Pam Bondi could face contempt charge for skipping testimony on Epstein files, as one Dem says Trump axed his AG to keep her from testifying under oath

(Facebook)

Former Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi failed to appear for a deposition before Congress about the Epstein files on Tuesday (April 14). And members of the House Oversight Committee indicate they are not going to let her skate. In fact, they also are targeting Todd Blanche, her interim replacement. That comes as one congressional Democrat claims President Donald Trump fired Bondi to keep her from testifying -- and that suggests Bondi's failure to appear was coordinated with the White House. 

Meanwhile, the widely read legal website Above the Law adds some levity to the proceedings by theorizing that Bondi's excuse for not appearing might be: "The dog ate my subpoena." Author/lawyer Kathryn Rubino went on to make light of Bondi's claim that being fired as attorney general freed her from obligations to testify before Congress -- adding some colorful language in the process, apparently to emphasize the absurdity of Bondi's stance:

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice (DOJ) said, “Because of the leadership transition at the Department, the subpoena no longer applies.”

Which, I guess if you never ask, the answer is always no. But, let’s be f-----g for real right now: That argument is about as persuasive as a toddler claiming bedtime “no longer applies” because they changed into different pajamas.

Unsurprisingly, the committee is not buying what DOJ is selling at the clearance rack of accountability — they’ve already confirmed they’ll reach out to her personal attorney. “The Department of Justice has stated Pam Bondi will not appear on April 14 for a deposition since she is no longer Attorney General and was subpoenaed in her capacity as Attorney General,” a spokeswoman for Oversight Republicans said in a statement. “The Committee will contact Pam Bondi’s personal counsel to discuss next steps regarding scheduling her deposition.”

History teaches that anything involving the Trump administration and the rule of law tends to turn into a  circus. That appears to be happening with the Bondi subpoena, according to a report yesterday at MS NOW under the headline "After Bondi skips testimony, top Oversight Democrat warns interim AG: You're next; 'We will hold Pam Bondi accountable. She must comply,' Rep. Robert Garcia said during an appearance on MS NOW. 'And believe me, Todd Blanche is next.'" Allison Detzel reports:

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi could face possible contempt charges after she failed to appear before lawmakers Tuesday to testify about the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, a top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee said. During an interview on MS NOW’s “The Weeknight,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California also issued a warning for Bondi’s interim replacement: You’re next.

“She had a subpoena in place to show up today,” Garcia said hours after Bondi was set to give her deposition. He added, “Just because she’s not the attorney general right now, that’s no excuse for her not to come in.”

Last week, the Justice Department said Bondi would not comply with the subpoena, arguing that it no longer applied since it was issued in her official capacity as attorney general.

“She was the mastermind of this White House cover-up,” Garcia said, adding that her failure to appear is “grounds for contempt.”

The California Democrat said the House Oversight Committee’s chairman, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., had been in contact with Bondi’s private attorney and told Democrats he was attempting to reschedule the hearing.

“Let’s reschedule it — and if we don’t hear back in the next couple of days, we’re going to begin the contempt proceeding,” Garcia said. “It has to happen. People have to be held accountable for the laws that we pass in the Congress and the subpoenas that we put in place.”

Garcia indicated the scrutiny will not end with Bondi. He already is eyeballing her interim replacement, Detzel reports:

When asked about the possibility of issuing a subpoena for the interim attorney general, Todd Blanche, Garcia told the co-hosts of “The Weeknight” that, at the moment, Democrats on the committee did not have the votes to compel him to testify.

In his role as deputy attorney general, Blanche had “been very involved in the Epstein investigation,” Garcia said.

However, the House Democrat said he was optimistic that Blanche, who was previously a personal attorney for Trump, would be called before the committee eventually, noting that Democrats “successfully forced Republicans to get multiple subpoenas while in the minority.”

“So we have an absolute plan on getting Todd Blanche to come in front of our committee. He has to come testify,” he said.

While Garcia said Blanche’s testimony was important, he stressed that Bondi should not be let “off the hook.”

What about the claim that Trump might have fired Bondi because he wanted to keep her from testifying under oath about what she had seen in the Epstein files.  That comes from Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), per a jointly published report at The Hill and AOL. Under the headline "Moulton: Trump got rid of Bondi 12 days before Epstein deposition," Fiona Bork writes:

Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) has suggested that President Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi to prevent her from testifying in the House probe related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“She was about to be deposed in the Epstein case,” Moulton said in an interview with MS NOW’s Chris Jansing. “That’s why Trump got rid of her 12 days before that was supposed to happen.”

Trump announced earlier that day on Truth Social that Bondi would transition to a new job in the private sector. He thanked the former top prosecutor for doing a “tremendous job” in the role during her tenure.

Trump added that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, also one of his former personal lawyers, would lead the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the interim. 

Bondi has been under intense fire from both sides of the political aisle for her alleged efforts to engage in a cover-up of documents from the Epstein files that might prove damaging to the president. Bork writes:

Bondi has received criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress for her handling of the administration’s investigation into Epstein and the DOJ’s release of files tied to him — which include correspondence between Epstein and a slew of high-ranking political figures.

After the president signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law, the department released more than 3 million documents to the public with heavy redactions. While many lawmakers were able to view the unredacted files, critics have pressed for more transparency in the case.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including five Republicans, voted to subpoena Bondi in March to force her to testify on the Trump administration’s handling of the files. 

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), the top Democrat on the panel, wrote in a statement: “Oversight Democrats have been leading serious investigations into Bondi and Secretary Kristi Noem. “If they think we are moving on because they were fired, they are gravely mistaken.” 

As for Seth Moulton, he is well aware that Trump and his enablers often try to skirt the law, and he expects them to act true to form now. Bork writes:

Moulton, responding to a question on whether Garcia could still expect Bondi to testify, said they “can probably try to hold her accountable to the law.” But, he added, “We all know this administration is not accountable to the law.”

“So, I expect Trump to do everything he can come up with to try to get her out of testifying because it could be embarrassing to her,” the Massachusetts Democrat said.

Moulton also slammed Blanche for his involvement with the Epstein case. In July, the now-acting attorney general spearheaded talks with Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence. She was later quietly moved to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas.

“[Trump has] put in place someone who did a sweetheart deal for him with regards to Epstein,” Moulton told Jansing. “The guy who went down and interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell and got her out of a maximum security prison, got her all sorts of favors that criminals like her are not afforded, all because she’s willing to do favors for the president of the United States and help cover up his biggest political liability.”

Blanche, however, has pushed back on the notion that Trump ousted Bondi over the Epstein case.

“I have never heard President Trump say anything that the attorney general was — that anything that happened to her had anything to do with the Epstein files,” he told Fox News’s Jesse Watters. 

Will Donald Trump, a president who has no sense of reverence, maintain unwavering support from white evangelicals as his support among Catholics slips?

Trump, the healer (Truth Social)

Did Donald Trump commit a political gaffe when he initiated a public quarrel with Pope Leo? The best source of information I've seen for addressing that question comes from a podcast at The New Republic (TNR). Greg Sargent, of TNR, conducts an interview with religion scholar Robert Jones that produces a wealth of information for assessing Trump's strategy of going after the leader of the Catholic Church. Let's take a look at a transcript of the Sargent-Jones conversation, which comes under the headline "Trump rages as Pope's harsh new rebuke lands surprise blow." A sub-headline reads "As the president's retaliation against Pope Leo goes off the rails, a scholar of religion explains why the pope's criticism of him could prove much more damaging than you might think" -- providing a number of clues to what lies ahead:

Greg Sargent: When Donald Trump viciously attacked the pope and then posted a picture depicting himself as a divine figure, it provoked a massive backlash from many in his own base. That was bad enough, but then Trump offered some rambling spin on it all that was so preposterous in its dishonesty, so insulting, that it quickly made things worse. We think this mess hints at deeper truths about how Trump approaches religious voters, particularly the right-wing evangelicals who are critical to his support. It also helps explain why the Trump coalition and the Trump project are so fragile right now. So we invited on Robert Jones, president of the Public Religion Research Institute and author of several books about religion and the American right, to make sense of all this for us. Robert, good to have you on.

Robert Jones: Thanks. Glad to be here.

Sargent: So Trump is angry because Pope Leo has repeatedly criticized the Iran war and especially Trump’s threat to obliterate Iranian civilization. In response, Trump unleashed this crazed rant describing the pope as “weak on crime,” adding this: “I don’t want a pope who thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” Trump also said, “I don’t want a pope who criticizes the president of the United States” because I’m doing what I was elected for. Robert, I wanted to get your general thoughts on that first.

Jones: Well, I’ll start with the last one. “I was doing what I was elected for”—Trump, of course, thinks that now that he’s been elected, he can be constrained by nothing but his own whims. That’s really what he’s reacting to here.

But in this case, he’s got the leader of a worldwide church who is also operating out of a 2,000-year-old theological tradition. Leo is not firing from the hip here. He really is digging pretty deep. And this criticism is not just about the war. It is weighing these decisions about state violence against Catholic moral teaching. Trump thinks that there should be no criticism of him whatsoever. This is the authoritarian playbook. That you should have no dissenters, and certainly no dissenters with influence or power.

In two short paragraphs, Jones sums up Trump's mindset perfectly. The president cannot handle anyone trying to constrain him -- whether it be Congress, the Judiciary, or lawful protesters on the streets of Minneapolis. And get this: Trump actually believes he was elected to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran, which likely will unsettle the global economy for months, maybe years. Does Trump think Americans will gladly put up with "pain at the pump," when history tells us they won't? The conversation then turns to Trump's lack of respect for religion in general -- even though many religious conservatives have inexplicably supported him:

Sargent: So Trump also posted this deranged image that portrayed him as a divine figure in a white robe, healing a sick man by placing his hand on the man’s forehead. This got MAGA figures angry.

Marjorie Taylor Greene said, “It’s more than blasphemy. It’s an anti-Christ spirit.” A Daily Wire reporter called it “outrageous blasphemy,” adding “he needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness.” Christian MAGA activist Sean Fucht said: “This should be deleted immediately.” And former Republican spinner Ari Fleischer said “it’s inappropriate and embarrassing—it’s offensive.”

There was much more like that. Robert, can you just explain at the core why this image is seen as blasphemous?

Jones: Well, Trump is clearly displaying himself as Jesus. In the image he’s got on a white robe with a kind of red robe over it. You could find hundreds of images like that of Jesus dressed this way—this white robe, this red sash over the top. He’s got this glowing hand as he’s leaning over this person in their sickbed.

So this is also his depiction of supernatural divine healing power that he’s claiming for himself. One other thing is that this is not the first time Trump has done this. It was just after Easter last year that Trump actually posted an image of himself as the pope, dressed up in papal vestments. This is not the first time he’s posted things like this, assuming either the chair of the pope himself or the image of Jesus.

The conversation then turns to Trump's effort to spin his way out of trouble -- the bipartisan kind that can come with comparing yourself to Christ:

Sargent: Well, Trump actually deleted the image of himself as a divine figure. Now let’s listen to how he tried to spin his way out of this.

Reporter (voiceover): Mr. President, did you post that picture of yourself depicted as Jesus Christ?

Donald Trump (voiceover): Well, it wasn’t a depict—it was me. I did post it and I thought it was me as the doctor and had to do with Red Cross, as a Red Cross worker there, which we support. And only the fake news could come up with that one. So I had—I just heard about it. And I said, “How did they come up with that? It’s supposed to be me as a doctor.”

Were Jones and Sargent buying this one? No way. In fact, they treated it like the absurdity it is:

Sargent: Robert, apparently Trump thinks doctors have celestial light pouring forth from their palms and can heal people by touching them, as the picture showed. What did you make of his excuse?

Jones: He’s reaching deep for this one. The problem is that the image really didn’t allow much wiggle room. So the best he could say is, I’m a doctor, I’m at a bedside.

But there are angels in the air behind him. And as we said, these glowing palms. So he’s just trying to obfuscate and back away from it. And again, if he thought this was just an image of him as a doctor and did this innocently, why remove it? Just leave it up if you really believe in it. 

Whenever Trump engages religion, it comes off very tin ear, because he just has no sense of piety. It becomes very clear, whether it’s his misnaming a book of the Bible, walking across the street, clearing it with some violence and then holding up a Bible awkwardly in front of a church. These are all things that actual religious people wouldn’t do that way. But he just has no innate sense of that. 

That brings the conversation around to the different ways religious groups view Trump -- and Jones provides intriguing data on the subject:

Sargent: So Robert, I wonder if part of what we’re seeing here is that in Trump’s genuine understanding of the situation, evangelicals really do matter a lot more within his base than Catholics do. What does the data show on that? It confirms that, right? How would these different groups perceive this controversy generally?

Jones: That’s right. His strongest supporters have always been white evangelical Protestants. They have voted more than eight in 10 for him every time he has been on the ballot. Catholics are a much more complex story. His support among Catholics has actually been split pretty starkly along racial and ethnic lines.

He’s always had white non-Hispanic Catholics with him, but they vote about six in 10 for him, not 85 percent for him. The real difference is that inside the Catholic Church, Hispanic Catholics have actually voted Democratic, typically. In the last election, it was only about 43 percent of Hispanic Catholics that supported him, compared to 60 percent of white Catholics. There’s this racial tension inside the Catholic Church, and it’s just not a monolith in the way that it is among white evangelicals.

His statement that he could walk down the middle of the street and shoot somebody in the middle of the day and people would still vote for him—I think that’s actually largely true among white evangelicals today. In fact, he made that comment at an evangelical college in the first place. It’s not so true among Catholics.

Sargent: I want to ask you about that, because it seems like there may be a fundamental difference between how devout evangelicals and how devout Catholics perceive Trump. Evangelicals are much more prone to understand Trump as a flawed vessel sent to them by God to carry out his and their plans in the world. Whereas Catholics aren’t really at that place. Is that distinction correct?

Jones: That’s fair. Catholics have much more complex reasons for supporting Trump than white evangelicals do. His messianic appearances actually resonate much stronger with evangelicals than they do among Catholics. You can see that in the favorability numbers, too—Trump’s favorability among white evangelicals, even today, is 70 percent. It hardly ever wavers, no matter what happens.

But his favorability among even white Catholics who voted for him is only about 53 percent. It’s just barely in majority territory today.

From attacking Pope Leo as "terrible on foreign policy" to portraying himself as a Christ-like healing figure, Trump seems to take delight in defiling holy ground

 

Trump, the healer (Truth Social)

As an avowed Never-Trumper, I rarely am surprised by any ignorant thing our president says or does. But even I was taken aback by headlines this week that suggest Trump, his thuggish loyalists, or both had threatened Pope Leo. It's bad enough that Trump took reasonable criticism from Leo about the Iran war and turned it into a rather chippy quarrel, at least from the president's end of things. Any mentally balanced person would have simply let Leo's words go and kept any dispute on low simmer. But Trump, of course, is not mentally balanced, so he had to fire back and turn it into an intercontinental conflagration. 

Are the Trumpers so dense that they thought the pope would come out in favor of violence and war? Do they not understand that, as head of the Catholic church, the pope often is seen as "moral leader for the world"? Did they really think such a figure would support an unprovoked attack on Iran, especially its civilian population?

Finally, we have this question: Did the Trump administration actually threaten Pope Leo and perhaps the Catholic Church itself? Let's consider the evidence . . . 

First, we have this headline from NPR: "Pope Leo says he does not fear Trump as he pushes back in feud over Iran War. And the story includes this passage:

U.S.-born Pope Leo XIV pushed back Monday on President Trump's broadside against him over the U.S.-Israel war in Iran, telling reporters that the Vatican's appeals for peace and reconciliation are rooted in the Gospel, and that he doesn't fear the Trump administration.

"To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here, I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is," Leo told The Associated Press aboard the papal plane en route to Algeria. "And I'm sorry to hear that but I will continue on what I believe is the mission of the church in the world today."

History's first U.S.-born pope stressed that he was not making a direct attack against Trump or anyone else with his general appeal for peace and criticisms of the "delusion of omnipotence" that is fueling the Iran war and other conflicts around the world.

In short, a pope's perspective on matters of war and peace is very different from that of a president. Do Trump and his associates not grasp that? Here is more from the NPR story:

"I will not enter into debate. The things that I say are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone. The message of the Gospel is very clear: 'Blessed are the peacemakers,'" Leo said.

"I will not shy away from announcing the message of the Gospel and inviting all people to look for ways of building bridges of peace and reconciliation, and looking for ways to avoid war any time that's possible."

Speaking to other reporters, he added: "I'm not afraid of the Trump administration or of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel, which is what the Church works for.''

At the risk of coming across as a "Pope whisperer," here are the main points I think Leo was trying to make:

(1) He does not seek to attack or debate anyone, but . . . 

(2) He will not let Trump intimidate him into staying silent on matters of war and peace, and . . . 

(3) He does not think Trump made any serious attempt to avoid war, and that has led to suffering around the globe -- and that suffering probably will continue to grow.

What about other takes on our question "Did the Trump administration actually threaten Pope Leo and perhaps the Catholic Church itself"? Thom Hartmann, one of the leading progressive voices in the U.S.,  provides background at Raw America that strongly suggests the answer is yes. In fact, Hartmann's headline on the matter is not subtle: "Trump Attacked the Pope -- the Pope Hit Back." Hartmann writes:

This story is almost too extraordinary to believe, but it is documented and it matters. (I will highlight some of the most extraordinary passages.) After Pope Leo XIV delivered his State of the World address in January — arguing that diplomacy was being replaced by force and that “a zeal for war is spreading” — Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s U.S. representative, to a closed-door meeting at the Pentagon. What was said inside that room has no precedent in American history.

Sources familiar with the meeting say Colby told the cardinal directly: “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.” A U.S. official present then invoked the Avignon papacy — the 14th-century episode in which the French monarchy forced the Catholic Church into submission, ordered an assault on Pope Boniface VIII, and relocated the papacy from Rome to southern France. Many inside the Vatican interpreted that historical reference as a direct threat to use military force against the Holy See. There are no public records of any previous meeting between American officials and Vatican representatives at the Pentagon, let alone one in which the United States suggested it could force the Bishop of Rome into captivity.

Every American president since Eisenhower has understood that the moral authority of religious institutions, however imperfect, is one of the few forces in the world that can check the impulse toward endless war. What this administration did in that room wasn’t just a diplomatic blunder. It was a declaration that it recognizes no authority above its own, not law, not history, and not conscience.

The consequences were immediate. Pope Leo canceled his planned visit to the United States. And on July 4th — America’s 250th birthday — rather than celebrating with the administration that threatened him, he will visit Lampedusa, the tiny Mediterranean island where North African migrants wash ashore by the thousands. He did not choose that date by accident. The White House dismissed the entire account as “highly exaggerated and distorted,” insisting the meeting was “respectful and reasonable.” You can draw your own conclusions.

In an update, Hartmann provides more alarming details, focusing on a Truth Social post that launched Trump's assault on a religious institution:

In a 334-word broadside, Trump branded Pope Leo XIV — the first American-born pope in history — as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” accused him without any basis of supporting Iranian nuclear weapons, and claimed credit for Leo’s election to the papacy, writing that if he wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.

Trump then said he preferred the pope’s older brother, a self-described MAGA supporter from Florida: “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA.” Leo did not take the bait quietly. Aboard the papal flight to Algiers at the start of an 11-day trip to Africa, the pope told reporters plainly: “I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do.” Asked about Truth Social specifically, Leo offered a pointed aside about the name of the platform itself: “It’s ironic — the name of the site itself. Say no more.”

I do believe Leo just took a dig at Trump and his massive ego. Long live the Pope:

The pontiff vowed to continue speaking out against the war. “Too many people are suffering in the world today,” he said. “Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say there’s a better way.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushed back on Trump directly. Archbishop Paul Coakley said he was “disheartened” by the president’s words, and reminded the country that Leo is “not his rival” and “not a politician” but “the Vicar of Christ.”

With U.S. Catholic bishops involved, that takes the sparring to a whole new level, on Trump's home turf. And polling suggests Trump made a tactical error by needlessly confronting the Pope, Hartmann writes:

When a sitting American president attacks the leader of the world’s largest Christian denomination for opposing a war, and the bishops push back publicly, we’re not watching a political spat. We’re watching the moral authority of a faith tradition refuse to be conscripted into justifying bloodshed, and that’s a line that matters, whatever your own beliefs happen to be.

The polling on this fight is brutal for Trump. A March NBC survey found 42 percent of Americans view Leo favorably and just 8 percent unfavorably. Trump’s numbers: 41 percent favorable, 53 percent unfavorable.

The Trump vs. Leo dustup included an element that seemed to put a spotlight on Trump's all-encompassing narcissism. It was another case of Trump being unable to leave matters alone. Hartmann writes:

Less than an hour after attacking the pope, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself depicted as Jesus Christ, healing a man in a hospital bed while surrounded by American flags, bald eagles, and monuments.

The backlash from within his own movement was immediate and sharp.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene called it “more than blasphemy” and said it carried “an Antichrist spirit.” MAGA podcaster Michael Knowles told his 1.4 million followers the president should “delete the picture, no matter the intent.” Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham called it “OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy” and demanded he take it down and “ask for forgiveness from the American people and then from God.” Far-right influencer Milo Yiannopoulos blamed a White House faith adviser for the president’s behavior and wrote, simply, “Pray for his soul. Pray for us all.”

The image went up on Orthodox Easter Sunday.

The use of messianic imagery to sanctify political power isn’t new, every authoritarian movement of the 20th century eventually wrapped itself in God and flag. It’s how leaders signal to their followers that their authority isn’t just political, it’s divine. When even the MAGA faithful are saying “this has gone too far,” that tells you something important about where this is headed.

Viktor Orban, the authoritarian Trump and MAGAs see as a heroic visionary goes down to a landslide loss -- but the "Orbanisation of America" continues apace"

Hungarians celebrate the end of the Orban era (Reuters)

In a result that many political observers see as a win for Western democracy and a loss for authoritarianism, Hungary''s incumbent prime minister Viktor Orban conceded defeat yesterday to upstart Peter Magyar. Ironically, the outcome also was seen as a defeat for both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. From a jointly published report at the DPA press agency of Germany and Yahoo! News, under the headline "Orban concedes defeat as Hungary's opposition set for landslide win": 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has conceded defeat in parliamentary elections to opposition leader Péter Magyar, bringing an end to his 16 years in power.

"Whatever happens, we will serve the homeland even in opposition," the right-wing populist told supporters in Budapest on Sunday night.

"The task is clear: now that the burden of government work is no longer on our shoulders, we must strengthen our own community."

Magyar’s centre-right Tisza Party was set for a landslide win over Orbán’s Fidesz, an official tally showed.

With around 67% of polling stations counted, Orbán’s Fidesz party had secured 38.08% of the vote, according to the election commission, while his challenger Magyar’s centre-right Tisza led with 53.27%.

Election analysts said Tisza was ahead in enough constituencies to secure a comfortable parliamentary majority.

"Thank you, Hungary!" Magyar posted on X, adding that he already had spoken with French President Emmanuel Macron by phone. 

Orban has instituted policies in Hungary that closely mirror what Trump has done in the United States. In fact, Trump has cited Hungary as a model for the U.S., as the European Council on Foreign Relations states in an article titled "The Orbanisation of America: Hungary's lessons for Donald Trump." From the DPA/Yahoo! News article:

The election, seen as Hungary’s most significant since the democratic transition of 1989–90, drew record turnout, with 77.8% of eligible voters casting ballots shortly before polls closed.

During his time in office, 62-year-old Orbán has been accused of building a semi-authoritarian system, curbing media and judicial independence, cracking down on LGBTQ rights, steering the country into conflict with the European Union and aligning it more closely with Russia. He was a celebrity in the eyes of many conservatives in US President Donald Trump’s MAGA movement.

Within the EU, he repeatedly used vetoes to block key aid for Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, contributing to tensions with Brussels, which froze billions of euros in funds over rule-of-law concerns.

Attacking media and judicial independence. Cracking down on minority rights.Promoting conflict with European allies. Aligning with Russia. Trampling the rule of law. That sounds familiar because it's straight from Trump's playbook, which he largely borrowed from Orban. Here is more from DPA/Yahoo! News:

Magyar, a 45-year-old former Fidesz insider who broke with Orbán two years ago, built a broad-based political movement in a short period, positioning himself as an agent of change. He pitched his message relentlessly across the country, reaching beyond his base in major cities to smaller towns and villages.

He campaigned on tackling corruption and mismanagement and pledged to repair Hungary’s relations with the EU and its Western allies.

I encourage our Legal Schnauzer readers to let that last paragraph sink in, Magyar promised to tackle corruption and mismanagement and pledged to repair Hungary's relations with the EU and its Western allies. Hungarian voters, weary of Orban's authoritarian impulses, rewarded Magyar with a resounding victory. He ran exactly the kind of campaign we need from Democrats in the U.S. -- and we desperately need to rid ourselves of a budding despot. But here's the thing: We cannot afford to wait until 2028 to get rid of Trump. To rebuild from the damage he has wrought already will be a long, hard road, so we cannot let Trump and his band of dysfunctional incompetents make it worse. As I've already noted in a previous plost, Trump, his acolytes, and their GOP enablers must be ejected now -- through impeachment, the 25th Amendment, or some type of military intervention. Heck, I'm open to a creative ejection technique that's never been used before -- as long as it's effective and begins our nation's healing process.

A good first step toward getting our country back on the right track would be for all Americans to read "The Orbanisation of America" article noted above. Here is the summary that begins the piece, which is written by Jeremy Shapiro and Zsuzsanna Vegh. I will highlight the sentences that sound the most  Trumpian, reflecting where he has gone and where he wants to go:

Summary

• Viktor Orban has seized control of nearly all the levers of power in Hungary since he became prime minister in 2010, effectively turning the country into an electoral autocracy.
• Republicans in the US have noticed Orban’s success. Orban’s Fidesz party and the Republicans have lately strengthened their links significantly; Republicans appear to have learned from the former’s march through Hungarian institutions.
• In the four years since President Donald Trump left office (in 2000, returning in 2024), veterans of his administration have thought hard about how to make a new administration more effective than the last. Many believe that a similar seizure of control of the instruments of US governance is necessary.

If Trump wins the presidency, Republicans will likely adapt many of Orban’s techniques to the US context to end what they view as liberal control of the “administrative state” and civil society.

This new form of US governance could have profound implications not only for European foreign policy, including the robustness of NATO’s collective defence, but also EU and domestic European democracy as a Trump White House seeks to lead and champion like-minded allies across the world.

The full article is well worth your time. We highly recommend it. We will have more in upcoming posts about the "Orbanisation of America." This clearly is where Trump wants to take us, and we must refuse to go. Hungarians have ousted Orban; now we must oust Trump, holding him and his enablers accountable for the damage they have done, starting with their destruction of the White House's East Wing. We hope you will stay tuned because this is one of the most important stories of Trump's horrific second term. We now know the roadmap he is using, and it deserves to be crumpled up and tossed in the trash.