It would seem that the gods do not want (Z) writing the blog. Last week, of course, there was the food poisoning that wiped out several days' productivity. That was not fun.

Then—and it's a bit more complicated than this, but this is the gist—symptoms that had been building for several days became problematic enough that it was necessary to head to the ER in the middle of putting together Sunday's posting. (Z) knew exactly what condition was indicated by the symptoms, though not quite how serious things had become. So, he expected to be able to finish the Sunday posting while sitting in the waiting room. Instead, within 15 minutes of arrival he ended up in a bed with needles in both arms. Not too amenable to working with a keyboard. And not long thereafter, the staff advised that (Z) would not be leaving for a couple of days.

The problem—and again, the symptoms were unmistakable—was blood clots. (Z) knew he had them in his legs; the reason the doctors responded the way they did is that there were also some in his lungs. Obviously, that is something that has to be dealt with swiftly. This was related to the food poisoning, but probably not in the way you think. It wasn't directly caused by the food poisoning, it was caused by (Z)'s inability to keep prescriptions (e.g., blood thinner) down for many days. And THAT was caused by the food poisoning. Anyhow, (V) did not share details when posting a note on Sunday, but some readers nonetheless inferred that something must be wrong, and sent kind messages. For those, (Z) is appreciative. (Z) will also add, for those who might be interested, that the stereotype that hospital food is terrible is really not accurate. In fact, the food would have to be improved considerably for it to qualify as "terrible."

Finally, around 12 hours after (Z) was discharged from the hospital, an evil wind began blowing in Southern California, and it led to another outbreak of wildfires, which burned as far south as Sunset Blvd., about a mile north of where (Z) lives. He did not have to evacuate, but between 5:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., the power went out at least nine times. In general, the outages only lasted 5-10 minutes. Nonetheless, each time it is necessary to wait for computers and Internet infrastructure to reboot, which takes an additional 5-10 minutes.

Hopefully, all is well now. The health problems are under control, the winds have died down, the power stopped going out, and the LAFD appears to have gained the upper hand on the fires. However, due to all of the above, but particularly the power outages, the remaining Jimmy Carter pieces will have to wait until tomorrow and Friday.

Anyhow, in case any reader was wondering what was going on, now you know.

Also, did anyone notice that from December 29 through January 5, the name "Donald Trump" did not appear in the main text of the blog? That was aided by the days off, but nonetheless, there were some actual days of content in there. It's our Christmas/Hanukkah present to readers.

Trump Gone Wild

Yesterday, joined by Special-Envoy-to-the-Middle-East-designate Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump held a press conference at Mar-a-Lago. And he said lots of wild and crazy things. Here's a rundown:

• Canada, Greenland and Panama: A major theme of the press conference was Trump continuing to air his expansionist fantasies. He said that the annexation of Canada might be accomplished through economic means, whereas Greenland and Panama might be achieved in the same way, or possibly through the use of military force.
  
  
• A Little Di** Waving: Also on the foreign affairs front (and this is why Witkoff was in attendance), Trump warned that Hamas better return its remaining hostages before he takes office or "all hell will break loose in the Middle East." He added: "It will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone... I don't have to say anymore, but that's what it is." Could be hot air, could be prologue to World War III. Anything's possible.
  
  
• The Gulf of America: For roughly 500 years, the body of water directly south of the Gulf Coast has been known as the Gulf of Mexico. As part of his campaign of redrawing maps (with or without the aid of Sharpies), Trump announced that he plans to rename it as the Gulf of America.
  
  This is not the first time this has been proposed. It was put forward by former state Rep. Steve Holland (D-MS) in 2012, and also by Stephen Colbert (at that time serving as host of The Colbert Report). In both of those cases, the point was to satirize Republicans' obsession with eliminating all things Mexican from American culture. Apparently, Trump did not get the joke.
  
  Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Trump's loyal lap dog (well, one of them), has already submitted legislation to make the change official. Maybe Congress will pass the bill, or maybe Trump will issue an XO. Either way, the new rules will apply only to federal mapmakers. For everyone else in the U.S., and for foreign countries, the change will only be adopted if found to be agreeable. And not to give anything away, but the next time (Z) lectures on the Mexican-American War, you can be damn well sure he won't be talking about how the Americans attacked via the Gulf of America.
  
  
• The Environment: This part of the presentation was... scattered, to say the least. However, Trump apparently wants: (1) fewer electric heaters and more gas heaters, (2) fewer electric cars, (3) an end to low-flow faucets and shower heads and (4) an end to water-efficient dishwashers and washing machines. Trump claimed that the latter two technologies are not needed because "We have so much water, we don't know what to do with it." Maybe he is not aware that the water in the "Gulf of America" can't be used for drinking, showering, etc.
  
  Trump also went on an extended harangue about windmills, which are actually a longstanding nemesis of his. He said he wants to "try and have a policy where no windmills are being built." One of his reasons is that windmills are "driving the whales crazy, obviously." You can't make this stuff up, though one cannot help but think of the other guy who was famous for making an enemy out of windmills. He was also named Don.
  
  
• Capitol Rioters: During the campaign, of course, Trump promised he would pardon all the people convicted of crimes due to their actions on 1/6. Since then, he's been backtracking on that a bit. And while it's hard to fully understand what he's talking about, he's apparently glommed on to the notion that some of the 1/6 rioters were, in fact, members of Hezbollah. In response to questions about the pardons yesterday, he said: "We have to find out about Hezbollah. We have to find out about who exactly was in that whole thing because people that did some bad things were not prosecuted." At very least, this buys him some time to "look into it." Maybe it gives him cover to refuse pardons to some or all participants. Or, alternatively, it could be giving him cover to grant pardons indiscriminately. "If we didn't punish the Hezbollah members," he might ask, "Then how can we punish actual Americans?"
  
  
• Joe Biden: There will be no Trump press conference this month where he does not badmouth Joe Biden. There may not be one this year. Yesterday's carping focused on two things. The first is that Trump is unhappy (naturally) that Biden just declared 635 million acres of American waters off-limits to new drilling permits. The second is that Trump claims the Biden White House is making the transition needlessly difficult. By contrast, incoming chief-of-staff Susan Wiles says that the Biden White House has "been very helpful." Readers may decide for themselves which person they believe.
  
  
• Jimmy Carter: Trump is also furious with Jimmy Carter for stealing some of his (Trump's) thunder by having the bad taste to die in close proximity to the inauguration. The President-elect has already complained about the fact that flags will be at half-staff during the inaugural. Yesterday, he took a couple of semi-potshots at his deceased predecessor, asserting that Carter deserved to lose his re-election bid, and that the primary reason for it was the cession of the Panama Canal. This is both low-class and is bad history; Carter was done in by the economy and by the hostage situation in the Middle East.
  
  
• DoJ: Trump also had a go at the Department of Justice and, in particular, Special Counsel Jack Smith. The President-elect took some new slurs out for a spin, describing it as the "Injustice Department" engaged in "lawfare." Some very smart stuff. He also said he was very pleased that another one of his lap dogs, Judge Aileen Cannon, had blocked the release of Smith's final report on his investigations (more below).
  
  
• Sajwani: Trump also bragged that Emirati billionaire Hussain Sajwani has agreed to invest at least $20 billion for data centers across the United States. The president-elect said that Sajwani "wouldn't do it without the election." That is probably true, though we would guess it's not in the way Trump thinks. We presume Sajwani is following the same line of thinking that the Saudi-backed LIV golf does when it makes a point of hosting numerous events each year at Trump-owned properties. It's not because the greens are so verdant, or the lawns are so nicely manicured.

There was more, but that's certainly enough to convey the main themes, as well as the tone and tenor.

We are not sure exactly what is going on here. Clearly, despite winning the election, and getting about as favorable an outcome as is possible in his various legal situations, Trump is very angry. Here is how John King put it:

It is remarkable. Somebody who is two weeks from resuming the presidency of the United States who, whether you voted for him or not, whether you like him or not, just engineered a remarkable historical political comeback, is so whiny and so full of grievances.

The part we're not sure about is: What's driving this? Are these the ramblings of an old man who is increasingly mentally infirm and increasingly emotionally unstable? Or is there some level of method to the madness? Has he concluded (possibly rightly) that the most important thing, in terms of his base, is to feed them a steady diet of outrage, and that actual policy achievements don't much matter? Or is he creating a smokescreen to cover for more embarrassing news, like his legal troubles and his semi-failing high-level nominees (see below)? Maybe it's all of these things.

An even trickier question, at least for us, is figuring out how much attention to give to these sorts of unhinged meanderings. The vast majority of this will go nowhere, and so an argument could be made that writing about it is not useful, and just exploits a sick, old man, or enables his manipulative behavior, or both. On the other hand, some of it will go somewhere—at very least, it will inform the actions of the Trump White House and the Republican Congress. And it's hard to know which things are the ones he'll actually pursue. Greenland? The windmills? The Hezbollah "conspiracy"? Further, the less scrutiny a president gets, the more power they have to fly under the radar. So, maybe we have to write about all of Trump's rantings and ravings.

It is also important to realize that while co-president-elect Elon Musk is conservative, he is intelligent and has a good grasp of reality and an especially good grasp of what is good for Elon Musk. Random wars are not good for the economy, the stock market, or him. Banning electric cars or ways to generate electricity are not good for him. He certainly won't interfere with Trump venting, but quietly thereafter he may explain things to Trump.

Thoughts from readers? (Z)

Cannon to Trump: You've Got a Friend in Me

Special Counsel Jack Smith was all ready to release his final report on Donald Trump's (alleged) crimes, and then to become former Special Counsel Jack Smith. But Trump doesn't want that report to come out, so he (indirectly) sued. And yesterday, he scored a (temporary?) victory, courtesy of his very favorite Florida judge.

That's right: Once again, Judge Aileen Cannon demonstrated willingness to jump in on Trump's behalf to give him what he wants, even when she has absolutely no authority to do so. We should next expect her to weigh in on whether Trump can annex the Panama Canal and Greenland or change the name of the Gulf of Mexico.

To recap, Cannon, a federal district judge in the Southern District of Florida, oversaw special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump and his associates Walt Nauta and Carlos DeOliveira for illegal retention of classified documents and obstruction of the government's efforts to get them back. Cannon dismissed the entire case in July on the dubious grounds that the special counsel's appointment was unconstitutional. In her order dismissing the case, she did not retain jurisdiction over any aspect of it. At that point, she lost jurisdiction, regardless of Smith's subsequent appeal. Full stop. Smith's appeal meant that only the Eleventh Circuit had jurisdiction unless and until they reversed Cannon's dismissal and remanded the case. That appeal is still pending against Nauta and DeOliveira, after Smith dropped his appeal with respect to Trump following his re-election.

Fast forward to this weekend when, it would seem, Smith decided to give the defendants a peek at his pending report (why the DoJ continues to give these people openings for mischief is beyond us). Lo and behold, Team Trump didn't like what they saw. So, Nauta and DeOliveira's lawyers, who just so happen to be Trump's lawyers, filed a motion in the Eleventh Circuit (where the appeal is pending) to seek an "emergency stay" of the report claiming that its release would prejudice the case against their clients. That is not an unreasonable request, but given that such reports are usually released with heavy redactions, those concerns could likely have been negotiated with the DoJ. That approach would not get them any splashy headlines, though, so off to the Eleventh Circuit they went. They also filed the same motion with Cannon in the district court, despite the fact that Cannon lost jurisdiction over the case as soon as she dismissed it. She has no authority to hear motions like the one Trump and his co-defendants brought.

Nevertheless, she did exactly what they thought she would. On Tuesday, she issued an order staying the release of the report until the Eleventh Circuit can weigh in. Pesky separation of powers issues or laws governing the case have never troubled Cannon or stopped her from doing what she wants, which should be really troubling to the Eleventh Circuit, no matter how politically aligned they may be. In addition, the report is in two volumes, one for each case, but Cannon makes no distinction between the two cases. Perhaps Judge Tanya Chutkan can issue her own ruling telling Cannon to butt out of her case.

The truly troubling part is that Cannon must know that she has no authority to issue that order. But she simply doesn't care. She knows she will be rewarded for flagrantly disregarding her role, the rule of law and bedrock principles of separation of powers. Garland would be well within his rights to tell Cannon to pound sand, but that's not how the Democrats roll. As readers will remember, Garland released John Durham's report on the Russia investigation origins and Robert Hur's report on Joe Biden, which contained needlessly inflammatory rhetoric. And DOJ regulations require special counsels to prepare final reports, and they are routinely released. Such was the case with the Mueller report.

As a practical matter, Cannon's decision will likely have little effect, other than to further endear her to Donald Trump. One can expect the Eleventh Circuit to move expeditiously on this, and hopefully they will do the right thing. If they do not, well, there are FOIA requests, and there are leaks, and there are other ways the report could see the light of day. Heck, Joe Biden could release it at 11:59 a.m. on January 20. After all, it's not illegal if the president does it.

Meanwhile, all this wrangling, and all this squawking, makes it look like Trump is trying to hide something. Of course, he IS trying to hide something, so this would be a case where appearances are NOT deceiving. We just don't quite understand why he's fighting so mightily. He's done running for election/re-election and, besides, his base believes him whenever he declares something to be "fake news." Seems to us he would be better off remaining silent, rather than giving juice to the whole thing. We guess it's just his total inability to tolerate ANY unfavorable publicity, even if fighting back actually increases the amount of negative PR. Donald Trump, meet Barbra Streisand. (L & Z)

Today's Election News

"Election news?", you might be saying. "Already?" Yes, indeed. And, like a political version of A Christmas Carol, there is actually news of elections past, present and future.

That seems the right order in which to proceed, so let's start with elections past. As readers will recall, Associate Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court Allison Riggs, a Democrat, was appointed to her seat by then-governor Roy Cooper (D) and, in November, won election in her own right. Her margin of victory was razor-thin: only 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast. Still, it just takes one more vote than your opponent for it to be a victory, and Riggs' lead stood up on a recount.

Once GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin's loss was twice-certified, he raised a very important and salient point: I don't wanna lose. So, he cooked up a claim that 60,000 ballots should not be counted. He's challenging all kinds of ballots—some that he claims came from voters who did not include a driver's license number and/or last four digits of their social security number with their registration, others that came from various classes of overseas voters.

Griffin's challenge holds no water. First, the claims he makes are largely rehashings of arguments that other Republicans have made that have already been shot down. Second, the time for challenges has come and passed. Third, either the ballots are valid or they are not. They cannot be valid for some offices and not others. And if they were to be thrown out, then other elections would potentially be affected. Those elections involve people who have already been sworn in and have taken their seats. For all of these reasons, the North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected Griffin's claims. So, he ran to court.

And that brings us to the actual news, which is that the North Carolina Supreme Court decided yesterday that Griffin's case has enough merit that certification of Riggs' win should be postponed. The vote was 4-2, with four Republicans in the majority, one Republican and one Democrat in the minority and Riggs abstaining.

The general consensus is that the four conservatives really, really want to add a like-minded colleague to their ranks, and are ready to bend over backwards to make that happen. Certainly, their willingness to assign merit to arguments that are meritless (and have been so adjudged, by the people whose job it is to do the judging) does not argue against that. So, the ruling is seen as a setback for Riggs.

That said, you can never know what a court will do until it actually does it. Further, the North Carolina Supremes might not actually get to be the deciders. Until Monday, the case was in federal court. Then, Judge Richard Myers—a Donald Trump appointee—remanded it back to state court. An appeal of Myers' decision is already underway, so the case may be returned to federal court, where Riggs is likely to face much better odds.

So, that's elections past. On to elections present. Yesterday, Virginia held special elections for three seats in the state legislature. Rep. John McGuire (R-VA) resigned the state Senate seat representing SD-10 when he was elected to the House. Meanwhile, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA) resigned the state Senate seat representing SD-32 when HE was elected to the House. Then, state Del. Kannan Srinivasan (D-VA) resigned the state House seat representing HD-26 so he could run for Subramanyam's vacant state Senate seat. So, that's two open state Senate seats, one open House of Delegates seat.

These elections were significant because, had they all gone the Republicans' way, then the Democrats would have lost their majority in both chambers, and there would have been a need for some sort of power-sharing agreement, since the Senate would have been 20-20 and the House of Delegates would have been 50-50.

The punditry also suggested that these elections were VERY IMPORTANT for a second reason. See, SD-32 and HD-26 are both majority-minority. So, if the Democratic candidates performed poorly, or lost, this would be OUR FIRST CLUE that the gains that Donald Trump made with minority voters are real, and that the 2024 election was a realigning reelection.

This supposition is, to use a technical term, stupid. It's a special election, and special elections are always wonky. And, for that matter, it was a special election for the state legislature, which is lower-profile than Congress. So, wonkier still. Oh, and there was a blizzard yesterday. Even more wonky. In the end, about 30,000 people voted. You cannot possibly draw meaningful conclusions about what tens of millions of voters will do in 2 years, or 4 years, based on the actions of the 30,000 hearty souls in one part of Virginia who were willing to brave a blizzard.

In any event, the votes turned out as a near-duplicate of the 2024 presidential results. In SD-10, Luther Cifers (R) won, 58.8% to 41.2%. Donald Trump took 61% of the vote there in 2024. In SD-32, Srinivasan won, 61.3% to 38.7%. Kamala Harris took 59% of the vote there in 2024. In HD-26, JJ Singh (D) won, 61.6% to 38.4%. Harris also took 59% of the vote THERE in 2024. So, Cifers did a shade worse than Trump, Srinivasan and Singh did a shade better than Harris. And what that tells us about future elections is, again, absolutely nothing. Get back to us when Virginia elects a new governor in November, perhaps, or when there are special elections in June 2026.

And that's a nice segue into elections future, where the news is much briefer. Yesterday, just a week removed from the release of a House report suggesting he is an abuser of illegal drugs, a procurer of prostitutes and a rapist, former representative Matt Gaetz announced that he's seriously thinking about a run for Florida governor. "I have a compelling vision for the state," he decreed. "I understand how to fix the insurance problem, and it's not to hand the keys to the state over to the insurance industry. If I run, I would be the most pro-consumer candidate on the Republican side." What he's talking about here, in case you don't know already, is that it's very hard these days to get hurricane insurance in Florida. Something about all the devastating hurricanes occasioned by climate change.

Anyone who believes Gaetz has solutions to ANY problems, much less something as tricky as hurricane insurance, is smoking something. Anyone who believes Gaetz would not climb right in bed with Big Insurance, which is a major source of campaign funding in a state without donation limits, is smoking something really, really primo. In any case, the news here is that Gaetz isn't going away, which means the Democrats have a real shot at the Florida governor's mansion in 2026. Gaetz is just like Kari Lake; popular enough to get a nomination, not popular enough to get a win. (Z)

The House Gets to Work...

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), in hopes of hitting the ground running, decided to pluck some low-hanging fruit yesterday. So, he brought the Laken Riley Act up for a vote, and it passed, 264-159, with all Republicans and 48 Democrats voting for it.

The legislation is named in honor of Laken Riley, who was, of course, killed by a Venezuelan migrant who had been arrested for shoplifting and then released. Under the terms of the legislation, a large segment of the immigrant population of the U.S., including undocumented immigrants, dreamers, and individuals awaiting asylum hearings, would be subject to imprisonment if charged with certain crimes, including theft, burglary or shoplifting. Note that the word "conviction" does not appear in there; just the bringing of charges (and, in some cases, just being arrested) would be enough to trigger imprisonment until the person was cleared. Put another way, a person charged with stealing a pack of gum would be held, without bail, until their case was resolved.

This is obvious scapegoating, of course. Immigrants are less likely to commit crime than non-immigrants, and so if the desire is to reduce crime, the legislation should apply to all people. It's also grandstanding; Laken Riley is not the first American to be killed by a migrant who was facing (or had faced) misdemeanor-level charges. But she was attractive, and white, and she was killed while a Democrat was president. So, she is a useful political prop. Another criticism here is the potential for abuse. Let us imagine you have a racist xenophobe like Stephen Miller, who just so happens to be visiting a town run by someone like former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. How hard would it be for Miller to get half-a-dozen brown-skinned people thrown in jail with false accusations of one sort or another?

So, why did so many Democrats cross the aisle to support the bill? Well, the answer to that should be clear once we consider the fate of the bill in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) is expected to bring it up for a vote on Friday, and will need 7 Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster. Thus far, three Democratic senators have committed to supporting the legislation: John Fetterman (PA), Gary Peters (MI) and Jon Ossoff (GA).

Hmmmm.... what do those three fellows have in common? Hard to say. They all have tattoos? No, that's not it, because Ossoff doesn't. They all have MBA degrees? Nope, that also leaves out Ossoff. Receding hairlines? No, Peters still has a full head. Could it be... they are all up for reelection in purple states, either in 2 years (Peters, Ossoff) or 4 (Fetterman)? Ding! Ding! Ding! Most of the folks in the House who voted for the legislation meet that description, as well (and they are ALL up in 2 years, of course).

Given that Democratic officeholders have clearly decided they have to get "stronger" on immigration, then the votes could be there to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. John Hickenlooper (CO), Tina Smith (MN), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Ben Ray Luján (NM) and Mark Warner (VA) are up in 2026 in states that are D+5 or redder, while Mark Kelly (AZ), Michael Bennet (CO), Raphael Warnock (GA), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) and Maggie Hassan (NH) are up in such states in 2028. With 53 Republicans and three Democrats already in hand, Thune only needs four of these folks. (Z)

...So Does the Senate

In addition to considering the Laken Riley Act, the Senate also has to get to work approving Donald Trump's nominees for various positions. Now that the rubber's hitting the road, there are three folks who may have some trouble looming.

First up is DNI-designate Tulsi Gabbard, whose paperwork is not in order. Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee want to bring her up for a vote this week, while Democrats on the Committee are balking, as they say she hasn't submitted the necessary paperwork (like, say, an FBI background check). What both Republicans and Democrats know is that the longer this takes, and the more paperwork that is submitted, the more likely that red flags will pop up, and the nomination will be scuttled. Hence one side's desire to ram the nomination through and the other side's interest in slowing things down.

Next up is Secretary of Education-designate Linda McMahon, who is also wrestling with her paperwork. It's hard to imagine she won't be confirmed, since she served in a Senate-approved post in the first Trump administration (Administrator of the Small Business Administration). However, the missing paperwork, in her case, is financial disclosures and conflict of interest forms. And the McMahon family is currently in the midst of a legal mess involving their finances, and potential participation in illegal activities. So, it's at least possible McMahon won't be able to thread the disclosure needle.

And finally, there is HHS Secretary-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where the news is most slight, and yet might be most suggestive. This week, he has started contacting Democratic senators and asking for meetings to discuss their votes on his nomination. Careful readers might notice that the Republicans have 53 seats in the Senate, and only 50 votes (plus President of the Senate J.D. Vance's tiebreaker) are needed for approval. The fact that Junior is going to Democrats, tinfoil hat in hand, is a pretty good indicator that he doesn't have the necessary number of Republican votes. Exactly how short he is, only he and John Thune know.

Note that this is not necessarily a comprehensive list; just the folks for whom there was adverse news yesterday. We think that Secretary of Defense-designate Pete Hegseth, in particular, is going to be tough for Trump to get over the hump. (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