Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and a major donor to Democratic Party causes, says DOJ probe is payback for lawfully funding lawsuits against Trump

Reid Hoffman: DOJ probe is retaliation for funding lawsuits against Trump (Reuters)

Donald Trump's word isn't worth much, but when he says he will seek prosecutions of his political enemies, you apparently can take it to the bank. That doesn't mean Trump is on the right side of the law because he hardly ever is in that position. In fact, his latest actions -- which started with reports that he was going after E. Jean Carroll, the woman who successfully sued him for sexual abuse and defamation -- are classic examples of vindictive prosecutions. Such cases, lacking probable cause, are subject to being dismissed -- and if we still had a functioning democracy, probably would present grounds to have Trump impeached or forcibly removed from office (preferably the latter). With spineless Republicans in charge of Congress, that is not likely to happen.  But we see signs that Trump has misread the Carroll situation, and this is one firefight he might regret starting.

Targeting Carroll -- who a New York judge found was the victim of a Trumpian rape, as that word is commonly understood -- was a bad enough look for the president. But by going after her, Trump drew Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn (with other business ties to Microsoft, PayPal, and Greylock Partners) into the fray.

How did that happen? In the course of filing two lawsuits against Trump, with her winning both and  receiving more than $88 million in damages, it became public that a nonprofit tied to Hoffman helped fund Carroll's lawsuit. That is an example of Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF), which is common, and perfectly legal, in the United States. Still, Trump seems determined to somehow tie Carroll or (more likely) Hoffman to some kind of criminal activity -- real or imagined. It should be noted that both Carroll and Hoffman, or their representatives, have spoken openly about the funding arrangement -- in court documents or published interviews -- so they clearly are not trying to hide anything. And with no one able to point to a federal statute or U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would make TPLF illegal across the country, it's hard to see how Trump or his flunkies in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) could make a criminal charge stick. But that doesn't mean they won't try.

Hoffman has an estimated net worth of $2.7 billion; that isn't Elon Musk money, but it is  enough to give Hoffman a substantial base of power as one of the nation's largest donors to Democratic causes. Based on statements he released late last week, Hoffman does not appear to be in the mood to bow down to our would-be king/president. That suggests fireworks might commence before the latest case of Trump stepping in a legal cow pie is completed. In fact, Hoffman already has lit a few firecrackers and tossed them in Trump's direction, as we learn from a jointly published report at Business Insider and AOL. Under the headline "Reid Hoffman says reported DOJ investigation into his nonprofit that funded E. Jean Carroll case is 'retaliation," Ben Shimkus writes:

Reid Hoffman is accusing President Donald Trump of retaliation.

The LinkedIn cofounder and Democratic donor responded on Friday to reports that the Justice Department is investigating issues tied to his financial support for E. Jean Carroll's litigation against Trump, calling the scrutiny "absurdly false" and accusing the president of using the federal government to punish his critics.

"Trump cannot be allowed to use the full weight and power of the US Government to come after women who speak up, or anyone who supports them in doing so," Hoffman wrote in a five-part thread on X.

His comments came after multiple outlets reported that the DOJ opened a criminal investigation related to Carroll's civil lawsuits against Trump.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the department was investigating whether Carroll committed perjury. The Washington Post, Reuters, and other outlets reported that the probe was focused more specifically on American Future Republic, a nonprofit backed by Hoffman that helped fund some of Carroll's legal expenses.

Does Trump hold ill will toward Carroll and Hoffman for joining hands to resoundingly beat him in court? Probably so. Does that mean he has valid grounds for a criminal case against them? Probably not. Shimkus provides background:

Carroll, a writer and former advice columnist, won two civil judgments against Trump.

In 2023, a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million. In 2024, another jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll another $83.3 million for defaming her. Trump has repeatedly denied Carroll's allegations and appealed the judgments.

The reported scrutiny on Hoffman's nonprofit appears to center on a 2022 deposition in which Carroll said no one was paying her legal fees. Her lawyers later disclosed that funds from American Future Republic helped cover some litigation costs nearly a year after she filed the lawsuit.

Trump's lawyers argued that the disclosure showed Carroll had lied under oath; the judge overseeing Carroll's lawsuits ruled the funding had no bearing on her credibility and blocked questions about it at trial.

That probably will not be helpful to any case Trump might cause to be brought. And it strengthens Hoffman's claim that the president is unlawfully trying to punish him for helping Carroll bring her successful claims, Shimkus writes:

Hoffman framed the reported investigation as retaliation.

"He is investigating me because I supported E Jean's lawsuit — where a jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting her, and a court of appeals upheld the decision," Hoffman wrote. "Trump hopes that these fraudulent investigations will silence those who stand up to him. He is wrong. I will not bend the knee."

Top U.S. prosecutor in Chicago denies launching probe against E. Jean Carroll, but reports indicate he might target nonprofit tied to Dem donor Reid Hoffman

E. Jean Carroll leaves a New York City courtroom (NY Times)

The chief U.S. prosecutor in Chicago said last night that, contrary to media reports, he has not launched a criminal investigation of E. Jean Carroll, the woman who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault. But that does not mean he won't initiate a Carroll-related probe. From an Associated Press (AP)  report filed at 8:31 p.m. CDT yesterday:

The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied Thursday evening that his office had opened an investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who has said Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a New York department store 30 years ago, hours after multiple news organizations reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether she had lied during the course of civil litigation against Trump.

The Associated Press and other news organizations, citing anonymous sources, reported that the federal prosecutors’ office in Chicago had opened an investigation into Carroll examining possible perjury allegations.

But Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, issued a statement roughly 24 hours after the first report was published saying that his office “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.”

What caused the mixup, and where might any investigation be headed? Last night's AP report touches on those issues, noting that it appears a probe might focus on a nonprofit organization that allegedly helped fund Carroll's case against Trump, rather than Carroll herself. From the report:

A person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, initially told the AP on Thursday morning that investigators were focused on Carroll but later clarified that the actual focus was on a nonprofit that had helped fund her case.

A lawyer for Carroll declined to comment through a spokesperson on Thursday.

The Justice Department investigation into Carroll was first reported by CNN on Wednesday evening.

Reports of the investigation added to the perception from Democrats and other former officials that a Justice Department meant to make prosecutorial decisions independent of the White House is being weaponized against the president’s political enemies. Trump’s Justice Department has opened multiple investigations into perceived adversaries of the Republican president, including securing an indictment last month against former FBI Director James Comey.

The Comey case is just one example of Trump's stated desire to seek retaliation against perceived political opponents. The BBC reported last September that Trump openly was calling for his Department of Justice (DOJ) to  bring prosecutions against Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff. At about the same time, multiple news outlets reported that Trump said "others" would be prosecuted following the indictment of Comey for taking photos of seashells.

It's not hard to see E. Jean Carroll as a Trump target, given that he has repeatedly trashed her -- calling her a "nut job," who said she enjoyed being sexually assaulted, and was "mentally sick." Trump also has threatened to sue her and the judge who ruled against him in her lawsuit.  

How did Carroll wind up crossing swords with Trump? This is from the AP report:

Carroll has said a flirtatious, chance encounter with Trump in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan ended violently. She said Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her. Trump has called the allegations a “made-up scam,” and he has attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

A jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her, and she was awarded $5 million. The following year, another jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation case related to Trump’s social media posts about her.

If the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago does not start an investigation directly against Carroll, could it still bring a case that has strong political overtones? According to last night's AP report, the answer appears to be yes:

The reports this week said the Justice Department was scrutinizing a statement Carroll made in the course of the civil litigation that no one else was paying her legal fees. It later became public that a Chicago-based organization backed by Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, had helped fund Carroll’s case. Trump’s lawyers in the civil case accused Carroll of concealing that information, which they said called into question whether the case was politically motivated.

Multiple news organizations, including The Washington Post and NBC News, cited unnamed sources in reporting Thursday that the investigation was actually centered on Hoffman’s nonprofit, which the person familiar with the matter confirmed to AP. 

A month before the first trial in 2023, then-Trump lawyer Alina Habba sought to delay it, saying in court papers that new revelations about Hoffman partially funding Carroll’s case “raises significant questions as to Plaintiff’s credibility, as well as her motive for commencing and/or continuing the instant action.”

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a Dec. 30, 2024, ruling, upheld the $5 million jury award from 2023. The court addressed Carroll’s credibility after Trump accused her of lying, during a deposition, about how her case was funded.

The court cited Carroll’s explanation that when the question about Hoffman’s contributions was first posed to her in 2022, she had forgotten about “the limited outside funding” received in September 2020.

“It showed that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs,” the appeals court said.

Issues regarding political overtones of a potential DOJ probe, raise this question: Who is Reid Hoffman, and what are his political leanings? He has an estimated net worth of $2.7 billion, with business connections to LinkedIn, Microsoft, PayPal, and Greylock Partners. According to a report at CNBC, Hoffman has become a political kingmaker for progressive causes. He is the largest donor to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Here is more from last night's AP report:

Hoffman has defended the financial assistance, saying in a social media post that “supporting women’s fight for progress and justice in philanthropy, politics and business has been a longstanding priority of mine, as is supporting America against the threat of Trump.”

A court entry earlier this month said Trump will not have to pay the award until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal. The appeals court agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers that it let Trump delay the payment to Carroll, though he was required to post a $7.4 million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.

CNN fact-checker proves the BS can be "river deep and mountain high" when Donald Trump and his gang of toadies gather for their monthly cabinet/cult meeting

Donald Trump addresses attendees at yesterday's cabinet meeting. (NBC News) 

In yesterday's post, I dreamed up an imaginary opening statement that Donald Trump might give at his May 27, 2026, White House cabinet meeting. It turns out the statement I made up was more fact-based than the utterances that actually came out of Trump's mouth. Of course, that probably is not a surprise to those who have learned that Trump's public ramblings often bear little resemblance to the truth.

With that, let's take a look at the work of CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale, who examines primary issues discussed in the meeting and shows that Trump's statements on them range from the fabulous to the fraudulent. (I will highlight the most startling misstatements in yellow and include my comments at the end of each section.) Under the headline "Fact check: Trump makes false claims about Iran war, the economy, and the reflecting pool at cabinet meeting," Dale writes: President Donald Trump made false claims about the war with Iran, the economy, and other subjects during public comments at a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. Many of them have been debunked before. Here’s a quick fact check of the false claims and some others that were misleading or lacked critical context. This is not intended as a comprehensive list; CNN is still looking into some of the president’s remarks at the meeting:

The war with Iran

(A) Iran’s military capabilities: Trump, speaking of Iran’s military, said, “Their navy is gone, their air force is gone, everything’s gone.” Though there’s no doubt the US and Israel have significantly degraded Iran’s military capabilities during the war that began in late February, it’s not true that “everything” is gone — as Trump implicitly acknowledged last week when he said, “They have a little ability. Their missiles are 82% gone, we estimate. … Same thing with drones, they’re largely gone but they still have a little capacity.” CNN reported in April that, according to three sources familiar with US intelligence findings, roughly half of Iran’s missile launchers were still intact and thousands of one-way attack drones remained in Iran’s arsenal; CNN reported last week that four sources said US intelligence indicates Iran’s military is reconstituting much faster than initially estimated and that “Iran also still maintains ballistic-missile, drone-attack and anti-air capability despite the serious damage inflicted by US-Israeli strikes, according to recent US intelligence assessments, meaning the quick rebuilding of military production capacity isn’t starting from scratch.” 

(B) How Trump describes the war with Iran: Mixing up Iran with Venezuela, Trump spoke about how Americans’ 401(k) balances are high “despite the conflict — I don’t call it a war, I call it a conflict — despite the conflict with Venezuela.” (His subsequent comments made clear he was referring to Iran.) Though Trump has indeed sometimes called the war with Iran a “conflict,” or used other words like “excursion” or “skirmish,” it’s not true that he doesn’t call it a “war.” He has repeatedly called it a war in recent weeks even as he has intermittently insisted he doesn’t use that term; in fact, he called it a war later in this same Cabinet meeting, noting that the US lost 13 service members “between two wars, two big wars, Venezuela and Iran.” 

The war, inflation, and the economy 

(A) Gas prices: Trump claimed, “When I was in Iowa, we had — driving by, we saw gas stations: $1.90 a gallon, $1.85, $1.87 were the three that we saw.” He has previously made clear that such comments are referring to supposed prices on the day he visited Iowa in late January. But on that day, the AAA state average for regular gasoline was $2.57 per gallon; the firm GasBuddy found just four stations in the state selling that day for under $2 per gallon — $1.97, to be specific, not $1.85 to $1.90 — out of 2,036 stations the firm was tracking there. And a CNN reporter noticed that the station right outside the venue where Trump spoke was at $2.69 per gallon that day.

It’s possible Trump was referring to the price of E85, an ethanol-gasoline blend that is sold in a minority of gas stations and can only be used in the small percentage of vehicles that are compatible with it; the blend was selling for around $1.85 per gallon in Iowa at the time of his visit. But, as when he made this claim about Iowa gas prices on previous occasions, he offered no indication on Wednesday that he was talking about a niche product.

(Legal Schnauzer sez:  CNN nabbed Trump in a "gotcha moment" here, and it's important because gas prices might be the single most sensitive issue for many voters. It is particularly damning that a CNN reporter noted a gas station right outside the Iowa venue where Trump spoke that sold gas for $2.69 per gallon -- while Trump claimed to have spotted prices in that area for well under $2.00 per gallon At best, this is an example of Trump speaking carelessly; at worst, it's a president being caught in an attempted con on an issue that matters a lot to many Americans. Bottom line: Gas prices are not as low as Trump wants us to believe, and they likely will not come down as fast as he claims -- and that only can be blamed on Trump for starting his war of choice with Iran.)

(B) Prescription drug prices: Trump falsely claimed, of prescription drug prices, “We have drugs down 400, 500, 600%.” He then added, “Now you could say 80, 90, 70, 60, 50% if you want; there are two ways (to phrase it), depends on the way you ask the question.” But the first “way” is invalid; drug-price reductions of 400%, 500% and 600% are mathematically impossible, as CNN and others have repeatedly noted. If Trump magically got companies to reduce the prices of all of their drugs to $0, that would be a 100% cut. A cut of 400%, 500% or 600% would mean that Americans would be paid money to acquire their medications, which is not happening.

Trump used more defensible phrasing when appearing to read from a prepared text moments earlier, claiming he is achieving “price differences” of 400% to 600% through the website TrumpRX.gov. But then he reverted to his usual inaccurate phrasing. 

(Legal Schnauzer says: In my view, this also is an attempted con, and props to CNN for not letting Trump get away with it. A president should know a price reduction of 600% is mathematically impossible. If he doesn't, he's not smart enough to be in office. Trump, however, is smart enough to know that saying a price has gone down 600% is  likely to make some casual listeners think, "Wow, that's great news. Wonderful job, Mr. President." It's critical that Americans pay close attention to what Trump says because much of it is pure BS. In fact, I would suggest Walmart start selling BS detectors in its hardware departments.)

(C) Investment in the US: Trump repeated a figure he has used for months about supposed investment in the US during his second presidency, saying there is “$18 trillion coming in” and “that’s not including the 12th month, that’s 11.” The $18 trillion figure is fiction. As of the time he spoke on Wednesday, the White House’s own website said the figure for “major investment announcements” this term is “$10.6 trillion,” and even that is a major exaggeration of actual investment. A detailed CNN review in October found the White House was counting trillions of dollars in vague investment pledges, pledges that were about “bilateral trade” or “economic exchange” rather than investment in the US, and vague statements that didn’t even rise to the level of pledges. 

(Legal Schnauzer sez: So Trump cites an $18-trillion figure when his own website  cites a figure that is much lower than that. Trump should be ashamed of such subterfuge, assuming he is capable of feeling shame.)

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting pool

(A) Obama, Biden and the Lincoln Memorial: The Trump  administration is spending more than $13 million on a project to improve the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, federal records show. Trump falsely claimed Wednesday, “The Biden administration and the Obama administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get it to work,” adding a bit later, “They spent hundreds of millions, over $100 million.” Those figures are incorrect; the White House could not offer any corroboration for them when CNN inquired last week. The Obama administration spent about $35 million on a contract to try to fix issues with the pool, but that’s not hundreds of millions, and the Biden administration did not go ahead with any major pool repair project. Chuck Sams, who was director of the National Park Service under Biden, told CNN last week that they had received a cost estimate “above $100 million” for a “full rehabilitation” but had not done the project. (Sams said it “would have more than likely moved forward if we had remained in office,” but Trump asserted that it had already happened.)

(Legal Schnauzer sez: Trump has a problem with facts in general, but he especially has a problem with numbers. The only question: Does he throw around numbers carelessly or is he intentionally trying to deceive. I will let readers reach their own conclusions on that. But this much is clear: When Trump starts talking numbers, he likely is just pulling digits out of his fanny. Particularly glaring in this case, is the claim that the Biden administration  was part of an effort to spend millions on the reflecting pool -- when, CNN learned, they did not go ahead with any major pool-repair project. This seems to be a case of, as many observers have noted, of Obama and Biden being alive and well and living inside Trump's head.)  

(B) The size of the reflecting pool: Trump claimed that the reflecting pool is “like 2,400 feet long,” claimed that is “longer than the tallest building in the world,” and added, “the world’s tallest skyscraper is shorter than 2,400 feet.” This is a matter of trivia rather than substance, but none of the president’s claims are correct. The reflecting pool is 2,028 feet long, according to the National Park Service website; Trump correctly wrote in a social media post earlier this month that it is “approximately 2,030 feet.” And even 2,400 feet would not be larger than any building in the world; the tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, is more than 2,700 feet tall.

(Legal Schnauzer sez: This is another area where Trump has problems, and we are talking about superlatives. Whenever you hear Trump say that something is the tallest this or the biggest that, it's a safe bet that he is making comparisons with nothing to back them up. At best, it's likely he is exaggerating -- by a lot.) 

Immigration

(A) Biden, migrants and murder: After denouncing the Biden administration’s immigration record, Trump claimed there were “11,888 murderers, more than half of which have committed more than one murder; that’s what they allowed in.” As usual, Trump didn’t make clear that, as the Department of Homeland Security and independent experts noted in 2024, the figure it appears he is referring to is about non-citizens who entered the US not just under Biden but over the course of multiple decades, including during Trump’s own first administration. They were convicted of homicide at some point, usually in the US after their arrival, and are still in the US while being listed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “non-detained docket” — which includes people who are currently serving their prison sentences. And it has never been clear whether there is a factual basis for Trump’s claim that more than half of the people in question committed more than one murder; the White House did not respond in January to a CNN request to explain where Trump might have gotten this information. You can read more here. 

(Legal Schnauzer says: This would be amusing if it weren't so egregious. Trump cites a number of 11,888 murderers allowed into the U.S., as if the Biden administration alone welcomed all of those immigrants -- when, in fact, the data covers several decades, including during Trump's own first administration. I see no way this wasn't an intentional lie -- a case of Trump laying a problem at the feet of a political opponent, when Trump himself was part of the same problem. Americans should not quietly put up with that kind of deceit.)

Social Security

(A) Social Security and deceased people: Trump said, “I think we have a chance to save Social Security without doing anything to it, by just the numbers of fraudulent people on Social Security — people that are 115 years old, 125 years old, getting payments.”

But Trump’s White House has not presented evidence of obviously deceased people who were born 115 or 125 years ago continuing to be sent Social Security payments after their deaths, let alone that there is enough of this kind of fraud to meaningfully alter the fiscal trajectory of the program. (It’s possible there have been such payments at some point, either due to fraud or administrative error; CNN reached out to the White House once more after the Cabinet meeting.) Even before Trump became president the first time, Social Security had an automated system in place to stop payments to deceased people listed as being age 115 and older. And while a 2023 report from the inspector general monitoring Social Security Administration found that there were 18.9 million people age 100 or older who were not marked as deceased on their Social Security database entry, it also found that only 44,000 of these 18.9 million people were receiving payments. Even those 44,000 instances were not obviously fraudulent or erroneous; the inspector general noted that a larger number of living people in the US, an estimated 86,000, were age 100 or older.

In early 2025, the acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration at the time, Leland Dudek — who was elevated to that post by the Trump administration — tried to set the record straight after Elon Musk, then leading a government efficiency initiative for Trump, promoted baseless claims of massive Social Security fraud involving people so old they were obviously dead. Dudek explained, “The reported data are people in our records with a Social Security number who do not have a date of death associated with their record. These individuals are not necessarily receiving benefits.”

(Legal Schnauzer sez: Have I mentioned that Trump has a lot of problems with fact-based issues? Well, here is another, and it's called evidence. Ask Trump or one of his underlings for evidence to support one of their fishy-sounding claims, and you are likely to get a shrug of the shoulders or no response at all. Trump has stated on a number of occasions, when pressed on a legal matter, that he is not a lawyer. In fact, it's one of his favorite go-to responses. And that's probably because even the worst lawyer to ever hold a bar card could handle matters of evidence better than Trump. We have a president who is interested only in evidence that he can cover up. Other than that, forget it.)

What might Donald Trump say at today's White House cabinet meeting, where administration successes are to be discussed? Will he be in his usual caustic form?

Trump counts ballroom/bunker project as major success (ABC News)

Donald Trump announced yesterday that a cabinet meeting planned for today at Camp David would be moved to the White House because of concerns about possible stormy weather. What's on the agenda? Several news outlets report it likely will be a cross between a pep rally and a cult meeting, with Trump giving each attendee an opportunity to praise him, Dear Leader, for an unerring ability to create chaos out of stability, war out of peace, inflation out of economic growth, distrust out of longstanding alliances.

Of course, we don't expect the gathered Trumpers to actually get real with the president; that would cause heads to roll and ketchup bottles to fly. Some reports, however, indicate attendees might discuss ways to end the war in Iran while trying to salvage at least a bit of our country's reputation as an indispensable world power.

But most accounts suggest the meeting will be heavy on the pep-rally component, with a lot of chest thumping and back slapping. Here's how a report at ABC News puts it:

According to a White House official, all Cabinet members were expected to attend, and the meeting would "highlight recent successes of the administration including economy and small business wins, Task Force to Eliminate Fraud highlights, and foreign policy updates."

So members of the Trump administration are going to talk about their successes? Your reaction to that news probably was a lot like mine: "Gee, that should be a short meeting."

But then the obvious hit me: The lackeys filling the Trump White House reside in a  different world than the one you and I inhabit. When I started the Legal Schnauzer blog in June 2007 -- it soon will complete its 20th year of continuous publication -- I quickly realized there was hunger out there for information about our justice system, which many people correctly seemed to sense was deeply flawed. They wanted to know specifics, about the judges, lawyers, cops, and administrators who had befouled American justice. They also wanted to know about the folks on the right side of history -- people often in the same professions noted above, who brought a sense of honor and fairness to an embattled system. And they wanted to know about good people who had been harmed by the system -- well known people like Don Siegelman, Richard Scrushy, and Paul Minor -- and relatively unknown people like Bonnie Cahalane, Sherry Carroll Rollins, Dr. Mark Hayden, David Roberson, Burt Newsome, and many more. And they wanted to know about other journalists, activists, broadcasters and authors, such as K.B. Forbes, Donald Watkins, Andrew Kreig, Tommy Gallion, Scott Horton, and Peter B. Collins, who were (and still are) part of a widespread effort to expose corruption.

It has been rewarding to share this space with readers who have their values in the right place, who bring curiosity and intellect to a subject that is sprawling and complex -- filled with mystery and promise. I sense that Legal Schnauzer readers value our democracy and the rule of law upon which it's built -- understanding our system, with all of its flaws, is grounded in civic virtue that still is worth cherishing.

That's why I'm certain our readers would be out of place in a meeting like the one to be held at the White House today. I have written dozens of posts about the rot and self-dealing, the prejudice and selfishness, that is at the core of the Trump ethos. 

Trump has built an administration on loyalty to him, with no regard for competence or a desire to actually govern. That has produced opportunists and bootlickers like Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi, RFK Jr. and Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, Elon Musk and Pete Hegseth. From direct feedback here at the blog and various social-media sites where my work is cross-posted, I know our followers ache for the day when Trump and his acolytes are removed from power, held accountable, and the process of healing can begin. 

That's why I suspect our readers, and millions of Americans like them, can't imagine that a meeting focused on discussion of Trump-era successes would take very long. Here is the reality: Trumpers are likely to find success in actions and events that horrify regular Americans -- and people of conscience around the world. So I began to realize that Team Trump will find plenty to discuss, even if it means inventing "successes" where only failure actually resides. I began to imagine Trump welcoming his troops with an introductory statement that goes something like this . . .

Welcome, and I look forward to our discussions about the many successes we've had over the past 16 months. The Dumocrats under "Sleepy Joe" Biden and Barack Hussein Obama can't imagine the kind of accomplishments we have made. It all starts with this commandment: "Say what you mean, and mean what you say." Here are examples of the leadership our MAGA movement has  brought to the nation and the world:

1. I said, "I will be your justice, I will be your retribution." Did we succeed at that? Ask James Comey;

2. I said we didn't have time to grant due process and trials for migrants prior to deportation. Did we succeed at that? Ask the ones who've been deported anyway;

3. I said we would use the military to assist with domestic law enforcement, to fight crime in our cities, especially those led by Dumocrats. I said we would fight "the enemy within." Did we succeed at that? Ask the thugs who have been locked up;

4. I said we would use DOGE to greatly reduce the power, influence and body count of the regulatory state. Did we succeed at that? Ask the so-called "experts" who were in the bureaucracy and now are in the bread line;

5. I said we would have the fairest elections ever, that we would use the power of the courts and redistricting to make sure we never again let the Dumocrats steal elections. Did we succeed at that? Wait until you see how the 2026 midterms turn out;

6. I said I would appoint conservative, originalist judges to federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Did I succeed at that? Just do the arithmetic;

7. I said I would strengthen ICE and empower them to effectively and firmly enforce our immigration laws. Did I succeed at that? Ask Tim Walz and the Dumocrats who have failed miserably in Minnesota;

8. I said we would reduce our involvement with the UN, NATO, and European "allies" who can't be trusted to pay their fair share of the freight. Did I succeed at that? Ask yourselves this question: Do we need France or does France need us?

9. I said the Kennedy Center needed to be renovated, revived, and reinvigorated. It's a tired, dilapidated structure, but our improvement program is in progress. Did I succeed at that? Just wait until you see the new facility, with a great lineup of artists like Kid Rock, George Strait, and Lee Greenwood; 

10. I said we badly needed a White House ballroom, and we are moving forward with that, while the project has added a world-class military and security complex. When finished in summer 2028, there will be no other facility like it in the world. Did I succeed at that? Wait and see!

With that, let's start discussions of the incredible list of successes we have under our belts. Even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln could not have dreamed of the kind of achievements we have made -- and we are just getting started. Thank you for your attention to this matter.