX-Twitter this weekend:

I am not suicidal. I eat healthy food. The brakes on my car and truck are in good shape. I practice good trigger discipline and never point a gun at anyone, including myself. There are no deep pools of water on my farm and I'm a pretty good swimmer.

In other words, for anyone who is not getting Massie's drift, the things that might be made to look like suicide don't pass the smell test if he is indeed suicided. If he was Russian, he'd be tweeting that he's not in the habit of hanging out right next to ninth-story windows, or drinking tea with a dash of polonium in it. After Massie sent that tweet, Greene responded: "These are not the type of public statements that any of us should have to make." She's right about that. Most readers of this site will not agree with most of Massie's ideas about policy. But even so, one cannot deny that the man has both integrity and courage. One can only imagine how many threats HE's getting, as someone who is still a member of Congress, and whose votes can (and have) actually hurt Trump.

Trump is now on the outs with at least one other prominent Republican. He is angry that, after he posted the racist video of the Obamas, not only did the Republicans not all line up behind him, some of them had the temerity to criticize him. For reasons we cannot ascertain, he has decided that the primary responsible party is... Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL). It's true that she was critical of him, but no more so than, say, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS). In any case, Trump apparently had had many swear words for Britt, and said she was "dead" to him. Not the best choice of verbiage, since a wacky MAGA type could hear "dead" and "Britt" in the same sentence and think "sounds like a good idea." Politically, and undoubtedly out of concern for her own personal safety, Britt does not want to be at war with Trump. So, she is downplaying the feud. The problem here is that ignoring bullies tends to enrage them, and cause them to push harder

It's really awful that today, if you get elected to Congress, you take your life into your hands. We certainly hope that Donald Trump's careless, hotheaded rhetoric does not get anyone else killed. But we are not optimistic, particularly as his popularity keeps heading further downhill (keep reading). (Z)

The Polls Are Grim for Trump

The hits just keep coming for Donald Trump. Although, by "hits," we really mean "kicks"... in the balls.

Yesterday, we noted some pretty bad approval rating polls for him. Today, we are going to highlight some even worse approval rating polls. Here they are:

Pollster	Approve	Disapprove	Net
AP/NORC	36%	62%	-26%
Yahoo/YouGov	38%	58%	-20%
Quinnipiac	37%	59%	-19%
NBC/SurveyMonkey	39%	61%	-22%

We actually had the YouGov poll yesterday, but we want to put all four of these together in one place because, in all cases, this is the worst number Trump's gotten this cycle from that pollster. It is exceedingly improbable that all three of the new pollsters we've added today, and the three we wrote about yesterday, are all wrong. Clearly, Trump is at or near the lowest ebb of his second term (and with the potential to go lower).

Last week, we wrote that it was difficult for us to imagine what might turn things around for Trump, and allow him to get back into, say, the mid-to-high 40s (in other words, a 10-point improvement). We asked readers for their thoughts; those responses almost all fell into three broad categories. A selection:

The 9/11 Condition

I.S. in Durango, CO, writes: What could lift Trump's approval rating? A terrorist attack on a target within the U.S., one that kills Americans. It worked for George W. Bush, who went from 51% to 86% approval immediately after 9/11, and his ratings were 80% or higher until March 2002. If I were more cynical, I would expect this administration to engineer a modest attack sometime in late July or early August—but even this corrupt, depraved regime wouldn't do that, right? RIGHT?

---

J.M. in Chicago, IL, writes: The only thing I can think of is a terrorist attack on the U.S. (as opposed to a terrier attack, which is what artificial "intelligence" thought I was typing), which plausibly could happen, because: (1) The Kristi and Donnie mob are incompetent; and/or (2) Donnie is so depraved, I believe he would not be opposed to letting a known-to-U.S.-intelligence attack happen to boost his ratings and detract from his connections to his good friend Epstein.

---

R.A. in Savannah, GA, writes: The only thing I can imagine turning the tide is a rally-round-the-flag effect where the U.S. was the target, not the aggressor—something 9/11-like.

I don't know how this administration could pull that off. I'm cynical enough to believe they'd absolutely sacrifice a few thousand Americans for political gain, but this administration is an extended Benny Hill skit, so I'm having trouble picturing them actually planning and pulling it off without one of them unintentionally DMing plan details to Matt Gertz, instead of Matt Gaetz (who gets the plan because Pete H. tells a confederate to send it to "our guy from Florida" because he can't remember Marco Rubio's name once he's more than 4 drinks in).

The Trump-Stops-Being-Trump Condition

J.S. in Columbia, MO, writes: Very few of us "get" Donald Trump. One thing he could do to improve his approval points is to have an emotional "Fireside Chat." A sort of emotional housecleaning as he reaches a milestone (age of 80). He could explain how he desperately craved his father's approval and did not fully receive it. He could discuss how the rude nicknames he gives people are because he is insecure in spite of boasting he's the best at everything. A nice touch would be to explain why he vehemently hates the Obamas—they are the antithesis of how he views Black people. Showing such vulnerability will endear him to many people, especially to those who have had toxic relationships with their parents. Don't think this will happen, though one can only hope...

---

T.L.W. in Omaha, NE, writes: What if Trump forces his controversial cabinet members to step down, and cuts back on his rhetoric on major unpopular issues?

---

S.N. in Charlotte, NC, writes: The only thing(s) I can see resulting in a 10-point swing back to the Trumpublicans would be cancelling his entire tariff plan (all of them rescinded and refunded), firing Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, and Kegstand, full decommission of ICE. Ain't gonna happen, but that's his only hope.

---

R.O. in Portland, ME, writes: I dunno, a prime-time Jim Bakker tearful confess-all, where he's found Jesus, tells Congress to levy huge taxes on billionaires, and sends everybody a check for $5,000?

Or resigns because of his health, and asks the country to pray for him, and Melania, and Barron.

That's all I got.

---

P.R. in Nashville, TN, writes: If Trump magically made it easier for good, hard-working, tax-paying immigrants to become U.S. citizens, it might make it easier for the GOP to win seats in 2026. And it would be a win for all of us. I don't see it happening, but maybe Democrats can make it happen in 2028!

---

T.B. in Nowata, OK, writes: He could pass and enact Universal Healthcare, Medicare for all.

The Death Condition

O.K. in Boston, MA, writes: While I agree it's hard to think of something that could increase Trump's approval rating by 10 points, an assassination of a popular right-wing pundit just before the election would definitely fire up the people on the right and bring them out to vote. Remember how amped up they were after Charlie Kirk's killing?

---

M.M. San Diego, CA, writes: Another assassination attempt 2 weeks before the midterms might infuriate the right sufficiently to turn out those who typically don't vote in midterms.

---

A.H. in Newberg, OR, writes: I am not espousing this as a recommendation, nor do I particularly want to see this happen, BUT the only thing/way I can see a 10 point rise for the current presi-dunce would be his demise!

---

B.P. in Asheville, NC, writes: You've opened yourself up to that one: If he croaks, it will easily add ten points to his popularity.

---

C.L.T. in Delaware, OH, writes: The only way I think Trump could add 10 points to his approval rating is a Stage IV terminal cancer diagnosis where he stays president through his treatment. (I am not wishing cancer on him at all, which I'm assuming is understood). That 10 points would be all sympathy approval rating gains. I see no policy decision that he could make. If he did a 180 on all of his policies, any gain in approval by one set of people would probably be a drop in approval by a different set of people. And a large percentage of the country will never approve of him.

We think that pretty well covers it. Either pigs fly, there's a generational incident of violence/disease, or he's not bouncing back. (Z)

Three Dot Journalism...

We are going to launch three new (potential) weekly features this week. One of them, which will launch tomorrow, is a done deal. We already announced it, and we've just been waiting to move forward. Another, which will probably also launch tomorrow, is a maybe. We'll see what readers think about it. The third, which is also a maybe, is what you are reading right now.

We encounter a lot of news stories that meet all of the following parameters:

1. They are probably interesting or important enough to merit at least a mention.
2. But, they are not top priority.
3. And, they aren't really substantive enough to make into a full item.

Sometimes with these news stories, we are able to tack them on to some larger item. Often we are not. And so, they go to the back burner, and they often stay there... forever.

This item is meant to be a corrective for that problem. Many readers will know Herb Caen, the legendary San Francisco columnist who pioneered "three dot journalism." For those who are not familiar, he'd write columns full of quick hits, with each individual morsel of news just getting a paragraph or two. In Los Angeles, Allan Malamud did the same thing for many years, though his "Notes on a Scorecard" was sports-centric. Presumably, other cities had similar features in their newspapers, but those other cities are not in California. So, as everyone knows, they aren't as important.

Anyhow, the idea here is to take a quick look at somewhere between half a dozen and a dozen news stories, and to give our quick take on each. Tuesdays are probably the best day to do this, because there's a lot of "small" news coming out of the weekend, and leading into the regular week. And without further ado:

Pardon Me: Is there anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is NOT abusing the pardon power? Some folks might not admit it openly, but c'mon. Democrats have a "solution," namely the Pardon Integrity Act. It would allow 20 House members plus 5 Senators to call for a floor vote to cancel a pardon; thereafter, a two-thirds vote of both chambers would be needed to actually kill the pardon. Yesterday, the bill got its first Republican co-sponsor in the House, the retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE).

Our Take: A constitutional amendment would be needed here, since the unfettered pardon power is conveyed by Article II. There is no chance that an amendment gets adopted while a Republican is in the White House. It might happen with a Democrat in the Oval Office, if good-governance Democrats and rein-in-the-Democratic-president Republicans have a meeting of the minds, but even then it's a long shot. Meanwhile, there needs to be a balance between "we want it to be possible to kill bad pardons" and "we don't want good pardons to be killed for political reasons." The Pardon Integrity Act errs too far in the direction of protecting "good pardons." It's nearly inconceivable, certainly under current conditions, that two-thirds of each chamber could agree to poke a sitting president in the eye. There just wouldn't be the necessary votes from the members of whatever party holds the White House.

---

Just What the World Needs--Another Blogger: Substack landed a big name this week, as George W. Bush debuted on the platform. He's largely flown under the radar since leaving office, but maybe he's now planning to emerge from his hibernation. His first post, in honor of George Washington's birthday, did not mention any OTHER president by name. That said, everyone interpreted the first posting as being addressed to... one of the living holders of that office. Here's the key excerpt:

Our first leader helped define not only the character of the presidency but the character of the country. Washington modeled what it means to put the good of the nation over self-interest and selfish ambition. He embodied integrity and modeled why it's worth aspiring to. And he carried himself with dignity and self-restraint, honoring the office without allowing it to become invested with near-mythical powers.

Hmm... which president has focused almost entirely on self-interest and selfish ambition, and has virtually no integrity, dignity or self-restraint? We'll have to ask the Electoral-Vote.com research team to look into it and get back to us.

Our Take: This news got a lot of attention yesterday, in part because George writing about George fit well with the Presidents Day holiday. That said, it would be hard for us to care less about a former president launching a blog, or a website, or something else along those lines. First, because Bush allowed things to happen on his watch that very definitely laid the ground for Trumpism. Second, because Bush has carried on the "no comment" act for 10+ years of Trump and so, in our view, has effectively ceded whatever bully pulpit he might once have been entitled to. Third, because Bush has no base anymore, as far as we can tell, and so is not going to influence any voters tp rethink their ballots.

---

A Shutout: Last week, we wrote about U.S. Attorney for Washington DC Jeannine Pirro's failure to indict the six members of Congress who recorded the video reminding members of the armed forces that they cannot follow illegal orders. Well, now we know that Pirro put up a goose egg, an air ball, a golden sombrero—pick the analogy of your choice. That's right, not only did she not get enough votes to return an indictment, she didn't get ANY votes from the grand jurors. This is virtually unheard of (admittedly, because most indictments have at least SOME merit to them).

Our Take: We have three takeaways: (1) The administration needs to drop this matter, because it is tilting at windmills; (2) grand juries don't trust this administration anymore, which is going to make it harder and harder to secure indictments and (3) Pirro seemed like she might be slightly more professional/ethical than Alina Habba, Lindsey Halligan, Pam Bondi, etc., after all, Pirro was elected and served as Westchester County, NY, D.A. three times. Clearly, she is now no better than the others.

---

The Clock Struck Thirteen We also wrote last week about the administration's efforts to rewrite history, including excising all that pesky stuff about slavery being presented at Independence Hall. Yesterday, District Judge Cynthia Rufe (a George W. Bush appointee) issued an injunction ordering the administration to put the removed displays back in place. It was yet another scorching ruling from a federal judge, this one beginning with a quote from George Orwell's 1984: "All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place." Rufe also compared the Trump administration to Orwell's Ministry of Truth, and all of that was before she got really mad.

Our Take: Good for Judge Rufe.

---

Two Thumbs Up--That's an Order Melania is now up to a little more than $15 million in box office, and it's petering out, such that it might reach $16 million, but it won't likely see $17 million. News broke yesterday that at least part of the box office take was driven by soldiers whose commanding officer told them they were required to see the film.

Our Take: How pathetic. How inappropriate. Instead of going after Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) & Co., we have a suggestion for an active-duty officer who should be court martialed and reduced in rank. Or, better yet, kicked out of the service entirely.

---

The Virginia Plan: The Virginia legislature has released the map that it thinks will produce a 10 D, 1 R delegation. Here it is:

Our Take: A monument to Elbridge Gerry. Everyone knows about Goofy kicking Donald Duck. Well, pick one (or more) of the proposed Virginia districts, and let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com what name/description you think should be used. We'll start: VA-01 should be called "Dachshund balancing soup cans on his rump."

Keeping in mind that this feature idea is still somewhat unrefined, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com if you like it or not. Also, if we do keep it as a regular feature, we could use suggestions as to what the name should be. We thought of "Three Dot Night" or "Politics Bites," but those are both stupid. We like "Raising Caen" a little better, but we're not sold. (Z)

Alito To Hang Up His Robe?

The black one, we mean, not the white one.

There is much speculation right now that Associate Justice Samuel Alito is planning to call it a career sometime in the very near future (see here, here, here and here for examples). The main evidence for this supposition:

• Alito has a book—basically a memoir—coming out on October 6. The new Supreme Court term starts October 5. Normally, justices promote their books, because they want to earn lots of royalties. The only way Alito will be able to do so is if he has left his job by October 6.
  
  
• He gave a rare interview to Politico that was ostensibly about the career of Antonin Scalia, but that was also substantially about legacy and what all of this means, in the end.
  
  
• There have been quite a few laudatory pieces about Alito in the last couple of weeks, of the sort that tend to be written when people reach the ends of their careers. At least a couple of them were written by close friends of Alito, who might have inside information about his plans.
  
  
• He just reached the 20-year mark, he doesn't like the work very much, and his wife absolutely hates the constraints that her husband's job imposes on her.
  
  
• Alito is both smart and very partisan. He knows that the window to replace him with a much younger conservative could close in January of 2027, and then might not reopen for a long time. He doesn't want to be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Sequel.

It is worth noting that a similar calculus applies to Clarence Thomas, in that he doesn't really like the work, either, and he would very much like to step down and spend his days traveling the country in his RV. Plus, he's a little older than Alito (77 vs. 75). On the other hand, Thomas doesn't have a book to hawk, and while he doesn't like the job, he does like the perks that come with the job—like, you know, free RVs. Plus, it's generally believed that he wants to become the longest-serving justice of all time. If so, he'll need to remain on the bench for another 2 years and change.

Democrats, of course, would like to see both men pull a Ginsburg, and hold on so long they both get replaced by liberal Democrats. That is not likely. Indeed, if one of the two is still on the bench the next time the blue team controls the Senate, then that's a big win for them. (We are assuming we've now entered into an era—Call it the Age of Turtles—where a Senate majority just won't confirm a justice from a president of the other party, no matter how much time is left in the president's term.) (Z)

---

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