Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Note: The first item could be disturbing to some people as it describes sexual activity. Reader discretion advised. To skip over it, click on the Don Lemon link above. That item is also disturbing, but for other reasons.
More Epstein Files
Be careful what you wish for, etc. It is likely that the immigration "surge" in Minneapolis was a ploy by Donald Trump to distract people from the Epstein files. But that has gotten so far out of hand that the Department of Justice was forced to release another 3 million Epstein files to distract people from Minneapolis. Maybe they could take turns: Epstein news Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, Minneapolis news Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. That would make people dizzy and stop paying attention. Church news on Sunday for the faithful. (see next item).
Deputy AG Todd Blanche said that Friday's Epstein dump is the last tranche. In addition to the 3 million pages, it also contains 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. It could be a while before reporters have sifted through all of it for tidbits that tell what Epstein was really up to and what escaped the notice of the censors. There is nothing more. Please move on.
There are many reports about the Epstein files all over the media now. One of the most detailed (and most graphic) is this one from the CNN staff. Many of the links in it are to documents in the dump that are quite disturbing. You have been warned.
There is a file from the FBI with a list of over a dozen sexual assault allegations related to Trump in the dump. The FBI did not verify the tips and some may have been secondhand. Trump has denied them all. Also in the files was a document stating that one of Epstein's victims told the FBI that Ghislaine Maxwell "presented" her to Trump at a party, describing her "accolades," and suggested that she was "available." She went on a tour of Mar-a-Lago with Trump. She later told the FBI that nothing happened between her and Trump. Maybe she just wasn't his "type."
A heavily redacted FBI memo describes a letter from a lawyer that contains the sentence fragment: "... attorney to Jane Doe contact the Public Access Line unit to report the sexual exploitation and rape of a minor child of 13 years of age by Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, case ..." It goes on to describe how the child, who had just finished 7th grade, took a bus trip from the Midwest to NYC and was contacted by [BLACKED OUT] and invited to a party. The salient part of the memo is reproduced below:
It should be noted that the 1994 memo is basically a transcription of what "Jane Doe"'s lawyer told the FBI. The FBI apparently did not verify it, although given this kind of allegation, perhaps it should have at least tried. It is also worth noting that the law passed by Congress stipulated that the only allowable redactions are the names of the victims. Far more than that has been redacted here. But you ain't seen nothin' yet.
Jane Doe was supposed to appear at a news conference in Nov. 2016, but was afraid to show up. Her lawyer at the time was Lisa Bloom, a very high-profile lawyer and the daughter of Gloria Allred, another very high-profile lawyer. If the Democrats capture the House in November, they might wish to subpoena the original unredacted document and have a pleasant chat with the lawyer who filed the report, under oath. Maybe a chat with Bloom might also be productive.
The statute of limitations for rape in New York State is complicated. In some cases, there is none, in others, it may be as short as 5 years. It depends on the facts of the case (ages of the people involved, whether force was used, etc.). NY AG Letitia James would probably know. Maybe somebody should ask her.
Please note that the document dump was accompanied by the message: "This production may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos, as everything that was sent to the FBI by the public was included in the production that is responsive to the Act."
Several wealthy and powerful men are mentioned. In one e-mail, Epstein wrote that he had helped Bill Gates acquire drugs "in order to deal with the consequences of sex with Russian girls." It is not known if Epstein ever sent this or he planted it on his computer to blackmail Gates, who was surely capable of getting any medicine he might need on his own. Gates vigorously denies the accusations.
The files also showed that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick was planning a visit to Epstein's island in 2012. They had considerable contact through intermediaries. Why through intermediaries? Did Lutnick know even then that direct correspondence with Epstein might not look good if it ever surfaced? Unlike Gates, Lutnick did not vigorously deny visiting the island, but simply said he hadn't see the documents.
Other men implicated, at least peripherally, are Richard Branson, Elon Musk, and Steve Tisch. Epstein wrote to Branson noting that they were both in interested in women. Branson once wrote to Epstein: "Any time you're in the area would love to see you. As long as you bring your harem!" Multiple messages between Musk and Epstein showed them comparing schedules for a potential visit by Musk. In one e-mail, Musk wrote: "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?" Steve Tisch, the co-owner of the New York Giants football team, once met a woman through Epstein. He asked: "Pro or civilian?" In another e-mail, Tisch responded to an invitation to Epstein's mansion with "Can I expect 'trouble'?" Epstein replied that he could bring an unnamed Russian woman if he wanted to.
Leon Black, a private equity billionaire, is a special case. He made payments, labeled "gifts," to women in Epstein's orbit. They totaled over $600,000. He also paid Epstein $170 million for tax and estate planning services. To us, seems a bit much. Couldn't Epstein just use TurboTax for $150 for complex returns?
There is an undated document in the files showing people in Epstein's inner circle, but many of them are blacked out. A draft 60-count indictment against four people from the Southern District of Florida from the 2000s is included. It relates to people who had procured girls for prostitution. The indictment was never executed and the individuals were never charged. The document mentions 19 girls, some as young as 14, by their pseudonyms. They would travel to meet Epstein for "lewd conduct" and be paid several hundred dollars for their work. Why Alex Acosta, then the U.S. attorney on the case, never brought charges is not explained. His work on the labor front was apparently something Trump liked, since Trump appointed him to be secretary of labor in Trump v1.0.
The release contains many "302 memos." This is FBI-speak for notes agents take when interviewing anyone. They are simply summaries of what was told to the agent. The FBI does not go out an verify every one unless there is a reason to do so. Here is an example of one of them. It is a bit difficult to determine what it is about. The names of Epstein and Steve Bannon do appear on the first page, though.
Again, note that the law allows the redaction of only victims' names, nothing else. There must have been a long discussion of victims that day. However, although a large amount of material that has been redacted that was forbidden by law from being redacted, some victims have already noticed that their names were not always redacted and have appeared in multiple places. The former was certainly intentional to protect perps but the latter was just due to incompetence.
Some of the 302 memos have large redactions but also portions where only the names have been redacted. Click here for one that is heavily redacted but also contains sections with the details of what a "massage session" with Epstein was like. If you don't like reading about things like "cocaine," "breasts," "dildo," and "ejaculation," reader discretion once again advised.
So, are we done, case dismissed? Not everyone thinks so. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) went on CNN's State of the Union yesterday and told Dana Bash: "We are witnessing a full-blown cover-up." Here is a video of Bash interviewing Raskin.
This is probably just the tip of the iceberg. No doubt, as reporters and others keep digging, more "interesting" material will emerge. And it is probably the case that, as Raskin believes, there is a great deal of material that has not been released. (V)
Journalist Don Lemon Arrested by Federal Agents
For 17 years, Don Lemon wa a journalist for CNN. On April 24, 2023, he was fired by the network. His fireable offense was saying that Nikki Haley is past her prime, which is almost certainly true in the sense she is very unlikely to ever again to have a job as important as governor of a state or ambassador to the United Nations. But for the political correctness police, this was a no-no and he was out.
Now Lemon is an independent journalist with his own online show on YouTube. On Jan. 18, 2026, he followed a protest group into a church in St. Paul, MN, to cover the protest. The group was planning to protest the fact that one of the pastors was an ICE agent. On Friday, Lemon was arrested and charged with violating federal law. Pam Bondi ordered the arrest and then bragged about in on eX-Twitter:
The first question Lemon's arrest raises is: Why did it take 12 days to arrest him? It turns out that Bondi first went to a magistrate judge to get a warrant for his arrest and the judge refused. Then she went to the chief judge of the Minnesota Federal District Court who said there was no evidence Lemon had committed a crime. So, in desperation, she went to a grand jury to get an indictment, and that took some time. The judges' refusals could have been a hint to her that when a journalist covers news, even news she doesn't like, it is not a crime.
It is very unlikely that this case will ever get to a jury, as the judge on the case is likely to throw it out, but that is not the point. The point is to intimidate journalists who speak truth to power. Bondi and her boss don't like that, so somebody had to be the poster child for the consequences of reporting on things Donald Trump doesn't want in the news. Lemon is Black, so that was one strike against him to start with. His being fired by a news organization (albeit for offending the left) was another strike. Being at a protest that interfered with a church service was strike three. So Bondi called him out.
Lemon immediately hired one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the country, Abbe Lowell. Reporters who work for news organizations that will pay for their defense probably won't scare easily, but reporters who don't work for a powerful news organization and can't pay a high-powered lawyer themselves may think twice about writing stories that Bondi won't like. That is the point, of course. Lemon, himself was not cowed at all. After his arrest, he said: "I will not stop now. I will not stop ever. In fact, there is no more important time but right now, this very moment, for a free and independent media that shines a light on truth and holds those in power accountable."
CNN was furious, even though Lemon no longer works for the network. It issued a statement reading: "The FBl's arrest of our former CNN colleague Don Lemon raises profoundly concerning questions about press freedom and the First Amendment. The Department of Justice already failed twice to get an arrest warrant for Don and several other journalists in Minnesota, where a chief judge of the Minnesota Federal District Court found there was 'no evidence' that there was any criminal behavior involved in their work." The network also said it would be following the case closely.
Gabe Rottman, VP of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press told CNN: "Historically, the limited number of cases that have been brought against a journalist documenting a protest on private property have been handled as trespass cases at the state level. Those charges are almost always dropped, or if the cases go to trial, the journalists typically prevail."
Amnesty International put out a statement saying: "Journalism is not a crime. Reporting on protests is not a crime. Arresting journalists for their reporting is a clear example of an authoritarian practice." Other freedom-of-the-press groups are also putting out similar statements. (V)
Government Shuts Down--Again
All shutdowns are equal but some shutdowns are more equal. The one that began Saturday morning at 00:00:01 EST is in the latter category. With a lot of bad news for Donald Trump coming out of Minnesota—with no end in sight—Trump did something unexpected: He caved to the Democrats on Friday. He agreed to split DHS funding from the rest of the government funding. The Senate, following a bit of bloviating from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), passed five bipartisan bills funding 96% of the government for the rest of the fiscal year but gave DHS only 2 weeks' worth of funding. The vote was 71-29. The so-called "minibus" covers Defense, what is left of Education, Heath and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Transportation.
This is not entirely a done deal because the House was not in session Friday. Consequently, much of the government shut down Saturday morning, but since the government doesn't do much on weekends it wasn't noticed. The House is back in session today and will take up the bills in short order. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has said the Democrats won't vote for the bills, so Speaker Mike Johnson will have to herd the cats to get them through on Republican votes alone. This will test his cat-herding skills to the limit. Jeffries doesn't want to help out for two reasons. First, he wants to put Johnson on the spot, trap him between the Freedom Caucus and the moderate Republicans in swing districts, and watch them tear him to bits. Second, some House Democrats don't want to give DHS even 2 weeks' funding and not playing ball here is a concession to them. However, these Democrats are taking a big risk. If the House doesn't sign off on the Senate bills, Trump might change his mind on the current deal, which strongly favors the Democrats. With Democrats, the enemy of the good isn't the bad, it's the perfect. Getting the Senate bills through puts the Democrats in a very strong position, and doing anything to jeopardize it is political malpractice.
The Republicans currently hold a 218-213 majority in the House, with four vacancies (the seats of former Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA; the late Doug LaMalfa, R-CA; Gov. Mikie Sherrill, D-NJ; and the late Sylvester Turner, D-TX). Turner's seat was filled on Saturday in a special election by Christian Menefee (D-TX), but he won't be seated until the election is certified. If Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) votes against the bills just to make some point, Johnson will have to work hard to earn his keep.
Assuming Johnson can get the bills though, then the fun begins—for the Democrats. They will then be in a win-win situation. They have a list of demands for their votes to fund DHS. If Trump concedes (and make no mistake, they will be negotiating with Trump since Senate Majority "Leader" John Thune, R-SD, has decided that legislating is just not his thing, while Johnson is too weak to lead on anything), they get their demands. A win! If Trump refuses to concede again, DHS (and thus, ICE) will shut down in 2 weeks. Many Democrats would consider that even better than getting their demands met.
In the upcoming negotiation with Trump, Democrats are going to use their well-tested tactic of having their opening bid be the absolute minimum they would accept, and then strategically giving up bits and pieces of it to get a deal. There are better ways to make deals. People have even written books about the art of the deal. Democrats are expected to beg for these minor changes to ICE: (1) officers may not wear masks, (2) officers must wear body cameras, (3) no more roving patrols, and (4) to break into someone's house, a warrant from a Senate-confirmed Art. III judge is needed.
These are mostly focused on procedural matters. Democrats could additionally demand changes that will motivate individual officers to avoid killing people. For example: (1) remove all immunity from officers violating state or federal law; (2) set the death penalty for officers convicted in state or federal court of murder, even while on the job; (3) require ICE and DHS to turn over all evidence requested by a state AG or county DA investigating the commission of state crimes; (4) No ICE within 2 miles of a polling place and (5) require 92 (that's 45 + 47—get it) days of training for officers, including at least one day on the constitutional rights of citizens to observe, record, and protest ICE actions and the criminal and civil exposure officers have for violating these rights. An even stronger demand would be to ban ICE from operating more than 100 miles from the international border. ICE is an immigration agency and there is not a lot of immigration directly into, say, Nebraska. Many more items could be added.
Of course, Trump would blow a gasket when he saw this list. In that case, Democrats could politely reply: "We understand completely. Let's just forget funding DHS altogether and move onto something more important, like getting the rest of the Epstein files out there." Due to the killings in Minneapolis, Democrats have accidentally been put in a very powerful negotiating position, but they are so used to being a weak position and then caving, they don't seem to know how to handle it. (V)
Democrat Pulls Off Massive Upset in Texas Senate Special Election
On Saturday, there was a special election for a vacant state Senate seat in Texas. The election, in SD-9, was semi-pointless since the winner gets to serve only until Jan. 2027—and the Texas legislature will not be in session in 2026 because it meets only in odd-numbered years. So the winner doesn't get to do any legislating, but does get to collect the cushy $7,200 annual salary. Pro-rated, of course.
For an easy $7,200 and no work, the seat was naturally hotly contested. Air Force veteran and union leader Taylor Rehmet (D) battled Trump-endorsed conservative activist Leigh Wambsganss (R) in the Fort Worth-area district. Trump really backed her, posting three bleats to his social-network-site-for-sheep in support of Wambsganss. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R-TX) campaigned for her. Wambsganss also had a massive spending advantage over Rehmet. It should have been easy since Trump won the district by 17 points in 2024 and SD-9 is in Tarrant County, one of the largest red counties in the country.
"Should have" is not the same as "was." Rehmet won 57.2% to 42.8%, a 32-point shift toward the Democrats since 2024 in a deep red county. This is the biggest swing of any special election this cycle. Look:
The average swing has been 17 points. Needless to say, if the Democrats can outperform their 2024 numbers by 17 points in November, there will be blood on the floor, and it will all be red. However, special elections for state legislative seats are low-turnout wonky affairs and one shouldn't put too much faith in them.
Now Wambsganss will have to go back to her day job of being the communications officer at Patriot Mobile, the only Christian conservative wireless provider in the country. And boy can she ever communicate! The main page of the company's site has a video running in a loop. It has clips of soldiers, police officers, fire fighters, and multiple clips of people shooting guns—exactly the kind of information you need when picking a mobile provider. Its stated mission is: "to passionately defend our God-given rights and freedoms, and to glorify God always." The company is apparently so busy communicating with God wirelessly at very high frequencies that it doesn't have time for more earthly matters like protecting customer data from being stolen by hackers. For potential customers who are worried before signing up, there is a FAQ to reassure people, with answers to tough questions like: "How do I know my money isn't going to woke causes since you are on the same towers as the large carriers?" (V)
New Pew Poll Has Trump's Approval at 37%
We mentioned this briefly last week, but a new large-scale poll from Pew Research has largely bad news for Donald Trump. The pollsters talked to 8,512 U.S. adults, a very large sample, from Jan. 20 to Jan. 26. Here are some key results: Trump's approval rating in the poll is at 37%, down from 40% last fall. Only a quarter of the country supports most of his plans. Half the country (50%) says Trump's actions have been worse than expected, while only 21% say they have been better than expected.
Now on to some specific questions:
His best score is on leadership skills, where a mere third of the country thinks he is up to the job and half thinks he is not. On democracy and ethics, about 60% think he is not doing well.
The trend for Trump is down since a year. Here are those trends:
The interesting thing here is the drop among independents and Republicans. They are definitely souring on Trump. Maybe he can turn that around in the next 9 months, but historically that hasn't happened very often. Once the narrative is set, it doesn't change easily. And if he doesn't improve, Trump will be a drag on the ticket in November.
In terms of demographics, 41% of men and just 32% of women approve of the job Trump is doing. Among whites, it is 46%, but among Black voters and Latinos, it is 13% and 26%, respectively. Many of the Black and Latino voters who pulled the lever for Trump in 2024 have pulled back. Trump is strongest among seniors (41%) and weakest among under 30s (30%). Even his support among all Republicans has dropped to 73%, although among conservative Republicans it is at 81%. (V)
Susan Collins Is in a Bind
The ICE surge in Maine is technically over now, but the repercussions will continue until Nov. 3. We are not sure whose idea it was, probably Donald Trump's to punish Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for casting a vote he didn't like. But really, giving up on a Senate seat that is defensible is not a great strategic play. While ICE was around rounding up immigrants and striking fear in the hearts of Mainers (and infuriating Democratic activists), life was disrupted in southern Maine. There was decreased attendance in schools, legal immigrants were afraid to go to work, 200 people were arrested, and more.
Now Collins has a special problem. She is chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. She can personally block the funding for DHS unless everything she wants is in the bill. Democrats are already going after her on that. Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) is now out with her first Senate ad, and it attacks ICE:
In the ad, Mills says that if ICE tries to hurt people in Maine, they will have to go through her first. The ad doesn't name Collins by name—yet. There is plenty of time for that later. Those ads are sure to come. First Mills is planting a flag on her opposition to ICE. No matter what bill the Senate passes, Mills is going to say it does not rein in ICE enough and it is Collins' fault.
Mills' primary opponent, oysterman Graham Platner, also understands the situation. Instead of attacking Mills, he is attacking Collins as well. His strategy, and probably Mills' as well, is to be perceived as the candidate most opposed to ICE. Platner said: "Senator Collins is going to try to use this moment to trick us. To say that she, somehow, used her power to impose upon ICE." He mocked the "pinky promise" Collins received from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to stay out of Maine. He added: "We all know it's nonsense. What she is actually doing is trying to justify to us why she is about to try to give them 9 billion more dollars in funding." Platner called on Collins to cut off all ICE funding.
Primary polls have shown the moderate Mills in the lead, but Platner's much stronger attack on ICE, Noem, and Collins could possibly even the score, at least for now. The primary is June 9, and by then the details of who said exactly what could have faded. Still, in politics, you strike while the iron is hot and Platner did that well. (V)
Tillis Unleashed
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) is not running for reelection. This means Donald Trump's usual way to silence Republican politicians—threaten them with a primary—doesn't work against Tillis, and Tillis knows it. Now he is free to speak his mind and is starting to do it. Trump is not going to like it.
In a long tweet on eX-Twitter, he called Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem sycophants, which he said is worse than "yes-men" (and "yes-women"). He gave as synomyms "toady," "flunky," and "bootlicker." He compared Miller to Grima Wormtongue in the Lord of the Rings books and Noem to Dolores Umbridge in Harry Potter. This is not entirely salient because Umbridge surrounded herself with cats, not dogs, and she never executed any of them.
Tillis also has joined Democrats in calling for Noem to resign or be fired. He said: "What [Noem] has done in Minnesota should be disqualifying. She should be out of a job. It's just amateur-ish. It's terrible. This is amateur hour at its worst."
So far, Tillis hasn't gotten up the nerve to criticize Trump directly, but he will still be senator for another 11 months. Who knows, he might get around to it. He has nothing to lose at this point. (V)
Latino Group Wants First Primary in Nevada
While the midterms are still almost a year away, some folks are already working on the 2028 elections. All of the potential candidates, of course, but also some state parties. In particular, the fight about the order of the primaries is heating up. The problem is the media, which uses the results of the first primary, normally in extremely unrepresentative New Hampshire, to declare a one or two candidates "front runners" and a bunch of others as hopeless losers. Actually, the winner is the favorite of relatively affluent white Boston exurbanites and some crusty white Yankees up north.
The jockeying for position has started already. Each party is free to announce what it wants, of course, but primaries are run by (and paid for by) the states. Caucuses are run by (and paid for by) the parties. Traditionally four small states, one in each region of the country, go before Super Tuesday in early March. This has the advantage of letting unknown candidates become known by simply meeting all the voters. That is impossible in a state like Texas or California.
A major Latino group, Latino Victory, is making a big push to have Nevada go first. The state has a number of advantages. First, It has a low population (3.2 million), so a candidate can meet a nontrivial fraction of them personally in a year of campaigning. Second, practically all the people live in two counties, Clark (2.5 million) and Washoe (520,000), so a candidate need not travel much. Third, it is much more mixed ethnically than New Hampshire, with 51% non-Latino white, 29% Latino, 14% multiracial, 11% non-Latino Black, and 11% Asian. Fourth, it is a working-class state, with many people employed in service industries and mining. It also houses the world's biggest factory, Tesla's gigafactory, which covers an area larger than 100 football fields in Sparks, NV, just east of Reno. If Nevada gets the nod and goes first, Latino candidates, such as Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), a Latino from a neighboring state, is sure to benefit.
Two other states are fighting hard to go first. New Hampshire has a state law saying it most hold the first primary. The secretary of state has the authority to set the date to make sure this happens. Former NH SoS Bill Gardner once said he would hold the primary on Halloween of the previous year if he had to in order to go first. Of course, if some other state(s) passed a similar law, then what?
South Carolina also wants to go first. It also has a distinctive ethnic mix, with about 60% of Democratic voters being Black. That gives a Black candidate a huge leg up, which may be actually be a disadvantage for the Party since that result may not be reproducible in other states in the general election. Also most Black voters, especially women, don't need much urging to get them to vote Democratic, whereas Latinos are more up for grabs and a Latino candidate could help. (V)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones