The Frankish Reich

Here's what I think happened: as usual, the unfocused/hyperactive Trump let his minions at HHS/remnants of Education work up this very powerful letter, much like he lets Big Balls and his friends make demands at other agencies. Nobody vetted it for legality. It made a whole host of outrageous demands totally unrelated to combating antisemitism. Harvard got the letter. It was from people with ostensible authority to do issue such a letter. They took it seriously, they brought in counsel (including former Trump hero Robert Hur), they all decided the demands were clearly unconstitutional, they decided to fight. Only then did DOJ/White House lawyers look at it. They told Trump, yeah, it's pretty indefensible. So they said it was a draft, it was never meant to be sent out, how stupid are Harvard lawyers to think that something as sloppy as this letter was meant to be a real demand? Why didn't they pick up the phone and call someone important to say, umm, "you didn't really mean to send this out, right?" But there it is. They sent it on letterhead signed by people purporting to have authority to make such demands. And the idiotic letter virtually assures that Harvard will win this fight in court. And these are the people who said the Biden administration was incompetent.

Here comes the Trump Administration see-saw effect again. Paul Krugman on how - even if not intentional - it gives a huge advantage to the economic oligarchs: The content of his remarks aside, what was Bessent even doing at this event? Senior government officials aren’t supposed to be helping investment banks entertain their clients. First — and why aren’t more people saying this? — what the hell was the Treasury secretary doing giving a closed-door briefing on a significant policy change that hadn’t yet been officially announced? Isn’t that a setup for large-scale insider trading? Indeed, attendees at that conference surely made market bets before Bessent’s remarks became public. And since when are major policy announcements by government officials made off the record to closed private-sector meetings? One even wonders whether Bessent was announcing policy or making it: Did Trump back him up only after the fact? Bessent's remarks were kinda sorta private and kinda sorta public. But his suggestion that the China tariffs were unsustainable again moved markets, and the JP Morgan Chase folks who invited him got that info at least a minute or two ahead of anyone else. Do you think they traded on it? If you don't think that, as the old timers used to say, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I agree. Costco is where all Americans (sadly except for the poorest, who can't afford membership or buying in bulk) meet. And weirdly get along just fine regardless of political persuasion, race, religion, country of origin, etc.

And in this case the “rogues” were named Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.

This is a feature, not a bug. One man exerting such enormous economic power is not what the constitution contemplated. But Trump loves it because businessmen large and small must come suck up to him to get privileged tariff treatment.

You do know that there’s a group of Trump-loving evangelicals who consider the Pope to be the antichrist

What nonsense. The NYT has the names of the precise people included on the latest Signal chat. And if Hegseth is saying that disgruntled former employees “leaked” this, well, doesn’t that presuppose that it was a leak of an actual thing rather than a made-up story? Last time he did this Jeff Goldberg called his bluff by releasing the actual screenshots. I suspect we’re heading that way again. Appoint an overgrown frat boy to head the nation’s most important and largest Department …

So making things in China and importing them to the USA is bad because it disincentivizes companies from making things in the USA. Making things in India and importing them to the USA is good however, even if it disincentivizes companies from making them here.

Agreed. Despite what some think around here, I'm a law and order guy. I understand fully Pope Francis' attention to the plight of the immigrant and our responsibility to care for him. I also understand that my support for tighter immigration policy during the Biden years was in conflict with that. What I can't agree with, under any circumstances, is the deliberate humiliation and dehumanization of the immigrant. Things like gloating over photos of deported immigrants in those CECOT cells. Every Holy season the Pope met with prisoners. He didn't call for their immediate release. He just wanted to recognize their humanity. I don't believe any Christian - or anyone - should be going out of his way to degrade others, no matter what they've done to offend our laws or harm others. That is the message for me.

Positive thoughts, and prayers too.

My how times have changed. Vote for Trump, he brought us the Strongest Dollar in History!

I avoided all this stuff on Easter, which should be about reflection and family. But now that I'm seeing it ... good Lord, this is horrible.

It was refreshing to see Hollywood take the different currents in Catholic theology and doctrine seriously rather than as some purely personal or political matter. I think I'll watch this again as the conclave convenes.

That is the idea. Do you think that if Trump had campaigned on "we need a weaker dollar" he would have won? His badgering of Jerome Powell is also part of this. Cheap money, lower interest rates, goose the economy today, blame the inflation that comes later on ... Joe Biden?

A fine and decent man who came to the Vatican at the right time. I didn't always agree with him when it comes to political issues. But when I disagreed his moral leadership caused me (and still causes me) to question where my political opinions are based more on convenience or poorly considered "necessity" rather than on Christ's teachings. I can only hope that the last days meeting with JD Vance has a profound impact.

We knew it was coming. In light of last night's 7-2 decision, even Trump's 3 Supreme Court appointees are officially Marxists.

I am disgusted by the attempts to reframe this as "mass immigration bad, therefore do whatever you want." We have a constitution that requires some form of due process. We have laws that we must follow. Do we allow lynchings again because, after all, that man is bad so who needs a trial?

Well, that's NY. And NYC. And probably Buffalo too; I haven't been paying attention. That seems to be what you get with one-party control of everything.

"Oilfield Rando" should study his constitutional rights before his next DUI stop. He can refuse to have his blood drawn. He may lose his driving privileges, but he can refuse.

Expect to be stunned by the revelation that Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK.

Yes, certainly ever since the Reagan Revolution tariffs have been considered counterproductive (and also contrary to any freedom agenda) by Republicans. The conservative economists eventually convinced Democrats of this wisdom, hence the free trade agreements negotiated by Clinton and Obama. Just another way in which today's so-called Republicans have revived the worst instincts and policies of old, forgotten Democrats. Bernie Sanders has morphed into Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, posting thousands of comments a year about how non-Trumpies are "communists" and probably groomers too is really, really effective from a rhetorical standpoint.

Absolutely right. It simply doesn't matter whether he's a good guy or a bad guy. Follow the law, fix your errors, get it right. Now I will say that from a political perspective, Trump has succeeded in reframing the question here, but only because the Democrats are so eager to make it about a poor "husband and father." The Democratic framing needs to be that Trump is thumbing his nose at court orders and the rule of law. The Democrats win that debate in the court of public opinion. They probably lose the debate on the "great guy" thing. They need to get smarter about not taking the Trump bait.

Not surprising. At least he knew the right continent.

I predicted this when Dobbs came out, repealing Roe v Wade. It will be the new Dredd Scott. It's on a slow simmer now, but the cases - prosecuting women and the people who assist them to travel out of state for abortions - are starting to percolate up the system.