POTUS Is Furious

That is the headline of yesterday's lead story at Politico. The gist of the story is that even Trump does not believe he can put out the Epstein fire. He said that nothing will be enough to satisfy the leftists and troublemakers causing the uproar. Of course, it is his base causing the uproar. Democrats are mostly watching with enjoyment from the sidelines.

Trump has tried everything he can think of to deflect attention from the problem. According to Sarah Longwell, who has held focus groups with hundreds of Trump voters, they don't trust either party. They think all politicians lie. But they saw Trump as an outsider who would never lie to them. This made up for his many flaws. As long as he was honest with them, everything else was forgiven.

Trump's fundamental problem is that he ran on a promise to release all the "Epstein files" and is now doing everything he can to block their release. To the base, this is unforgivable. The base expected the files to show that many top Democrats were pedophiles, so why is Trump breaking his promise? Is he protecting Democrats? It makes no sense to them and they are very angry. Longwell thinks this will not blow over. The base is very angry and the more it looks like Trump is lying to them, the worse it will get. Here is an image projected on the Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House:

Trump is furious that he is constantly dogged by questions about Epstein. He wanted to spend the summer bragging about the BBB and playing some golf, and not playing defense about a sex offender who was found dead in his jail cell 6 years ago. He is angry with his staff for being unable to tamp this down. He was furious at the media coverage generated when AG Pam Bondi released "new" information—that was already in the public domain. He is also very angry at "allies" like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer, who are calling for Bondi's head on a pike. And he is extremely angry at Rupert Murdoch for letting The Wall Street Journal publish a story about his bawdy birthday card to Epstein.

Everything Trump is doing seems to throw more gasoline on the fire. One probably hopeless idea is drawing Ghislaine Maxwell into the battle as a possible ally—after putting her in prison for 20 years for trafficking underage girls. Why are they doing this and why now? Is this a hail Mary play or what? Politico has four questions about this strategy:

• Why now?: Two weeks ago, Deputy AG Todd Blanche said there was no reason to talk to Maxwell. Now he says there is. She has already testified twice in civil lawsuits, fiercely claiming there was no large-scale sex-trafficking operation. Is this a matter of throwing everything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks? One problem is that DoJ rules state that people asking for a plea deal must disclose all other crimes they have committed or risk losing the benefits of the deal. For Maxwell, this could be a stumbling block and Blanche surely knows this. So why is he even trying now?
  
  
• What new beans could she spill?: The DoJ has thousands of documents about Epstein totalling over 100,000 pages. Over 1,000 FBI agents are poring over them now to remove the ones mentioning Trump so the rest can be released. What could Maxwell possibly tell the DoJ that it doesn't already know? And if there is nothing new she could tell them, how would that put the fire out? And given that the DoJ has called her a confirmed liar many times, even if she had some new details, who would believe her?
  
  
• What's in it for her?: Maxwell is not going to help Trump placate his base without some huge upside for her. There are two ways Trump might try to get her to cooperate, but both have problems. First, the DoJ could file a "Rule 35 motion." This is a request to a federal judge to lower someone's sentence as a reward for cooperating with the government. However, the judge on the case is Paul Englemayer, an Obama appointee whom Trump sees as an enemy. How is he going to convince the judge to do this? The judge will surely want a detailed explanation of what she is going to say and how it helps the application of justice. He is not likely to accept: "This makes Trump's base happy and solves a political problem for him."
  
  Englemayer already asked what information is being sought and why. He also asked Maxwell to state her position. She is not likely to do that before at least an offer is made to her. The judge also asked some of the victims for input.
  
  Alternatively, Trump could pardon Maxwell or commute her sentence, freeing her but not erasing the conviction. He can do this on his own, with no judge involved. But the political blowback would be extreme, especially from Republicans who think that her work as a pimp is despicable beyond belief. Giving a break to a convicted sex offender would send the base into paroxysms of rage. If she named a dozen prominent Democrats, that might help a little, except that all of those still alive would vigorously deny it and probably sue her. Without corroborating evidence, no one would believe her.
  
  Also, Maxwell knows very well that Trump can't be trusted. Suppose she signs some document Blanche prepares and then Trump doesn't follow through with the pardon or commutation? She may be scummy, but she is definitely not stupid and neither are her lawyers. She is going to insist on her lawyers having a properly vetted signed pardon in their office safe before singing like a canary. This would require Trump trusting her. Since neither trusts the other, how could this work?
  
  
• How does this affect the House subpoena?: Yesterday, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued a subpoena for Maxwell to testify before the House. Will this interfere with Blanche's plans? Remember, their goals are different. Comer wants to grandstand and Blanche wants to put the fire out. These are probably contradictory wishes. Oh, and once a person gets before a House committee, everyone on the committee gets to ask questions, including Democrats.
  
  A federal judge will have to approve Comer's subpoena. Will Blanche support or oppose Comer? The judge will surely want to know what legislation Comer was thinking about and how Maxwell's testimony will shape it.
  

None of these questions have easy answers.

Trump is doing other things that show he doesn't know what to do. He had a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Instead of asking Trump if he and Marcos were working on a way to counter China in Asia, or about a trade deal Trump claimed to have closed, reporters wanted to know why Blanche was talking up a deal with Maxwell. Trump claimed he knew nothing about what Blanche was up to. Sure.

One of the many things Trump is trying in order to douse the flames is to release the grand jury transcripts from the mid-2000s. This requires a federal judge to sign off on the release. Yesterday, Florida U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that there are specific rules under which grand jury transcripts can be released and making the president's base happy isn't one of them. He was very clear: "Eleventh circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government's request. The court's hands are tied." Not that the transcripts would have put out the fire anyway, but this looks like a dead end for Trump, which will just make him angrier.

Another thing that made Trump unhappy yesterday was a statement Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein, gave to CNN's Erin Burnett. Burnett asked Epstein how close Trump was to his late brother, who then replied: "They were very close. They were good friends." He also said that Trump was often in Jeff's office. This undercuts Trump's assertion that he barely knew Epstein.

And there were more such statements yesterday. CNN also interviewed Stacey Williams, a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. She said she dated Jeffrey Epstein for 4 or 5 months and that Epstein and Trump were best friends. Williams said the only friend Epstein ever mentioned to her was Trump. Epstein related many funny anecdotes about Trump to Williams. Williams also said Epstein and Trump were very close. Again, there goes Trump's claim of "Which Epstein?"

Of course, you could also go right to the horse's mouth. Epstein might be dead, but film footage of him lives on. Back in 2016, during one of the many depositions he sat for, Epstein was asked if he and Trump were friends, and he conceded they were. Then Epstein was asked if he had "ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" and he pled the Fifth, and for good measure added in the Sixth and Fourteenth. That footage has been public for nearly a decade, but it's gone viral in the last 24 hours, for obvious reasons.

Democrats are starting to get into the act a bit more. Yesterday Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent Pam Bondi a letter with seven recommendations for immediate action. He is ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, so he wants her to follow the money:

1. Investigate the 1000+ wires to Epstein's bank account totalling over $1 billion to find out who sent them and why.
2. Find out why billionaire Leon Black paid Epstein $170 million for tax and estate planning.
3. Check if wires for hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein from Russian banks related to the transport of girls.
4. Subpoena all the biggest banks for all wires they made to Epstein's accounts to see what they were for.
5. Investigate the big banks to see if they followed all the anti-money-laundering laws.
6. Depose all of Epstein's account managers at the banks where he had accounts. Did they follow the KYC laws?
7. Check out the settlement Leon Black made with the AG of the USVI. What is in there?

All well and good, but Wyden sent it to the wrong address! Silly Ron. He sent it to Pam Bondi. It will go directly into her paper shredder. He should have sent it to NY AG Letitia James. Epstein had a mansion in New York and probably had multiple bank accounts there, meaning she has the authority to subpoena the records of those banks. If she tells them she is investigating whether they violated various New York State banking laws, she will definitely get their full attention.

There was also a rather sizable bit of late-breaking news. The House is heading out of town a day early; as we've noted a couple of times, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was trying to avoid any uncomfortable votes before the recess, in hopes this will somehow all die down. Well, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement was wrapping up its pre-recess business yesterday, and then, at the very end of the day, held a surprise vote on a motion to subpoena the Epstein files. The vote was 8-2 in favor, as Republicans Nancy Mace (SC), Scott Perry (PA) and Brian Jack (GA) voted with the five Democrats on the Committee.

Following the vote, a spokesperson for House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) said this means the subpoena must be issued immediately. If so, then Trump will presumably defy it, effectively declaring war against a Congress controlled by his own party. We do not know how this will play out, but we do know that the last thing Richard Nixon did, as he was going down in flames, was unsuccessfully try to fight off demands for information from multiple directions, including Congress. (V & Z)

Democrats Are Struggling with a Possible Government Shutdown

If the government fails to pass a bill funding the government by Oct. 1, it will shut down. Republicans can't solve this using the budget reconciliation process, so they will have to get the Senate Democrats to buy in, otherwise the blue team could filibuster the funding bill(s). Now Democrats are starting to think about what they want in return for their cooperation. This is all very arcane stuff and the public doesn't understand it very well. If the Democrats block the bill(s), they will say: "The Republicans control the whole government so it is up to them to fund it." On rare occasions, it's good to be in the minority.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) does not want to find himself in a situation where the Democratic base is out for a fight with Trump and wants a shutdown to demonstrate that the Republicans can't govern, while his own instincts tell him to avoid a shutdown. He definitely does not want the theme to be "Democrats in disarray," so he has to get all the noses pointing in the same direction and there isn't much time left for nose alignment.

The recent rescissions bill that the Republicans passed is on everyone's mind. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) said: "Why vote for an appropriation bill if two weeks from now they can submit a rescissions package and undo everything that is in the bill? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I am not going to be fooled twice." The now-proven ability of Republicans to retroactively cancel appropriations that already passed Congress is going to make this fight very difficult.

Schumer would prefer a bipartisan process in which the senators work together to produce a mutually agreeable appropriations package. This puts him in direct conflict with OMB Director Russell Vought, who thinks Elon Musk and the DOGEys were cowards for not slashing spending much, much more.

What happened last time is that there were no appropriations on time, so a stop-gap continuing resolution was passed to fund the government for a few weeks. Then another and another until the Democrats caved. Many Democrats don't want to see that movie again. They know how it ends.

Some Democrats want a written agreement that there will be no rescissions and no impoundment. But others are focusing on the idea that Congress, not the Executive Branch (and certainly not Vought) has the power of the purse. Other Democrats are talking about specific policy goodies they want in return for cooperating. They are all over the map on this. (V)

Bove's Nomination to the Third Circuit Clears a Key Hurdle

After tossing Michael Cohen in the garbage, Donald Trump needed a new hatchet man and picked Emil Bove for the job. Bove was #2 on the team that defended Trump in the New York case where Trump was convicted on 34 counts of cooking the books. Trump has now nominated Bove to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in preparation for a potential nomination to the Supreme Court when the next vacancy occurs. Bove is now principal deputy attorney general. He has already demonstrated his bona fides by being the lead player in the corrupt deal to blackmail New York City Mayor Eric Adams into helping round up migrants. The Third Circuit covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Bove was also involved in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. At a meeting in March with DoJ officials, when the possibility was raised that the courts might block Garcia's deportation, Bove swore and said the administration would just ignore the courts.

Bove's fealty is entirely to Trump, not to the Constitution or the law. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called Bove "the extreme of the extreme of the extreme" and "Trump's worst judicial nominee to date." Ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Bove has used his DoJ position "to weaponize the Department of Justice against the president's enemies." A letter from 75 former state and federal judges stated that Bove is not fit to be a federal judge. Another letter from over 900 former DoJ attorneys said the same thing.

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 50-48 to advance his nomination to a floor vote. Every Democrat and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted against the advancement. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) voted "yes" on the procedural vote, despite being concerned, but said she will vote against Bove for confirmation. Even if Murkowski and Collins vote against confirmation, the votes appear to be there.

Here is a little note on upcoming Supreme Court retirements. Everyone is expecting Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to retire next June. However, that might not be correct. Alito is an extreme right-wing Trumper who hates Democrats and clearly wants to retire while Trump is in office and the Republicans control the Senate. He knows that if the Democrats take over the Senate on Jan. 3, 2027, no judicial appointments will be confirmed for 2 years. A Democratic Senate might decide that its role is advise and consent, with an emphasis on the advise part. It could give Trump a list of, say, five judges and announce that any one of them would be confirmed quickly. Anyone else—well, no, forget it. Alito is no gambler and so will almost certainly go back to his beach house to fly his favorite flag before Jan. 3, 2027, probably next June to give the Senate time to process the nomination (which will be a huge fight if it is Bove).

Thomas also hates Democrats and also wants Trump to replace him when the time comes, but he has another factor to consider that Alito doesn't. Alito has been on the Supreme Court for 18 years. As of June 2026, Thomas will have been on the Court for just over 33½ years. On Jan. 3, 2027, it will be 35 years and 72 days. The all-time record is William Douglas' 36 years and 209 days. If Thomas hangs on, he will pass Douglas and become the longest-serving justice in history in May 2028, when Trump will still be president, but there is a small chance the Democrats will control the Senate.

Which is more important to Thomas: being replaced by a Republican president, or showing up all those people who hate him by setting the record for the longest-serving justice in history? Is his true loyalty to himself or to the Republican Party? There is certainly a possibility he will take his chances on control of the Senate next year and decide to stick it to his enemies and not retire until after the term in June 2028. He will turn 80 on June 23, 2028, a nice time to go. If Democrats then control the Senate, the vacancy will continue until Jan. 20, 2029. If Republicans control both the White House and the Senate in 2029, he could yet be replaced by a Republican. This is a gamble Thomas might be willing to take. For these reasons, Alito may be the first to go and Bove could replace him, with Thomas' seat in doubt until later, depending on who controls what and when. (V)

Administration Removes Habba's Court-Appointed Successor

Donald Trump is attempting to corrupt the entire Department of Justice, including the U.S. attorneys. One piece of that was nominating his totally loyal but also totally incompetent personal lawyer, Alina Habba, as U.S. attorney for New Jersey. She was his lead attorney on the New York State bank fraud case brought by NY AG Letitia James and the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll. She lost both cases.

Trump appointed Habba on an interim basis on March 24, but didn't submit the nomination to the Senate for confirmation until July 1. Under federal law, U.S. attorneys can serve in an interim capacity for up to 120 days pending their Senate confirmation. Habba's interim clock ran out on July 22, so federal judges in New Jersey removed her. The courts then installed her top deputy, longtime prosecutor Desiree Leigh Grace, as interim U.S. attorney.

Attorney General Pam Bondi was outraged at the courts doing something that they had the legal authority to do but which Trump didn't like. So, she fired Grace. Both New Jersey senators, Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Andy Kim (D-NJ), were furious. In a joint statement, they wrote: "The firing of a career public servant, lawfully appointed by the court, is another blatant attempt to intimidate anyone that doesn't agree with them and undermine judicial independence." Deputy AG Todd Blanche, also a former Trump personal lawyer, tweeted about the judges: "They forced out President Trump's pick, @USAttyHabba, then installed her deputy, colluding with the NJ Senators along the way. It won't work." This is a blatant lie. The senators had no part in Habba's removal or the judges' choice of a replacement. Booker and Kim were outraged after all this happened.

Habba got a lot of attention for charging Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) and Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) for daring to show up and ask questions at an ICE facility in New Jersey. The charges against Baraka were dropped. McIver pleaded not guilty. Habba's confirmation by the Senate would have been extremely contentious and she might not have been confirmed. (V)

Rand Paul Wants the Pardoned Anthony Fauci Charged with Something

On the way out the door, Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci to prevent Donald Trump from indicting him on some trumped up charge. The pardon may have been signed by an autopen, which is a device that was programmed to exactly duplicate Biden's signature. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wants to test the theory that Biden was incapacitated and the pardon was granted by aides without Biden even knowing about it. Presidents have to sign a vast number of legal documents and if autopens aren't allowed, a court decision to invalidate autopens could definitely hinder future presidents, possibly starting with Donald Trump.

Consequently, Paul has urged the DoJ to indict Fauci for allegedly lying to Congress. Paul said that Fauci testified before Congress that the NIH never funded the virus research in Wuhan, China. Paul believes that the NIH did fund this research. If the Supreme Court rules that documents signed by an autopen don't count, then many documents autosigned by many previous presidents could be declared invalid. Determining which were autosigned would be a nightmare.

Biden has said that he personally approved every document signed by an autopen. A court case would probably turn on two things. First, does an autopen count or must the president personally sign every document? Second, was Biden competent to sign documents? The latter is very tricky since the Constitution does not address the question of whether an incompetent president can sign bills and other documents. If the Supreme Court were to rule that any document signed by a mentally impaired president doesn't count, then a future Democrat AG could challenge every bill Trump signed and possibly get some future Supreme Court to nullify every XO and law Trump signed. This could get very chaotic. (V)

Big Law Caved but Little Law Didn't

In the past 6 months, we have seen one big law firm after another cave to Donald Trump and agree to provide free legal services to clients of his choosing in exchange for the privilege of continuing to exist. In some cases, Trump revoked security clearances from lawyers who needed them to handle national security cases. In other cases, Trump simply announced that the lawyers were forbidden from entering federal property, such as courtrooms. If the firms had fought back, they might have lost on the security clearances because the president probably does have the authority to revoke them at will, but he certainly does not have the authority to simply ban anyone from entering federal property just because he says so. Weighing their options, many firms chose to cave rather than fight cases they could almost certainly win.

The firms caved because they have so much business involving the government that they didn't want to risk hurting their income by fighting Trump, even though they knew they would win in the end. They also knew that promising to spend $[X] million on cases Trump wanted defended meant almost nothing because: (1) Trump has already forgotten about the deal and (2) in a pinch, the firms could hire third-year law students who would get some experience and claim the students worked hundreds of hours @ $5000/hr because Trump was in such a hurry to have his cases go forward.

Interestingly enough, it is the small law firms, sometimes solo lawyers, who are not cowed the way the big white shoe firms have been. A virtual army of small firms and solo practitioners have stepped up to volunteer to take on cases challenging the administration. Many of them have banded together and joined the legal nonprofit "Lawyers for Good Government." These lawyers are open to working pro bono to challenge the administration. For example, when one nonprofit needed help, it issued a plea asking for lawyers who could donate up to 20 hours a week on an upcoming case. More than 80 lawyers volunteered.

Michael Ansell, a solo law practitioner in Morristown, NJ, mostly handles small business disputes. He doesn't have any government contracts Trump could cancel just like that. He recently took on a case in which about 20 community and tribal groups and several cities sued to get money they were owed on account of contracts signed with the Biden administration, but which Trump simply refused to pay out because he didn't want to. There are at least 400 such suits pending now. Ansell is especially interested in taking on cases in which the plaintiff has been denied due process. Trump does not have the authority to cancel contracts just because he doesn't like them or the people being paid. If the government signed a contract with some group and they did the work required, they must be paid. Other solo lawyers and small firms have other interests.

Another legal nonprofit is the Pro Bono Litigation Corps, led by John Marks and Gary DiBianco. It is a small entrant in a field dominated by big nonprofits like the ACLU, Democracy Forward, Protect Democracy, and Public Citizen. Still, there is more than enough work to go around. The small firms have taken the lead on immigration cases. DiBianco said: "If every single immigrant who has a baby in the U.S. has to sue to obtain citizenship, we are happy to create an army of lawyers to represent those people."

Another thing the small firms are doing is helping the big ones. When Perkins Coie sued the DoJ to block Trump's XO against it, 504 small firms signed a friend of the court brief to support Perkins Coie. Only eight of the nation's top 100 law firms signed on, so only the small ones have the guts to stand up to Trump.

Sometimes the small firms have some niche issue they care about. When Karen Burgess, a commercial litigator in Austin, TX, read that her alma mater, Rice University, had been attacked by Trump about its DEI program, she called up its leadership and offered her services to sue the government. She said if Rice ends up in court, "we'll give what we can and be happy to do it." Heidi Burakiewicz has a boutique D.C. firm that specializes in employment law in the federal sector. She has taken on cases in which government employees were simply fired in violation of the law. She said: "I have three daughters. When this is all said and done, I need to look them in the face and know I did everything I could."

It is not only the small firms that are fighting back. There are also some very high-powered lawyers who are helping out as individuals. Norman Eisen, a former Obama administration ethics official, founded the Democracy Defenders Fund, which pays individual lawyers and small firms to take on cases where the people challenging the administration can't afford lawyers. Abbe Lowell is another very well known lawyer who often collaborates with Eisen's group. He said: "When this administration came into power, they were bragging about their strategy to flood the zone. It turns out that the legal community is flooding the zone and they're the ones that can't keep up." (V)

Virginia Is Beginning to Look Like a Disaster for Republicans

The biggest bellwether election this year is the race for governor of Virginia. The New York City race for mayor may get more attention, but that is simply a question of which Democrat will be elected mayor. In Virginia, it is a normal partisan contest featuring Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) vs. Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA).

Earle-Sears is being crushed, and Virginia Republicans are scared. The most recent poll has Spanberger ahead by 12 points with a trendline in her favor. Spanberger has raised $27 million so far and has $15 million in the bank now. In contrast, Earle-Sears has raised only $11 million and has only $4 million in the bank. Earle-Sears is realizing she has a problem, so she fired her campaign manager, Will Archer. None of this looks promising for the GOP.

One Republican consultant moaned that Earle-Sears is acting like she is running for reelection to the House in a safe district rather than opposing an excellent fundraiser in an open-seat race in a bluish state. Some Republican strategists are worried that if the narrative is that Earle-Sears will be crushed, many Republican voters will stay home, dragging down the rest of the ticket. The lieutenant governor is elected separately from the governor, and Earle-Sears could take down the Republican nominee, radio host John Reid. In the race for AG, former state Del. Jay Jones (D) is leading the current AG, Jason Miyares (R), 47% to 38%. Earle-Sears' lackluster campaign could take down all Republicans running statewide and locally as well.

Some Republican strategists are urging Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) to take over Earle-Sears' campaign. He might not want to be too associated, however, with a sinking ship because that could impact his likely 2028 presidential run. Having other Republicans later say "Youngkin took over the campaign for his successor and she was crushed" is not a recommendation for him. He might well prefer to stay out of it and let her go down rather than tarnish his own reputation. If he indeed stays out, Earle-Sears is looking more and more like a lost cause. (V)

---

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