A few weeks ago, when we were waiting for the Circuit Court of Appeals to issue its ruling on a challenge to Trump’s tariffs, I did this video providing my prediction for the way that Trump hoped to get the Supreme Court to uphold his claimed unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

On Friday, the court issued its ruling.

Seven judges joined in a per curiam opinion basically ruling that IEEPA, the basis Trump used to impose the tariffs in question, did not authorize the fentanyl-related and trade deficit tariffs in question. Three of those judges — a Poppy Bush, an Obama, and a Biden appointee — joined in a concurring opinion written by another Biden appointee, Tiffany Cunningham, which held that IEEPA doesn’t permit the President to impose any tariffs. And three judges — two George W appointees and an Obama appointee — joined in Obama appointee Richard Taranto’s dissent arguing that IEEPA did give the President authority enough to impose the tariffs before the court (the remainder of the judges on the per curiam were a Clinton appointee and two Obama ones).

While the court remanded the case to the Court of International Trade to adjust to SCOTUS’ recent rulings against universal injunctions (meaning CIT would have to certify a class of importers who qualify for relief), it basically froze its ruling entirely until October 14 to give both parties a chance to appeal.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate through October 14, 2025, during which the parties may file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If, within that period, any party notifies the Clerk in writing that it has filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, the Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate pending (1) the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari or (2) a judgment of the Supreme Court if certiorari is granted. While the issuance of the mandate is withheld, the United States Court of International Trade shall take no further action in this case.

Now, as Scott Bessent made clear in that video, the plan from the Administration was always to delay a SCOTUS hearing until October so that by the time it ruled in January, the country would become so reliant on tariffs that SCOTUS would uphold the tariffs even if it recognized they were unlawful.

Since Friday, Trump has been engaged in his typical ranting, first repeating claims already made that if he lost the ability to arbitrarily destroy the US economy it would, “destroy the United States of America.” Then, Trump moved onto his bullshit invocation of partisanship, claiming that “a Radical Left group of judges didn’t care” that if he couldn’t bring in the “TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS” he falsely claimed he had brought in, then, “our Country would be completely destroyed.”

But then today Trump added an additional ploy: urgency.

Lying this time that his tariffs were bringing in $15 trillion of investments, Trump wailed that “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!!” because if  “a Radical Left Court” were allowed to terminate his tariffs, than the US would become the “Third World Nation” Trump is intent on making it.

Not only is this tweet financial fraud on a massive scale — none of the deals involve any enforceable investments, much less on a scale that keeps doubling with each passing day.

But it makes no postural sense. The tariffs will remain in place until at least October, just like Bessent wanted, unless the plaintiffs find a basis to appeal. And even then, it would be Trump’s far right SCOTUS making the decision, not the mixed group of appointees at the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The biggest reason to think the “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!!” is that Congress is coming back and will have to pass a budget to deal with the destruction wreaked by Trump’s Big Ugly Bill if it understands that these tariffs are illusory, even while the tariffs themselves will continue to destroy small and even larger businesses.

Or perhaps more importantly, Congress is coming back with further evidence that Trump’s policies are deeply unpopular. Trump may feel the need to stave off the kind of rebellion we have yet to see from the captive right wing majorities on the Hill.

Whatever the reason, it represents a tactical flip-flop from the strategy Bessent laid out just weeks ago.

The other day, Axios posted a ridiculous column (with Mike Allen as the first byline) beginning to lay the groundwork for Trump to repackage imminent failure on Ukraine. It starts by allowing senior White House officials anonymously and vaguely blame Europeans for Trump’s failure to craft a deal.

Frustrated Trump aides contend the blame should fall on European allies, not on Trump or even Russian President Vladimir Putin.

All three bases for that blame in the column are ridiculous:

• “White House officials are losing patience with European leaders, whom they claim are pushing Ukraine to hold out for unrealistic territorial concessions by Russia.”
• “U.S. officials believe [Countries besides the UK and France] want the U.S. to bear the full cost of the war, while putting no skin in the game themselves.”
• Europeans aren’t prepared to add sanctions against Russia, even though, “European countries are already working on a new set of sanctions against Russia.”

What appears to have happened is that Mike Allen let a bunch of White House officials make ridiculous claims with no pushback.

The latter half of the column (Barak Ravid is the second byline) ends with a description of another pointless Steve Witkoff meeting:

The latest: On Friday, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and Zelensky’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak met in New York.

They discussed the potential Zelensky-Putin meeting and Yermak invited Witkoff for a first visit to Kyiv, but no significant progress was made, a source with knowledge of the meeting said.

The story comes after three more stories documenting how fucking incompetent Witkoff is. On Thursday, the Atlantic described how Putin confused Witkoff.

utin told Witkoff that, in return, Russia would be willing to give up its legal claim to two territories in southern Ukraine, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, that Russia has partially occupied since its February 2022 invasion. Witkoff, according to the U.S. and European officials, entertained this proposal. But the question of what would become of the thousands of Russian soldiers stationed in those regions was never addressed, the officials told us. Their continued presence would be a nonstarter for Ukraine, but Putin conveniently left the matter out, and Witkoff never asked.

This became apparent to European officials in their discussions with Trump-administration officials following the meeting in Moscow. European officials were “confused about the phrasing,” as one European official put it, of what Putin and Witkoff had tentatively agreed to. They made calls to their American counterparts and warned that if Russia wasn’t required to withdraw from Ukrainian territory, it would almost certainly launch more attacks when the opportunity arises.

Asked about any confusion surrounding Witkoff’s discussions, a White House official said that Trump and his national-security team continue to engage with Russian and Ukrainian officials, but that “it is not in the national interest to further negotiate these issues publicly.”

[snip]

Putin, a former Russian intelligence officer skilled in the art of mixed messages, views conquest of Ukraine as essential to his goal of restoring Russia to its Soviet-era glory. And European officials said they fear that Witkoff’s limited knowledge of the conflict’s deep history is a major vulnerability. Witkoff, a real-estate executive and longtime friend of Trump’s, is seen as a shrewd businessman and one of the few people in Trump’s inner circle who truly speaks for the president. He assumed the role of envoy, however, with no prior government or diplomatic experience.

That same day, Reuters provided a similarly comical description of how Witkoff got played, adding the detail that Witkoff had no notetaker with him in Russia.

On an August 7 call with several European leaders, Witkoff indicated that Putin was willing to withdraw from the Ukrainian regions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in return for Kyiv ceding Donetsk and Luhansk, according to a source familiar with the exchange.

The proposal startled many of those on the call, since it departed sharply from their own assessments of Putin’s position, said four people with knowledge of the discussions, including U.S and European officials who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Witkoff appeared to change his account the next day. In a call convened by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio with European national security advisers, the envoy said Putin was not in fact offering to withdraw from the two territories in question, according to one of the sources.

Instead, U.S. officials indicated on the call Putin had signaled lesser concessions to Washington, including that he would not demand the West formally recognize Zaporizhzhia and Kherson as Russian, said a separate U.S. official.

Reuters couldn’t independently determine what was said in the Moscow meeting.

Witkoff, a real estate magnate with no background in diplomacy, broke with standard protocol by going to the meeting without a State Department notetaker and thus left without a record of Putin’s precise proposals, said one source with knowledge of internal administration dynamics.

A Politico story the next day generated a full-fledged social media attack on Felicia Schwarz, because she highlighted the many bozo anecdotes about Witkoff …

Trump’s unconventional fixer has met Putin five times over six months, but he has yet to translate his access to the Russian leader into any breakthroughs on Ukraine.

There were many barriers to the summit in Anchorage yielding results — Putin’s unwillingness to make significant concessions to end his war against Ukraine the major one, but many of those familiar with Witkoff’s role in the negotiations with Russia say he has made talks more difficult.

[snip]

“He’s kind of a rogue actor,” said a U.S. official familiar with Witkoff’s diplomatic style. “He talks to all these people, but no one knows what he says in any of these meetings. He will say things publicly but then he changes his mind. It’s hard to operationalize that.”

Witkoff’s Washington office is sparsely staffed, and short on people with Russia expertise or experienced in complex diplomatic negotiations. And he has refused to do typical consultations with Russia and Ukraine experts in and outside of government, according to the five people familiar with internal discussions.

[snip]

His staff, to the extent he has any, often doesn’t know where he is or what he is doing, according to four people familiar with the dynamics of the office. They said he spends most of his time at his office in the White House, while the rest of his team is at the State Department.

“The thing is, Witkoff isn’t consistently engaged. He will pop in for a visit to Vladimir Putin, say a bunch of stuff, not tell anyone what really happened and then just fuck off to his life again. Meanwhile, the Russians are talking to you about how ‘Witkoff says…’ and you don’t know whether they’re right or not, but you can’t get a readout from the Russians,” the U.S. official said.

JD Vance wrote a 350-word Xitter post accusing Schwarz — whose described sources include European, Russian, and US sources — of participating in a foreign influence operation, an accusation that might serve to rationalize an attempt to spy on her.

This story from Politico is journalistic malpractice. But it’s more than that: it’s a foreign influence operation meant to hurt the administration and one of our most effective members.

Notice how all of the people attacking Steve are on background? That means it’s two or three deep staters who are angry that Witkoff has succeeded where they’ve failed.

You know what this “reporter” left out to make room for anonymous quotes?

The full quote from the sitting vice president, on the record.

A quote from the secretary of the state, on the record.

A quote from Jared Kushner, on the record.

The full quote from the UK’s Jonathan Powell, one of the most respected national security people in the Western World, who defended Steve vigorously from these malicious smears.

The person who wrote this garbage is @felschwartz. Aside from the failure to include on the record information directly contradicting her reporting, I wonder if she ever asked herself why these anonymous sources came to her at this moment with this particular story. They have an agenda to blow up the president’s efforts to make peace, and they saw her as a useful vessel to launder garbage into the conversation, truth be damned.

There are two possible explanations: Felicia is just not very smart, and allowed herself to be used by deep state con men. Or she’s in on it, and used her position to willingly participate in a literal foreign influence operation. Either way, it’s disgraceful.

To set the record straight: Steve Witkoff is an invaluable member of our team. He did not mislead anyone on what the Russians told him and what the Russians conceded. (Trust me, I’ve seen the intel.) The fruits of his negotiations are that we have narrowed the list of open issues in the Russia-Ukraine war to a set of clearly defined issues–specifically, security guarantees and territorial concessions.

Maybe we make peace, and maybe we don’t. If we do, it will be because Steve Witkoff and the President of the United States worked their tails off, in the face of outright lies from the mainstream press.

Remember: as JD claims he knows better than Russian experts, Tulsi Gabbard is withholding their own intelligence on Russia even from Five Eyes partners. And Tulsi purged the top Russian expert who largely prepared the Alaska meeting over John Ratcliffe’s support by stripping her security clearance.

In the days leading up to President Donald Trump’s Aug. 15 Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the CIA’s senior-most Russia experts worked grueling hours, helping Trump and his team prepare for high-stakes diplomacy over Ukraine and making sure they were adequately briefed, according to a former agency colleague.

Four days later, the CIA officer — whom The Washington Post is not naming for her protection — was at work at the spy agency’s Langley headquarters when she was abruptly ordered to report to the security office. She was informed that her clearance to look at classified material was being stripped. In a span of minutes, her 29-year career in public service was essentially over.

The officer had been expecting an imminent move to Europe to take up a prestigious assignment approved by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Instead, she became the latest casualty of a widening cull by Trump and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, fueled at times by far-right activist Laura Loomer, targeting national security professionals whom they deem to have engaged in “politicization or weaponization of intelligence to advance personal, partisan, or non-objective agendas,” according to Gabbard’s Aug. 19 memo announcing the revocation at Trump’s direction of security clearances.

Jared Kushner’s endorsement of Witkoff may suggest the fondness for Witkoff have more to do with plans to forcibly remove the population of Gaza so Kushner can turn it into a golf resort.

A postwar plan for Gaza circulating within the Trump administration, modeled on President Donald Trump’s vow to “take over” the enclave, would turn it into a trusteeship administered by the United States for at least 10 years while it is transformed into a gleaming tourism resort and high-tech manufacturing and technology hub.

The 38-page prospectus seen by The Washington Post envisions at least a temporary relocation of all of Gaza’s more than 2 million population, either through what it calls “voluntary” departures to another country or into restricted, secured zones inside the enclave during reconstruction.

Those who own land would be offered a digital token by the trust in exchange for rights to redevelop their property, to be used to finance a new life elsewhere or eventually redeemed for an apartment in one of six to eight new “AI-powered, smart cities” to be built in Gaza. Each Palestinian who chooses to leave would be given a $5,000 cash payment and subsidies to cover four years of rent elsewhere, as well as a year of food.

[snip]

On Wednesday, Trump held a White House meeting to discuss ideas for how to end the war, now approaching the two-year mark, and what comes next. Participants included Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special presidential envoy Steve Witkoff; former British prime minister Tony Blair, whose views on Gaza’s future have been solicited by the administration; and Trump’ son-in-law Jared Kushner, who handled much of the president’s first-term initiatives on the Middle East and has extensive private interests in the region.

No readout of the meeting or policy decisions were announced, although Witkoff said the night before the gathering that the administration had “a very comprehensive plan.”

Remember, the Emirates were the vehicle via which Kirill Dmitriev was pitching bribes for sanctions relief in the first place, back in 2017 (in part, to one of Kushner’s best buddies).

JD is probably right: The Europeans and Americans who actually care about Ukraine seem intent on exposing Witkoff for the clown he is.

But it’s happening even as Trump is preparing to blame Europe for his own urgent need to capitulate to Putin.

[NB: check the byline, thanks. /~Rayne]

I’ve been sick with COVID this past week, missing the first classes of the fall semester.

I was exposed by a cancer patient who finished a second round of chemotherapy earlier this month. They weren’t vaccinated within the last year because they were undergoing chemo.

They were exposed after Saturday evening mass at their Catholic church in Florida, where others around them were likely not vaccinated, and definitely unmasked, unlike the cancer patient. A dementia patient who refused to mask was the vector between the congregation and the cancer patient.

The cancer patient is still recovering and now at about 90% of their capacity. They’re moving very slowly, thinking just as slowly. They can’t be left alone because they don’t have the reaction time they used to have.

I’m about 95% recovered, still have some sinus congestion and lingering crud in my chest. My ribs and my throat feel still feel bruised from hacking up my lungs so hard earlier this week.

What I’m not certain I’ll recover from is the trauma of having to check my father the cancer patient for a pulse last week when he collapsed on the kitchen floor, reviving him, getting him up and moving and into my car so I could rush him from their remote home to an urgent care facility more than 30 minutes away.

I didn’t think to put a mask on him or a mask on myself at the time because I was worried something had gone very wrong after my dad’s two-year fight with cancer. I was worried about the monsoon-like storm I had to drive through to get to urgent care. I thought erroneously he had recovered from COVID and wasn’t contagious because he hadn’t had a fever and he hadn’t been coughing.

So I unintentionally hot boxed my dad’s COVID-laden exhalations in my car for 30 minutes trying to save my father. I’d do it again if it came down to it but I should never have had to.

This country has been deeply damaged enough by the anti-vaccine movement since the COVID pandemic began; it shouldn’t have to face worse.

~ ~ ~

By now you’ve read Peterr’s Thursday post about the government’s internecine warfare at the Centers for Disease Control and the excision of director Susan Monarez, followed by the protest resignations of senior CDC staff in support of Monarez. The senior staff who resigned are:

• Demetre Daskalakis, former director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
• Debra Houry, former chief medical officer and deputy director for program and science
• Daniel Jernigan, former director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases
• Jennifer Layden, former director of office of public health data, science, technology

Each of these individuals has a deep background and education in medicine, healthcare, or public health. None of then should have been expected compromise themselves to support our nation’s public health.

None of them should have been treated so shabbily by RFK Jr.’s shit-tastic management of HHS. It’s not at all hyperbole to call it shit-tastic; I strongly recommend listening to The New York Times’ podcast interview with Demetre Daskalakis because it will rid you of any doubt the label is deserved.

Here’s an excerpt I found particularly telling:

DASKALAKIS: Yeah. So this was not related to ACIP, the announcement by the Secretary to change the childhood schedule. I learned about the change of the childhood schedule on X.

ABRAMS: You learned about it on social media —

DASKALAKIS: Yes, ma’am.

ABRAMS: — like the rest of us.

DASKALAKIS: That is correct.

ABRAMS: Wow.

DASKALAKIS: So I was sitting in a meeting with senior leaders at CDC. And as I was sitting there talking about the outbreaks that I was managing, my phone blew up with, “I didn’t know you guys were changing the children’s schedule.”

ABRAMS: People texting you?

DASKALAKIS: Yeah.

ABRAMS: Wow.

DASKALAKIS: Not from HHS, people in the world. Because they saw —

ABRAMS: People in the world, your friends and family or whoever seeing this and being like, this doesn’t sound like you.

DASKALAKIS: Correct. So we then asked the question, what’s going on? Can we see some kind of documentation? Because they were like, implement the change. But we’ve never seen anything in writing, so we asked if we could see the supporting data that led to the decision. And we were told no.

ABRAMS: Just flat out no?

DASKALAKIS: Flat out no.

ABRAMS: But can I ask you, did you ever actually have a conversation with Kennedy about any of this or any of his senior staffers?

DASKALAKIS: No.

ABRAMS: Or is it just that —

DASKALAKIS: No.

ABRAMS: No communication.

DASKALAKIS: No.

ABRAMS: Did you ever try?

DASKALAKIS: Yes.

ABRAMS: And what would happen?

DASKALAKIS: So we offered to do briefings when he first started. I think some people were able to brief some lower level staff, but not staff that were Secretary Kennedy’s staff. So no one from my center has ever briefed the Secretary.

ABRAMS: On anything.

DASKALAKIS: Correct, on anything.

ABRAMS: So basically, don’t have a line into RFK, and he’s not seeking out your advice or the advice of people who are theoretically supposed to advise him on things like this. How did you feel about that at the time?

DASKALAKIS: I felt that this was highly atypical, that we weren’t able to share our expertise up the chain to be able to provide information that could be meaningful and thought process. And so what I kept thinking was, we’re not doing this, but there sure is a point of view up there. I wonder who’s doing it.

My job is to make sure that we’re giving good science so people can make good decisions. And if I can’t make sure that science is untouched by non-scientific influence, I cannot say that I’m doing my job.

I believe that CDC science is going to be compromised by HHS. And if that science becomes biased, if it gets unduly influenced, then I can’t have my name on that science as something that I think should be used to make important decisions for people’s lives.

Again, I strongly recommend listening to this podcast. The other disturbing facet is the way in which Abrams just plows on; it could be an artifact of editing, but it could be another of the many ways in which media has not paused and shouted at the public how disturbing and inappropriate are RFK Jr.’s and Trump’s management of public health, in a misguided effort to remain neutral about a subject which isn’t and can’t be neutral at all.

How can a US media outlet be neutral in the face of what looks increasingly like an occupation of government agencies by hostile forces? In the case of the CDC under RFK Jr.’s HHS, it’s damaging the administration of vaccinations to the entire country while undermining the nation’s ability to respond to pandemic and bioterrorism, not to mention its ability to safely provide basic healthcare. No one will be unaffected; no one can be neutral.

~ ~ ~

I’m not kidding when I say our healthcare is now utterly compromised. Our first responders and healthcare providers can’t be assured of necessary vaccinations. From an ER doctor on Mastodon:

This is absolute bullshit.

One of the biggest purveyors of anti-vaccine propaganda, one without any healthcare education and training, has decided the persons most likely to be exposed to diseases on a daily basis are no longer eligible for COVID vaccinations if they do not have a limited number of pre-existing chronic health problems. From Jen Bendery on Bluesky:

(For the record, my autoimmune disorder which has cost me lung capacity, is not on this list. I am not eligible for another COVID shot until I turn 65.)

This is a recipe for disaster. Not only are rural hospitals at risk because of cuts to Medicare under Trump’s Big Fugly Bill, all hospitals are at risk if their staff can’t be vaccinated readily in the face of a new COVID wave.

If my father were to become sick again and collapse like he did, could he be assured there would be healthcare personnel ready to receive and treat him? Or might the healthcare system be overwhelmed and triage him to the very end of the line?

The same goes for any of the rest of us, really. How can anyone in the US be assured the healthcare system will be able to respond if RFK Jr. is allowed to continue to hack away at it without supporting data, without support by seasoned, qualified professionals, without adequate oversight by Congress?

~ ~ ~

Of the many things that raced through my mind as I tried to revive my dad was the thought we had not talked about DNR status.

I’m pretty sure my dad and mom have both indicated on healthcare POAs they are DNR under certain conditions.

What happens, though, when one of them collapses at home? Should I have left him on the floor while ensuring his comfort?

Obviously I didn’t do that.

But a little over a week later I can’t help wonder if RFK Jr. has now forced DNR on swaths of Americans, and we’re already DNR where we are in our own homes whether we realize it or not.

If our healthcare system collapses because of his anti-vaccine and anti-healthcare regime, is he not assuring our healthcare system cannot resuscitate many of us?

How would this be different under a hostile foreign occupation?

National Guard in DC fighting crime, drugs, and terrorism

Watching the members of the National Guard being deployed in DC has been . . . painful. I’m not talking about the assault on democracy, as bad as that is, but the toll this deployment must be taking on the members of the Guard themselves. As a pastor, I’ve had countless members of the National Guard in my congregations. They’re the modern version of the Minutemen, practicing on the weekends every so often, ready to go at a moment’s notice when the need arises. And when the need passes, they go home.

Now imagine that you are one of these members of the Guard who has been deployed in DC, and you’re about to head back home. Then imagine the conversation you’re going to have with your kid . . .

Kid: Dad, what happened on your deployment?
Dad (looking down at his feet): Oh, you know. We went and did our thing, then came home.
Kid: How many terrorists did you shoot?
Dad: It wasn’t that kind of mission.
Kid: Did you blow up somebody’s headquarters?
Dad: Uh, no.
Kid: Then what *did* you do? Is it so secret you can’t tell me?
long pause
Dad (leaning in really close, and whispering): If I tell you, you can’t tell anyone. Promise?
Kid (excited): Promise!
Dad (dramatically looking left and right, to see who might be listening): We picked up . . . trash.
long pause as the Kid looks at Dad
Kid (grinning): Ok, you got me. Seriously, what did you do?
Dad: I’m serious. We. Picked. Up. Trash.
Kid (grin fades to a frown): Trash? Like you put on a day-glo orange vest over your camo uniforms and scooped up water bottles and french fry cups?
Dad: Yeah. And remember, you promised not to tell anyone about this.
Kid: Don’t worry – no one would believe me. And if they did, they’d all laugh at me all day long if they found out. Your secret is safe with me.

Seriously. This makes Alice’s Restaurant and its Group W bench look like nothing. “Son, are you manly enough and lethal enough to pick up trash?”

Trump did this for the symbolism. He did it to make it look as if he is Strong On . . . something. Whatever it is, he’s Strong, and calling out the National Guard is how he shows it. “Look at me, and how Important and Powerful I am. I, only I, the Greatest President in history, can do this!”

In response, there are all kinds of very serious, very appropriate ways to fight back against this. Mayors and governors are filing lawsuits, and working hard to keep this from happening again. Good. Do it, again and again and again. Pundits are punditing, and historians are describing how unprecedented this all it. Fine. These are necessary parts of a response, but they are not a sufficient response. No, the fullness of a response needs to take Trump on on the battlefield of symbolism, turning his desire to project power into a punch line.

As I’ve pondered this, it suddenly hit me. My friends, it is time to call out the National Gourd. I’m talking pumpkins.

Imagine a bunch of tourists marching east from the Lincoln Memorial with their pumpkins held high, marching past the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the MLK Jr. memorial, the reflecting pool, the Korean War memorial, and the WWII memorial. Meanwhile, at the other end of the Mall, imagine another bunch of tourists with pumpkins marching west from the Capitol. Imagine them marching past the National Museum of the American Indian, the Air and Space Museum, and the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Imagine these two groups meeting, with their pumpkins held high, at the Washington Monument, then turning north.

Toward the White House.

Imagine the fence around the White House suddenly surrounded by the National Gourd, as the tourists deposit their pumpkins on the sidewalks around Trump’s doorstep.

Imagine the National Gourd appearing along the mansions of Embassy Row.

Imagine the National Gourd filling Lafayette Square, just north of the White House.

Imagine the National Gourd appearing at Blair House, at the US Naval Observatory (home to JD Vance), and on the steps of SCOTUS.

Imagine the National Gourd appearing at the DC Armory, home to the DC National Guard.

Imagine the National Gourd appearing all over DC. Imagine DC businesses putting a member of the National Gourd at their doors and in their windows. Imagine Metro Stations with their own National Gourd presence. Imagine the National Gourd lining The Wall at the Vietnam Memorial. Imagine the National Gourd sitting at the feet of every soldier in the Korean War Memorial. Imagine the National Gourd alongside every figure in the FDR Memorial. Imagine the National Gourd appearing at Dulles Airport and at DC (aka Reagan) National Airport. Imagine the National Gourd appearing at Langley, the Pentagon, and the FBI headquarters.

Imagine the National Gourd showing up at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, Trump Tower in New York, and Trump’s Bedminster golf course in New Jersey.

And then imagine the National Gourd showing up at the Great Lakes Naval Station outside of Chicago, to greet the folks Trump is apparently going to send there.

Imagine the National Gourd appearing at federal buildings and offices around the country. Agricultural extension offices, military recruiting centers, federal courthouses, and post offices. Navy bases and Air Force bases and Army bases and Marine bases. National park entrances and IRS buildings and ICE offices.  Imagine a member of the National Gourd showing up at every federal facility in the country.

Call out the National Gourd, and make Trump weep.

This past week, a certain coffee chain released their annual chemical pumpkin-based weapon: the pumpkin spice latte. All around the country, pumpkin-based artillery units are holding their annual “Punkin Chunkin” events (see here or here or here or here for examples), where trebuchets, catapults, and other devices launch pumpkins enormous distances (unless the pumpkin explodes in mid-air, known as “pumpkin pie”). [If you want to see more, google “punkin chunkin”] The world championships used to be broadcast on various television stations, but perhaps the powers that be realized that they were disclosing military secrets and the broadcasts have ceased in recent years. Even so, these are the regular training events for the National Gourd.

And then there’s the Half Moon Bay Art and Pumpkin Festival.

In six weeks, the little town of Half Moon Bay, California, population 11,795, will be transformed from a sleepy little coastal village to become the epicenter of Pumpkinism as around 200,000 folks come to town for their annual Half Moon Bay Art and Pumpkin Festival.

200,000 people line the streets for a grand parade, and it is the pumpkin equivalent of the USSR’s May Day parades in Red Square, where missiles and tanks were paraded before the Soviet Politburo. In Half Moon Bay, the highlight of the parade is the Mother of All Pumpkins, as growers from all over bring their best to Half Moon Bay, hoping to be crowned the biggest and the best. We’re talking pumpkins in excess of 1000 pounds. When I lived in the Bay Area, the Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival was an annual pilgrimage.

This is the parade that Trump wanted for his birthday, and never got.

We are approaching peak pumpkin season, and along with all the serious lawsuits and punditry, maybe the National Gourd can help take Trump’s ego down a notch or two. In a publicity contest between the National Guard and the National Gourd, I’ll bet on the Gourd every day and twice on Sundays. Especially in September and October.

Oh, and while we’re chatting . . .

Like many such events, the Half Moon Bay Art and Pumpkin Festival did not happen during COVID. Even so, the festival made their usual contributions to a bunch of local organizations, as if the festival had continued as usual. While this kept those groups afloat, it hurt the finances of the festival hard. Last April, local media reported that their own sustainability was in jeopardy. This is an amazing local festival, and if you are so inclined, you can help them out here.

Seriously. This is an incredible event, and they can use all the help they can get.

Listen on spotify (transcripts available)

Listen on Apple (transcripts available)

National Airspace System regional air traffic control hubs

From the GAO yesterday, via Government Executive:

National Weather Service meteorologists who assist air traffic controllers are working overtime, skipping leave and taking on more responsibilities due to worsening staff shortages, according to a Government Accountability Office report published Thursday, which criticized the Federal Aviation Administration for not doing enough in response to the problem.

“Not having identified and addressed the risks of the current staffing levels is concerning given the potential safety effects if aviation meteorologists are overworked and the quality of their services to air traffic controllers is diminished,” investigators wrote.

Well *that* doesn’t sound good. What exactly do they mean by “diminished”?

As of June, NWS said the aviation meteorologist workforce is down to 69 employees, partly as a result of the federal hiring freeze and separation incentive programs like deferred resignation. FAA and NWS in February agreed to a cap of 81 full-time equivalents for such positions. (In 2024, prior to the agreement, the report said that the FAA was pushing to lower that number to 71.)

Under a 2016 interagency agreement between FAA and NWS, there are supposed to be three meteorologists and one meteorologist in charge at each of the 21 air route traffic control centers across the U.S. But that is not achievable under the February agreement.

GAO reported that the control center in Oakland, Calif., is down to one meteorologist, another four centers have only two such employees and five centers don’t have a meteorologist in charge.

OK, you’ve got my attention now. I used to live in Oakland and then elsewhere in the East Bay, and this is nuts.

But let’s back up a minute, to make a few things clear. The FAA has facilities in every airport air traffic control tower. These folks handle takeoffs, landings, ground control on the taxiways, and other local issues. These are not the places this report is discussing. The FAA also has 21 regional air traffic control facilities that handle regional air traffic flow (see the map above). These are the facilities that worry the GAO.

Suppose you are flying from Denver to Oakland. When you take off, the Denver tower is in charge. Once you reach a certain altitude/distance from the airport, the pilot switches over to the Denver regional National Airspace System [NAS] hub for instructions and guidance. As you fly west, the Denver hub passes control to the Salt Lake City hub, and eventually to the Oakland regional hub. Finally, as you approach the Oakland airport, the pilot contacts the Oakland airport control tower for the final approach and landing.

Each of these regional NAS hubs, in the course of handling traffic issues, pays a lot of attention to the weather. Ever hit turbulence or storms? The meteorologists can predict where they are likely to appear, and (depending on severity) the NAS controllers then can either warn the pilots to expect minor turbulence in a particular area, or route the flights around that area if it is deemed severe.

So let’s go back to that Denver to Oakland flight.

The Rocky Mountains can create a *lot* of turbulence. Especially in the summer. Like during the Labor Day weekend. As you fly west, you come to other smaller but similar areas, like the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California and ultimately the hills and mountains that surround the San Francisco Bay. Complicating things, the SF Bay has three major commercial airports — SF, Oakland, and San Jose — as well as dozens of smaller municipal fields, private corporate airstrips, and military bases. In other words, there is a lot of air traffic in a relatively small area.

And according to the GAO, the Oakland regional air traffic control hub, instead of having four meteorologists, is down to just one.

One.

And it’s not like that one can clock out at 5pm and tell all the planes to tune in to “weather on the 8’s” on the radio or the 5:15 weather report on the KRON evening news to get updates they need.

I’ve had the pleasure of being the pastor to more than a few NWS meteorologists, and they have told me in detail about their love for their work. I’ve rejoiced with them when their severe weather warnings have saved lives, even when a tornado blows a town to bits. Over the last six months, I’ve also grieved with them as they have seen their agency stretched beyond the breaking point. Some of their friends have been let go as “redundant” or “wasteful”, others are fearing that they may be next to get the axe or be forced to relocate themselves and their families, and *everyone* is working far more than is healthy. We’re talking vacations cancelled, days off postponed, and suddenly having to work a double shift.

And it’s been like this for half a year, with no end in sight.

From the GAO report:

The NAS [National Airspace System] is currently under tremendous strain as air traffic controller shortages and periodic equipment failures in aging air traffic control systems have been leading to delayed and canceled flights. We and others have reported on these challenges, and we currently have ongoing work in these areas.11 Severe weather can exacerbate such strains on the NAS as FAA reports that weather is the leading cause of cancellations and delays.12 Multiple stressors on the NAS can lead to compounded adverse conditions for passengers. For example, the widespread delays and cancellations Southwest Airlines experienced in December 2022 began with weather problems that were compounded by carrier system failures.13

The purpose of this report is to inform you and Congress about another stressor on the NAS—concerns about aviation meteorologist staffing levels—which we identified in our ongoing work on aviation operational preparedness.14 These meteorologists work directly with air traffic controllers in the command center and en route centers, providing face-to-face briefings as necessary, and helping them safely direct flights to avoid severe weather. We recognize that determining the appropriate weather forecasting resources to effectively support the safe and efficient operation of the NAS may take time to examine in depth. However, given the urgency of the issues, and that the interagency agreement is scheduled to expire in September 2025, we are sharing this information with you now.

This report from the GAO is a flashing red light, a bone-chilling siren, trying to get the attention of people with the power to change things. I only hope it works.

Given that we’re talking about a government headed by a guy who thinks he is smarter than all the meteorologists at the National Hurricane Center and the NWS, and can predict the path of hurricanes simply by using his sharpie, I am not confident things will change at all.

Here’s hoping the worst the flying public has to deal with this weekend are baggage problems and seats with cramped leg room.

Centers For Disease Control and Prevention

I feel like I’m watching a bad sequel to a scary movie from 20 years ago.

Back in 2004, Dick Cheney and the Bush White House were desperate to get the Department of Justice to sign off on an extension to an NSA warrantless wiretapping program. Complicating matters was the fact that AG Ashcroft was in the ICU at George Washington University Hospital and had designated Deputy AG Jim Comey to be the acting AG while he was incapacitated.

And make no mistake: Ashcroft *was* incapacitated. In broad strokes, no one just hangs out in an ICU – you’re there because you are in bad shape and need constant observation and often constant medications/treatments. Most conversations that happen in an ICU are between the staff and the family, and less so with the patient, because the patient is less-than-competent because of their condition, their medications, or both.

Comey was known by the WH to be opposed to extending this program, so the WH tried an end round to induce Ashcroft to sign the relevant documents without Comey’s knowledge. Before Alberto Gonzales (WH Counsel) and Andy Card (WH Chief of Staff) could get to the hospital, word reached Comey of what was up. Bart Gellman described it like this in his book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency as excerpted in the WaPo:

In early evening, the phone rang at the makeshift FBI command center at George Washington University Medical Center, where Ashcroft remained in intensive care. According to two officials who saw the FBI logs, the president was on the line. Bush told the ailing Cabinet chief to expect a visit from Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr…..

Alerted by Ashcroft’s chief of staff, Comey, Goldsmith and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III raced toward the hospital, abandoning double-parked vehicles and running up a stairwell as fast as their legs could pump.

Comey reached Ashcroft’s bedside first. Goldsmith and his colleague Patrick F. Philbin were close behind. Now came Card and Gonzales, holding an envelope. If Comey would not sign the papers, maybe Ashcroft would….

Unexpectedly, Ashcroft roused himself. Previous accounts have said he backed his deputy. He did far more than that. Ashcroft told the president’s men he never should have certified the program in the first place.

When everyone left the hospital, Comey, Mueller, and other DOJ folks began writing letters of resignation. Again, from Gellman:

All hell was breaking loose at Justice. Lawyers streamed back from the suburbs, converging on the fourth-floor conference room. Most of them were not cleared to hear the details, but a decision began to coalesce: If Comey quit, none of them were staying.

At the FBI, they called Mueller “Bobby Three Sticks,” playfully tweaking the Roman numerals in his fancy Philadelphia name. Late that evening, word began to spread. It wasn’t only Comey. Bobby Three Sticks was getting ready to turn in his badge.

Justice had filled its top ranks with political loyalists. They hoped to see Bush reelected. Had anyone explained to the president what was at stake?

Whelan pulled out his BlackBerry. He fired off a message to White House staff secretary Brett Kavanaugh, a friend whose position gave him direct access to Bush.

“I knew zilch about what the matter was, but I did know that lots of senior DOJ folks were on the verge of resigning,” Whelan said in an e-mail, declining to discuss the subject further. “I thought it important to make sure that the president was aware of that situation so that he could factor it in as he saw fit.”

Kavanaugh had no more idea than Whelan, but he passed word to Card.

The timing was opportune. Just about then, around 11 p.m., Comey responded to an angry summons from the president’s chief of staff. Whatever Card was planning to say, he had calmed down suddenly.

God help us all.

NYT has a weird article — right wing propagandist Devlin Barrett is the first byline, with Maggie and Mike contributing as well — purporting to explain the John Bolton investigation. The first and fourth paragraphs claim that the investigation into Bolton is a “a long-running investigation” that “began to pick up momentum during the Biden administration,” claims that conflict with both the NYP’s seeded propaganda story on the search, which described that Kash Patel, “reopened the matter after he took over the FBI in February,” and a well-sourced CNN story, which described that, “the Justice Department reopen[ed] the years-old investigation.”

NYT bases its claim suggesting a continuous investigation on the collection from an adversarial spook service, during the Biden Administration, of emails purportedly sent by Bolton to family members.

The emails in question, according to the people, were sent by Mr. Bolton and included information that appeared to derive from classified documents he had seen while he was national security adviser. Mr. Bolton apparently sent the messages to people close to him who were helping him gather material that he would ultimately use in his 2020 memoir, “The Room Where It Happened.”

But way down in ¶12, NYT describes that John Ratcliffe briefed these emails to Kash Patel and between them they decided that these emails included classified information.

During Mr. Trump’s second term, John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, briefed Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, on the information that had been collected about Mr. Bolton’s emails. The officials believed that the material Mr. Bolton had transcribed into the unclassified and unsecured email contained classified information. Each intelligence agency makes its own determinations about what information is classified, so it is often up to the “originating” agency to decide whether particular pieces of information are classified, and how sensitive they are.

That is, Ratcliffe found something he could use to target Bolton and brought it to Kash. That’s what gave Kash the excuse to reopen the investigation.

This is about where credible DOJ reporters would start ringing alarm bells, because it makes this investigation not like other investigations into classified documents — NYT likens this investigation to the Hillary email investigation, Trump’s own theft of classified documents, and the investigation into Joe Biden — but the John Durham investigation, which Ratcliffe and Kash launched based off emails stolen from Russia which — we now know — were fabricated.

There are even indices in this story that suggest caution. The object of the search, NYT says, was to see whether Bolton possessed anything to corroborate the emails, precisely the approach Durham tried to take with Leonard Benardo.

One major reason for conducting the searches was to see if Mr. Bolton possessed material that matched or corroborated the intelligence agency material, which, if found, would indicate that the emails found in the possession of the foreign spy service were genuine, the people said.

Even according to NYT, the FBI still has no fucking clue whether these emails are genuine (and apparently didn’t take less intrusive means to check, such as a covert warrant to Bolton’s email provider).

Nevertheless, NYT invents explanations for why the material in question didn’t end up in Bolton’s book.

The material in the intercepted emails included information that Mr. Bolton did not ultimately use in his book. That may suggest that he had been told it remained classified during early reviews of his manuscript or that he ultimately decided to omit it, because of either its sensitivity or its importance.

In a story that admits the FBI doesn’t know whether these emails are genuine or not, they don’t consider another explanation: That Bolton may not have written the emails at all, just as Leonard Benardo didn’t write emails reporting on a devious Hillary Clinton plot to make something of Trump’s ties to Russia.

Look, we just learned that Ratcliffe and Patel participated in a 4-year effort to frame Hillary Clinton based off emails fabricated by Russian spies. Can you please not be so horny to normalize all this that you ignore that the fact pattern here is precisely the same?

When NYT first ran this story on August 5 — with the two earlier WSJ stories (July 17; July 24), the third story providing unprecedented details on the Epstein scandal during the period Trump has tried to bury his sex trafficking problem — I noted two things about it: The exceedingly weird treatment of Todd Blanche’s visit with Ghislaine Maxwell, in which NYT mentioned neither Blanche by name nor his title.

The White House had pledged to release details about the federal investigations into Mr. Epstein and his associates. But this summer the Trump administration backpedaled. The ensuing right-wing outrage has threatened to splinter the Make America Great Again movement — for whom Mr. Epstein is a central figure in conspiracy theories — and has put Mr. Trump on the defensive like few other issues.

Seeking to quell the backlash, the Justice Department dispatched a top official to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Mr. Epstein’s longtime associate who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. On Friday, Ms. Maxwell was moved to a lower-security facility. [my emphasis]

The other remarkable aspect of the story is the absolute dearth of any source description for the photos from Jeffrey Epstein’s brownstone. None appears in the story or credited on the photos.

The refusal to provide any hints as to source carried over to the response that lead reporter David Enrich gave to a question about sourcing:

These are good questions, but I’m afraid there’s not a whole lot I can say because of the need to protect sources who provide us with information. The one thing I feel comfortable sharing is that we published this information as soon as we were able. This is not something we’ve been sitting on.

I fully recognize that it is frustrating as a reader not to have transparency about where/how journalists get information like this, but I hope you can also understand that protecting sources is paramount — people need to be able to trust that we will protect their confidentiality when they come to us with important information.

Viewed in the aftermath of the release of the Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts (July 24, July 25), however, something else sticks out.

First, there’s the number of people mentioned in the story also mentioned in Maxwell’s interview:

• Ehud Barak
• Leo Wexner
• Fidel Castro
• Elon Musk
• Pope John Paul II
• Larry Summers
• Bill Clinton
• Richard Branson
• Bill Gates
• Martin Nowak

There are people mentioned in the story that Blanche did not ask about: Mortimer Zuckerman, Woody Allen, Steve Bannon, Mick Jagger, and Joi Ito.

But of those who are mentioned, at least the Clinton picture suggests a closer relationship between Clinton and Epstein than Maxwell described in her interview (a point made in this analysis of the transcripts).

TODD BLANCHE: Did — and you’re not, I think you said, you don’t — you’re not aware of President Clinton ever going to the island?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: He never. Absolutely never went. And I can be sure of that because there’s no way he would’ve gone — I don’t believe there’s any way that he would’ve gone to the island, had I not been there. Because I don’t believe he had an independent friendship, if you will, with Epstein.

Did they speak? Did he go? Yes, but that’s very different from going to spend time on an island.

Most striking, however, is how the story — with its attention to the video cameras visible in two rooms — debunks Maxwell’s claim that there were no video cameras in the brownstone, that there was no wiring for such cameras, a claim that Maxwell offered up to substantiate her claim that Epstein could not blackmail anyone.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Right. I — I think this is a really good place to start with how this story began.

TODD BLANCHE: Okay.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: So even, let’s assume that that premise is correct, that he was doing that and he was going to tell everybody, going to say, “oh, you know, you had inappropriate relations with an underage girl.” If you don’t have a video or photograph, photographic evidence, because I — I’m not sure that even the FBI would take that. Well, maybe today, but certainly not back then, would take that seriously.

So you have to have something to say, “Hey, you know, look, I’ve got this video of you doing terrible things and you need to.” So I built those houses, many of them. I decorated those houses. I put the electricians in for the wiring. I never wired, nor saw, a single house that had any type of inappropriate, let’s say, video surveillance.

And I’ll define that for you.

Inappropriate surveillance would mean in a bathroom, in a bedroom, in any private area of a home.

TODD BLANCHE: In a room where there were massages given?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Inappropriate. I would say I would define “appropriate” surveillance to be the front door of a house, or potentially, as in 71st Street, the physical plant. Anywhere else would be grotesque.

TODD BLANCHE: So I just want to come back to — I know I’m just hopefully stating the obvious, but when you say “the houses,” you’re talking about his New York —

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Yes.

TODD BLANCHE: — brownstone?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Yes.

There it is in the NYT, proof plain as day, that Maxwell’s claim there were no video cameras at the brownstone is false (though as described, the cameras were only in Epstein’s private space).

Yesterday, the same day Bill Gates quietly met at the White House with Trump, we learned that Gates had defunded Arabella Foundation, and with it a number of left-leaning groups. Gates is the most prominent person reported to be blackmailed by Epstein. If the FBI collected evidence that Epstein had blackmail material on Gates, Trump would now have it.

It was quite clear from Blanche’s interview that he wasn’t interested in meeting with Trump’s sex trafficker buddy to advance any normal investigative interests. He was offering Maxwell something she wanted — a chance to damage the victims again, a chance for cozier digs — in hopes of getting dirt on Trump’s political adversaries, and he was doing so to staunch the stories focusing on Trump’s close ties to Epstein.

Todd Blanche did none of the things a competent proffer would do. He didn’t insist on dates, he didn’t test Maxwell’s answers, he appeared to work mostly from gossip. On the specific question of whether Maxwell “stole” Trump’s spa girls, which Maxwell first denied:

TODD BLANCHE: Do you know whether masseuses from Mar-a-Lago’s spa ended up giving massages to — private massages to Mr. Epstein? I’m not asking for what you may have read, but from — at the time, from your personal knowledge, do you know whether that’s true?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: I — I don’t — I don’t recall. Is it possible? Yes. But I don’t remember — I don’t remember that. So I don’t want to — I don’t recall that, but it’s possible.

TODD BLANCHE: Do you have a recollection of you ever recruiting a masseuse from Mar-a-Lago spa to give — to go give a private massage to Mr. Epstein?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: I’ve never recruited a masseuse from Mar-a-Lago for that, as far as I remember. I can’t ever recollect doing that.

TODD BLANCHE: Okay. So what — what I think we should do now, it’s about 12:15. We’ll take a — we’ll take a break and we will come back in a little bit.

Then, the next day, conceded could have happened but Blanche prodded her for a specific denial that Maxwell recruited Virginia Giuffre there.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Some more names did come to me in the night, and I did have some additional memories just for clarity. I believe I said that I couldn’t think of anybody who I may have asked from Mar-a-Lago, but then I realized that I was — the allegation at least is that I met [redacted] in Mar-a-Lago and so I felt that I needed to address that. And I didn’t want to leave that hanging because that seems weird under the circumstances.

And also — but I couldn’t remember anyone and — maybe, you know, it’s a long period of time.

So the issue is not that I’m trying to not say, but I just don’t — I don’t remember anybody that I would have. But it’s not impossible that I might have asked someone from there.

TODD BLANCHE: I don’t — I don’t know exactly what you said yesterday, but I don’t think what you said yesterday is different than what you just said. So, yes. There’s —

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Okay. I just wanted to be — I just didn’t want to feel that I had said no to something and that it — and —

TODD BLANCHE: [redacted] definitely had has said that she was working at Mar-a-Lago and that you received a treatment of her — from her at some point, and that you recruited her to meet Mr. Epstein.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Right.

TODD BLANCHE: Do you know, affirmatively, whether that’s true or false, or do you just not have a memory either way?

GHISLAINE MAXWELL: I really don’t believe it’s true. But I know that I did go to spas and if I met someone, I did ask if they’re (indiscernible) — so I don’t — in the realms of possibility, it could have, but I have no memory of it.

TODD BLANCHE: Okay. GHISLAINE MAXWELL: And I don’t believe that that it’s how it went down, but I don’t want to —

Not only did Blanche get the story wrong (Giuffre was not doing massages, she was working the desk, reading a book about massages), but he went to some length to get a specific denial on the record.

Even Trump knows this is false, as he publicly confessed days later.

Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?

Trump: Were some of them?

Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?

Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.

[inaudible]

Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.

Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?

Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.

What Blanche did was not get the truth, but instead lock Maxwell into specific lies.

It was a shameful use of government resources.

But it appears to have achieved Mutually Assured Silence.

Timeline

July 6: DOJ and FBI renege on the promise to release Epstein files

July 8: Trump whines that his base kept talking about Epstein

July 15: WSJ contacts Trump about Epstein book story; Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey

July 17: WSJ publishes first Epstein book story

July 22: News of Blanche meeting with Maxwell released

July 24: First day of interview; Maxwell claims she doesn’t remember recruiting at Mar-a-Lago; WSJ publishes second Epstein book story 

July 25: Second day of interview; Maxwell concedes she may have recruited a spa girl at Mar-a-Lago

July 29: Trump confesses he knows that Virginia Giuffre was “stolen” from Mar-a-Lago

August 1: Maxwell moved to cozier digs

August 5: NYT brownstone story

August 22: Release of Maxwell transcripts

I’m used to Mike Schmidt ignoring Trump’s weaponization of DOJ against his rivals during the first term. I’m used to Devlin Barrett credulously writing down propaganda that right wing law enforcement sources tell him to write down as if it were true.

But this, from the two of them, is a remarkable exercise in disinformation in service of a weaponized investigation.

They describe that a fox is in the hen house, but are so ignorant, naive, or corrupt that they describe the fox, instead, as a guard dog.

The factual details the story describes are:

• Kash Patel is investigating his claim that he found burn bags full of classified documents which, he claims, is proof people intended to destroy them (but which sources for the story explain is really dumb because any documents found in a burn bag would be on digital servers too)
• Paul Abbate (who was considered a candidate to be Director of FBI after Jim Comey was fired) is a subject of the investigation
• Kash put the investigation in WDVA, basing venue on a storage facility there, to avoid DC grand juries
• The US Attorney for WDVA, Todd Gilbert, recently resigned shortly after being appointed
• John Durham’s lead FBI Agent, Jack Eckenrode, who endorsed Kash to be FBI Director, is conducting interviews in the investigation
• “One of the documents investigators have been asking about…was declassified in 2020, while Mr. Trump was in office”

The men describe the Durham Report as Devlin described it in 2023 when he credulously parroted Durham’s claimed findings, without mentioning how badly the report itself undermined Durham’s claims.

Mr. Durham ultimately concluded that the F.B.I.’s work on the Russia investigation suffered from “confirmation bias” against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Durham brought two separate cases to trial on charges that people lied to the F.B.I. in the course of its Russia investigation, but both trials ended in quick acquittals.

Such a description was sloppy in 2023 but is inexcusable now, in the wake of the declassification of the classified annex. The classified annex showed that by July 2021, Durham should have concluded that the premise of his entire investigation was based on documents fabricated by Russian spies to frame Hillary.

Here’s the NYT story on that, in case Devlin and NYT Mike have difficulties learning about this.

Once you understand that the classified annex disclosed that John Durham and Jack Eckenrode knowingly spent years investigating Hillary’s people based off a Russian fabrication — literally committing the crime they were investigating — then Kash’s burn bag claim would most immediately implicate Durham and his team, including Eckenrode. Durham went to great lengths to obscure that he had been chasing Russian disinformation, even in his classified annex. Such an effort bespeaks guilty conscience, the kind of guilty conscience that might lead someone to attempt to destroy evidence.

If this were a real investigation, Eckenrode would be a suspect, not the lead investigator.

Worse still, if Kash imagines (or claims to imagine) he’s found new, hard copy versions of what he himself helped declassify in 2020 — documents that included a report about the SVR documents bearing John Ratcliffe’s name (but undoubtedly written with Kash), heavily redacted notes from John Brennan, and a somewhat redacted version of the CIA version of a referral to the FBI — then the steps that Durham’s team (that is, Eckenrode) took to access those documents in 2019 and afterwards would likewise be a central focus of any credible investigation.

Indeed, the apparent fact that Durham — that is, Eckenrode — never presented an FBI version of a September 7, 2016 referral purportedly sent to the FBI, which none of the FBI witnesses remember seeing, would be a central issue in any investigation.

That referral is something that, if it exists in hard copy, if it exists at all, might present new investigative leads.

But also would raise still more questions about the criminal conduct of Eckenrode and Durham — their willing quest to chase disinformation created by Russian spies to frame Hillary Clinton.

And it would raise real questions about whether, after chasing a Russian fabrication for years, Kash’s FBI decided to start fabricating evidence themselves.

This is an investigation led by someone who should be a chief suspect. Such investigations never turn out well.