Trump seems to be taking election advice from a right-wing media influencer who appears to know zip about the law; could this prompt a brain-addled president to take dangerous steps for democracy?

Democracy Docket: Trump wants to take over voting

Donald Trump mused earlier this week about taking control of the 2026 midterm elections. The president's comments were cryptic, but he appeared to be thinking of rigging elections to favor the Republican Party or perhaps canceling them altogether. Strangely, Trump seemed to be taking signals during an interview from a right-wing media influencer -- sort of a male Laura Loomer -- and this guy's knowledge of U.S. election law seems to be close to zero. That, of course, sounds just like the kind of source Trump would find appealing. In Loomer's case, Trump turned a relatively unknown conspiracy theorist into a "loyalty enforcer" for his administration, reportedly causing several staffers to be fired.  In a similar vein, Trump apparently could wind up taking election advice from a guy named Wayne Allyn Root -- and Root seems to be doing his best to make that happen.

We see no sign that any of Root's ideas are legal, but that might just make them especially appealing to Trump. Has he ever let the unlawfulness of an idea keep him from trying it? What's going on with all of this? For insights on that question, we turn to Democracy Docket, a leading digital news platform dedicated to information, analysis, and opinion about voting rights and elections in the courts. It was founded in 2020 by Marc Elias, one of the most successful and best-known election lawyers in the country.

Trump's various schemes to suppress the rights of left-leaning voters are always a rich source of election-related news, and Democracy Docket is staying on top of the president's latest half-baked scheme. Under the headline "Trump signals openness to unconstitutional plot to take over elections,' Jacob Knutson writes:

President Donald Trump signaled Tuesday he’s willing to declare a national security emergency in an attempt to take over American elections.

“Let me just say stranger things have happened,” Trump said, after a far-right media host implored him to exert sweeping control over the upcoming midterms during a post-midnight interview.

“I’ll leave it at that,” the president added.

Is this another case of Trump spewing out more garbage than his mouth can hold and his brain can process? That's what it sounds like, Knutson reports:

The comments are just the latest in a string of alarming remarks Trump has made about U.S. elections. He previously said he wanted to “nationalize” voting and regretted not ordering the military to seize ballots and election machines after his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

The president has no power to control elections. Instead, the U.S. Constitution exclusively grants states and Congress the authority over election administration.

Has that stopped right wingers from encouraging Trump to act outside the Constitution? Of course not. Heck, if right wingers were committed to acting within the Constitution, they wouldn't be right wingers. The loudest right-wing voice on elections currently belongs to Wayne Allyn Root. To borrow a phrase I often heard while growing up in the Ozark Mountains, "You could take everything Wayne Allyn Root knows about elections, put them in a thimble, and have lots of room left over." Knutson writes:

Despite constitutional limitations, Wayne Allyn Root, a host on the Real America’s Voice TV network and one of Trump’s favorite right-wing media figures, urged the president to subvert democratic elections through executive fiat.

Root, who is known for spreading conspiracy theories (I told you he was like a male Laura Loomer), claimed Trump was entitled to do that because Senate Republicans do not have the votes to pass the SAVE America Act. If it became law, the bill would restrict the freedom to vote for millions of eligible Americans. 

“Let me put an idea in your head, okay? You have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections,” Root said. “If you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots. You don’t even need to have the Senate’s vote.”

Is Root trying to mess with what's left of Trump's brain? That's a dangerous strategy at any time, but it is particularly so with dementia seemingly encroaching on the 80-year-old president's thought processes at an alarming rate. Does it border on elder abuse and could it lead to massive unrest in our country, at a time when divisions already are intense and tension is high. Knutson continues:

The host further claimed that, because of Supreme Court precedent, such an emergency couldn’t be challenged in court and could only be ended by a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. 

Though Root’s nonsensical and unconstitutional proposal would amount to an unparalleled assault on U.S. democracy, Trump didn’t disavow it. In fact, his claim that “stranger things have happened” could be an attempt to normalize such a declaration.

Where does Root get this stuff, out of a comic book? Or does he pull it from a bodily orifice we would rather not think about? Either way, he seems to have something up his sleeve, and it probably is not designed to secure the vote for you or me.

We draw to a close, citing important history from Knutson and Democracy Docket:

No president has ever declared a national emergency or used wartime powers to run, alter, or cancel elections. 

However, Trump has tried to unilaterally change elections twice, first through an executive order last year and second through a separate order earlier this year. Courts have blocked both orders.

Perhaps laying the groundwork for an emergency declaration or mass challenges to races this November, the White House has ramped up its efforts to traffic election conspiracy theories. 

Last month, Trump pushed several false claims about the 2020 election in a prime-time address. Despite promising new revelations of election fraud in the heavily promoted speech, the president essentially rehashed old conspiracy theories that had long been debunked.

Less than 24 hours after being sworn in as Trump's attorney general, Todd Blanche proves his word is worth a warm cup of Republican-generated spit

(WTKR News 3, Facebook)

Many Americans probably have grown used to having a congenital liar as president. Now, it looks like we will have a similar truth-challenged individual as attorney general. If there is any positive to this, it's that Americans who have been following news about Todd Blanche's confirmation as AG probably are not surprised by this latest revelation; in fact, our guess is that many of them already assumed Blanche was cut from the same cloth as Donald Trump. That, however, does not make it reassuring to know that perhaps the two most powerful positions in our government are occupied by men who are predisposed to be untruthful. Does that mean rocky times could become even rockier? The New Republic (TNR) provides insights on that question under the headline "Surprise! Todd Blanche immediately breaks his promises to GOP senators; hours after being sworn in as attorney general, Blanche gave Donald Trump more protections.   Edith Olmsted writes: 

It’s been less than 24 hours, and freshly sworn-in Attorney General Todd Blanche has already issued entirely new legal protections for President Donald Trump.

In a memo published Monday evening, just hours after Blanche’s swearing-in ceremony, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel argued that the president could claim executive privilege over communication between him and his “private advisers,” provided that the communications were confidential and related to his presidential “decision-making.”

As the TNR headline implies, members of Blanche's own party cannot trust what he says, Olmsted reports: 

The memo also seemed to expand executive privilege to apply to communications between the president’s “direct advisers” and civilians. If the Democrats take back the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm elections, this memo could have major implications for any investigation into the president and other top administration officials. Clearly, the Trump administration is preparing to stonewall Congress.

It is unclear at the moment if Democrats will take back either house of Congress -- especially with the centrist and socialist wings of the party seemingly at war with each other. Even if a "blue wave" does sweep Trump's GOP enablers out of office, it's not clear that a memo authored by Todd Blanche -- whose approval ratings should sink into the negative numbers by that point -- would hold much sway with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Still, Blanche's willingness to blow smoke up the fannies of Republicans who supported him shows that he does not mind making his so-called "colleagues" look like a bunch of rubes. More importantly, it adds to the evidence that Blanche cares about one person in government and one person only -- and that is Donald Trump. Olmsted writes:

Blanche’s latest move reflects poorly on all of the Republicans who voted to confirm him—but especially Senators Bill Cassidy, John Cornyn, and Tom Tillis, who bought into the attorney general’s promises to limit the scope of a different immunity for the president. Blanche has demonstrated that he isn’t the least bit interested in holding the president accountable for anything—let alone preserving transparency in government. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

In a statement Tuesday morning, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the memo revealed that Trump was “petrified of the questions a Democratic Congress will demand answers to.”

Let's pray that Trump's efforts to rig this year's midterm elections fail, and a Democratic Congress gets a chance to demand answers to tough questions about Trump's disastrous second term. The future of our democracy likely depends on it.

Now that criminal charges against him have been dropped, David Hearn and his attorneys consider legal claims -- possibly including defamation, false imprisonment, and more

(McGill Media, Facebook)

Donald Trump brought conditions at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool to public attention on March 31 by claiming the water looked "absolutely filthy." Trump tried to ameliorate the problem by fast-tracking a no-bid contract for Atlantic Industrial Coatings to drain, waterproof, and paint the pool "American Flag Blue." That move failed, as the water turned green, apparently due to algae growth, and pieces of a newly installed blue liner began to peel. In a state of increasing frustration, Trump did not seem inclined to take responsibility for the botched renovation and decided that vandals had caused damage to the pool. 

One of the alleged vandals he blamed was former U.S. Olympic canoeist David "Davy" Hearn, who long has operated a waterproofing business and said he only reached into the water to feel what a piece of the detached liner felt like. In short, Hearn has a history with materials used around man-made pools of water, and he simply was trying to get a professional's feel for what was going on. 

Trump, unable to keep his mouth shut about vandalism and unwilling to calmly assign the repair job to someone who knew what he or she was doing, made matters worse by posting on Truth Social that individuals had intentionally slashed and gashed the pool's blue lining, causing enough damage to merit felony criminal charges that could be punished by years behind bars. Trump posted that multiple individuals had been charged with destruction of government property, with David Hearn being by far the best-known suspect. The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a grand-jury investigation that led to an indictment, with Hearn detained for roughly five hours after his arrest. He hired a team of lawyers, pled not guilty to one felony count (which has a maximum sentence of 10 years, upon conviction) and wound up seeing Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, dismiss charges after concluding the damage had been due to rushed and flawed installation.

After all of that, Trump might find himself in the middle of a bigger mess, according to reporting at The New Republic (TNR). Under the headline "Trump's repeated attacks over Reflecting Pool come back to bite him; former Olympian David Hearn's lawyers say they are exploring all options," Hafiz Rashid writes: 

President Donald Trump’s repeated attempts to punish former Olympian David Hearn on the made-up vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool may backfire.

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, was forced to drop the felony charges against Hearn on July 31 due to a lack of evidence, faulting Trump’s hand-picked contractor for a shoddy renovation instead. But on Sunday, Trump was still pushing his false claim that Hearn actively vandalized the pool’s lining, claiming on Truth Social that a National Park Service career employee, “a highly credible witness,” watched Hearn “‘violently’ ripping and tugging at the Pool’s somewhat delicate coating.”

As we reported in a post dated August 3, Hearn already had a number of possible legal claims against individuals and entities associated with the government's failed "vandalism" case. With Trump continuing to push the false narrative that Hearn intentionally damaged the pool, legal headaches for the president and his associates might only be getting started. Does Hearn have grounds for a lawsuit against individuals who caused him to be falsely arrested and imprisoned? I think the answer is yes, and let's take a closer look at potential claims that might be of particular interest, as outlined in our August 3 post:

(1) Presidential Immunity -- "Here is where the Hearn case could get very interesting. What if it is determined that Donald Trump ordered Hearn's arrest and ordered Pirro to prosecute, regardless of whether she had a valid case. The U.S Supreme Court (SCOTUS), of course, famously granted former presidents absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. But what about civil immunity? In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, SCOTUS found that a former president has absolute immunity from civil damages for official acts while he was president. Civil immunity, however, does not apply to unofficial conduct or actions taken before the president was in office. . . . 

"A key question would be "Does any president have the authority to order federal arrests or prosecutions? The Justice Department Manual plainly says the president should not be involved in charging or non-charging decisions. That language likely would make it difficult for Trump to argue that ordering criminal charges against David Hearn was part of his official duties. On the civil side, any actions Trump took against Hearn would almost have to be seen as unofficial conduct that would not trigger immunity."

(2) False imprisonment -- "That Hearn was detained brings "false imprisonment" into the matter. Imprisonment does not refer only to situations where a subject is placed in a cell, behind bars. It also refers to any detention that takes away a person's freedom of movement. And if that detention (five hours in Hearn's case) is unlawful -- and his almost certainly was -- then he would have grounds for a false imprisonment lawsuit. (Note: This brings us to the idea of what I call "state-sanctioned kidnappings." Such actions have exploded during the second Trump administration, as he has granted extraordinary powers to ICE, promoted the militarization of law enforcement, unlawfully used the military for domestic purposes, and demonized migrants while attacking their right to due process. I have personal experience with a state-sanctioned kidnapping, and we will have more on that issue in upcoming posts.)

(3) Defamation -- In a Truth Social post dated July 14, Trump wrote the following:

“The Parks Department had to empty the water in order to fix the water tight basin. It will be refilled and put back into service soon. These country-hating sleazebags should pay a big price for the damage done.”

The sentence highlighted in yellow could bring defamation into play. In general, a defamation plaintiff must prove (1) a false statement of fact; (2) publication to a third party; and (3) resulting harm to their reputation.

Hearn, as the only person charged with a felony, is by far the best-known defendant in the case. Trump, however, did not mention Hearn by name, so could a defamation claim still exist? The answer is yes, based on the following from the Digital Media Law Project under the heading "Who can sue for defamation":

In order to be actionable, a defamatory statement must be "of and concerning" the plaintiff. This means that a defamation plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would understand that the statement was referring to him or her. Of course, if a blog post or online article identifies the plaintiff by name, this requirement will be easily met. The plaintiff need not be specifically named, however, if there are enough identifying facts that any (but not necessarily every) person reading or hearing it would reasonably understand it to refer to the plaintiff. 

Once Hearn can establish the Trump statement is "of and concerning" him, he probably could claim the statement is false in two respects. One, Trump refers to Hearn as a "country-hating sleazebag." Hearn can make a strong case that he, in fact, loves his country. He represented the United States in three consecutive Summer Olympic Games and multiple World Championships/World Cups. He won 13 World Championship medals (including eight golds) and 23 World Cup medals.  Two, Trump says Hearn should "pay a big price" for the "damage done." But what if there is no evidence that Hearn did any damage? That means Trump falsely claimed he had "done damage" and owed a "big price" for it.

What about the issue of civil immunity for Trump? Is he going to try to claim that it is an "official act" for him to call a decorated U.S. Olympian a "country-hating sleazebag"? As a matter of law, a judge with integrity should hold that Trump is not protected by immunity.

As for damages, the main evidence probably would involve loss of income, and expert testimony could show the extent of harm Hearn has suffered. In an age where fame, media, endorsements, and reputation matter, Hearn's damages could be considerable, and we can hope they come right out of Trump's pocket -- unless one of his authoritarian buddies, such as Vladimir Putin, is willing to pick up the check.

Let's return to the reporting at TNR, where we learn Hearn's legal team already is thinking of compensation that might be due to their client:

Hearn’s lawyers—Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, Mary Dohrmann of Washington Litigation Group, and Steve Levin of Steptoe LLP—said in a statement Monday that they aren’t going to take “continued harassment” from the president.

“The government is continuing to attack an innocent man. Our first filing in the case on July 10 included photographic evidence from before Mr. Hearn touched the Reflecting Pool proving that he caused no damage,” the lawyers told Mediaite. “Our other filings provided even more proof. Finally, the U.S. Attorney’s own motion on July 31 admitted the damage was caused by a ‘botched installation and not vandalism.’ We are reviewing all legal remedies, including for this continued harassment. It is outrageous.”

This means that Hearn could sue Trump and the Department of Justice over the false claims, which the DOJ has already disavowed in court. There are a lot of unanswered questions over how Pirro’s office secured an indictment against Hearn in the first place with such faulty evidence. She later blamed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum for deliberately misleading her office about Hearn’s actions.

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent reports that Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are looking to open an investigation into how Hearn was charged and demand documents from the Justice and Interior Departments relating to that decision. Hearn’s lawyers are also seeking access to transcripts of the federal grand jury proceedings. Trump’s tantrum over the failed Reflecting Pool renovations may soon turn into a big legal headache for him and his administration.

Bill Cassidy, with a habit of casting deciding votes that confirm even Trump's worst nominees, admits he's not sure about Todd Blanche's devotion to the Constitution, but he voted for him anyway

(McGill Media, Facebook)

If any rational Americans are uncertain about whether the postmodern Republican Party has become an unserious political cesspool that serves no purpose in our democracy, any such doubts should be washed away, as of yesterday.Why? Let's address that question by examining the actions of U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA). 

Cassidy is the gentleman who has developed a troubling habit of casting votes to confirm even the most preposterously unqualified, incompetent, and integrity-challenged nominees Donald Trump could drudge up in his second term. On Feb. 13, 2025, Cassidy cast the deciding vote to confirm RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services Secretary, even though he had voiced strong disagreement with the nominee's stance on vaccines. At about 4:30 a.m. ET on Saturday, Cassidy did it again, casting the deciding vote that made Todd Blanche Attorney General of the United States-- even though (get this) Cassidy admitted he did not fully trust Blanche to abide by the U.S. Constitution, but he voted for him anyway.

While you are trying not to choke on your Egg McMuffin, let's consider this: Cassidy, as a U.S. senator, and Blanche, as attorney general, have taken (or will take) oaths of office that essentially are the same. Here is the gist of what they both do solemnly swear:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I think it's safe to say the crux of that oath is the part I've highlighted in yellow. In short, you publicly vow that the U.S. Constitution is a very big deal to you; you vow to support and defend it against all enemies; you vow to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the document.

Now, let's take a look at a report from Raw Story that indicates neither Cassidy nor Blanche appear to take their oaths all that seriously. Under the headline "GOP senator who ensured Todd Blanche's confirmation makes stunning confession," Kathleen Culliton writes:

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) confessed Sunday he doesn't entirely trust soon-to-be Attorney General Todd Blanche to uphold the Constitution — but voted to confirm his nomination anyway.

Cassidy, the Republican Senator who made Blanche's confirmation possible by agreeing to vote the party line, made this stunning admission on Face the Nation Sunday morning when asked point blank if he trusted Blanche.

"There's always an existential anxiety, but I am as confident you can be," said Cassidy. "I can't predict the future." (Note: A transcript of the Cassidy interview can be viewed at this link.)

Cassidy did not come across as a profile in courage during his interview with Margaret Brennan, moderator of Face the Nation. Culliton writes:

Cassidy also admitted he was close to tears when he announced he would support President Donald Trump's nominee, despite mounting concerns that Blanche had already managed to make the Justice department a "shambles."

Cassidy said he choked up because it was such an honor to vote.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) refused to vote for Blanche because of his handling of the Epstein files, immunity protections granted to the Trump family, and repeated attacks on the president's political rivals, she said Friday.

Conservative former judge J. Michael Luttig said of Cassidy and Republicans who did not follow in Murkowski's footsteps, "They will bear this badge of shame the rest of their lives."

But Cassidy, despite stated misgivings about Blanche's willingness to uphold the Constitution, said on Sunday he stood by his decision — even though he almost voted no. 

Here is a bottom-line question to ponder: Does Todd Blanche have the goods to serve the nation as an effective and fair-minded AG, deeply committed to the U.S. Constitution? My answer is "absolutely not," and it's not a close call. Of all the wretched nominees Trump has put forward, Todd Blanche is almost certainly the worst of all -- even worse than Pam Bondi, his predecessor as AG, and I thought no one could be worse than her. (BTW: Bondi has ties to Alabama, our former home base and the place where the Legal Schnauzer blog was born, through her ties to the Republican Attorneys General Association [RAGA] and an Alabama lawyer with a curious personal history named Jessica Medeiros Garrison. Bondi's ties to Trump predate his first term as president -- and revolve around a short-circuited investigation in Florida of Trump University. We reported on the Trump-Bondi axis during that time period. We will have much more on Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi and Trump University, and the nifty machinations that Bondi and Medeiros Garrison engaged in while serving as leading officials with RAGA -- those activities, by the way, were dubious enough to attract the attention of The New York Times. )

Trump is so desperate to keep his finances under wraps that he seeks permission in defamation lawsuit against BBC to revise complaint to take his financial issues out of play -- WTH

(Feminist News, Facebook)

U.S. news outlets have been packed in recent days with reports about the corruption, incompetence, and ignorance that have come to permeate the second Donald Trump administration. It's as if the Trumpers are racing to prove they are the most inept governing outfit in our nation's history -- maybe any nation's history. In fact, the Trump Bunch probably can dispense with their "Amazing Race" to the bottom because most rational Americans already seem convinced that they comprise the filthiest, dirtiest White House (what's left of it) our country has ever seen. 

Let's consider evidence from just the past few days. Exhibit A: We had the unlawful arrest of a former U.S. Olympian for the "crime" of dipping his hand into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, out of curiosity, to see what a piece of a partially detached liner felt like. The president still is claiming the pool was "vandalized," even though his own Department of Justice filed court documents showing shoddy workmanship, by a contractor Trump himself hired, caused any damage -- including photographic evidence that said damage occurred before David "Davy" Hearn arrived on the scene.

Exhibit B: We had Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, in which a group of 35 former federal judges moved the court to reopen the case and accused Todd Blanche, Trump's choice to be the next attorney general of the United States, of committing a "fraud on the court." The presiding judge called the lawsuit a "sham . . . designed to fleece taxpayers."

One week ago, those two cases rested atop my chart of the worst depradations of the Trump2 term. But we have a new item racing toward the top of our "Casey Kasem American Top 40 Countdown," and I see it taking over the No. 1 position soon.

It is Exhibit C, and it involves a defamation lawsuit Trump filed against the BBC. In an example of "turnabout is fair play -- and also a be-atch," we now have the president's lawyers begging a judge to block discovery of Trump's financial documents -- in a case Trump himself filed; he's the plaintiff. That should cause every American to summon his or her "inner Gladys Kravitz" and ask, "Gee, I wonder why the president doesn't want his finances to have a public airing? What possibly could be in those documents?"

For the latest on the Trump-BBC case we turn to the UK Guardian, where Marina Dunbar reports under the headline "US federal judge halts order for Trump to turn over financial records to BBC. Also included is a sub-header that reads "Judge issues temporary pause while he considers Trump's request to revise his libel lawsuit against BBC." In so many words, that sub-head is telling us that Trump wants his lawyers to rewrite the complaint he filed in order to take any issues regarding his finances out of play." If Alice Pearce, the actress who portrayed Gladys Kravitz, were still alive, that surely would raise her character's eyebrows into the permanent "locked and loaded' position. 

Lawsuits generally are not known for producing humor, but here we have a well-heeled litigant, and his well-compensated lawyers, who could not foresee a defendant responding to their complaint by essentially saying, "Mr. Trump, you claim billions of dollars in damages, so turn over the financial documents that prove you were harmed to that extent." That Team Trump could not see that one coming is a courthouse knee-slapper for the ages." Let's check out The Guardian's reporting on this nutty case:

A federal judge has temporarily halted an order requiring Donald Trump to turn over detailed financial information about his business empire to the BBC as part of an ongoing libel lawsuit.

US district judge Roy Altman (Southern District of Florida) issued the temporary pause while he considers Trump’s request to revise and narrow parts of his lawsuit against the BBC over a 2024 documentary that aired in the UK.

Trump’s legal team sought to stop the discovery order that would have given the BBC access to the president’s financial records in the multibillion-dollar case.

What is the gist of Trump's argument in the case -- assuming he and his lawyers can even put it into words? Dunbar supplies this answer:

Trump has argued the BBC’s 2024 documentary about the January 6 attack harmed his business interests. Last month, a Miami-based judge ruled that Trump would have to begin producing extensive financial records by 6 August, including information covering the hundreds of businesses held by the Trump family trust.

On Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys asked the court to temporarily suspend that order, arguing the BBC had demanded a “shockingly broad amount of information based on clearly political motivations.”

Here is a memo for Trump's legal team: When you file a flimsy lawsuit against a prominent media organization -- or any individual or entity, for that matter -- they are entitled to demand that you turn over information to help them defend the case. It's called discovery; it's how U.S. courts work. If Trump's attorneys don't know that, they should return to some legit law school immediately -- because they must have received their law degrees off a cereal box the first time. (By the way, for Trump to claim BBC acted with "political motivations is too rich for words. The network's legal team must still be howling over that one.) Let's return to The Guardian's reporting: 

In a four-page order signed on Wednesday and released on Thursday, Altman said Trump’s effort to remove his claims that the documentary damaged his brand and businesses could reduce the BBC’s need to obtain his financial records. Trump’s lawyers are seeking to narrow the claim to alleged reputational harm.

The BBC has argued that Trump’s business value remains relevant because his public reputation was closely linked to his success as a businessman.

The broadcaster’s lawyers also pointed out that Trump’s proposed amended complaint, which has not yet been made public, still seeks $10bn in damages. They contend that amount would be difficult to support if the case was based only on reputational harm.

At the center of the lawsuit is a scene from the BBC documentary Trump: A Second Chance, which edited together portions of Trump’s 6 January 2021 speech in a way that made it appear he directly encouraged supporters to attack the US Capitol. The BBC has apologized for the edit but maintains the defamation allegations lack merit.

Trump, it turns out, has spent a sizable chunk of his second term filing dubious defamation lawsuits against media organizations. Trump, along with his Republican boosters, clearly has no interest in governing, so maybe these lawsuits are needed to occupy his time (and what's left of his mind) -- a hobby, of sorts. Dunbar writes:

The lawsuit is part of a series of legal actions Trump has launched against media organizations over coverage he says is defamatory or unfair.

In a separate case, Trump’s attorneys argued that his $10bn defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal should proceed to trial after the newspaper reported on a “bawdy” letter the president was said to have contributed to a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.

Trump’s justice department also issued subpoenas to New York Times journalists following the newspaper’s reporting on security concerns involving the Air Force One presidential aircraft before later withdrawing those subpoenas.

The BBC case raises a host of issues that neither Trump, nor his lawyers, apparently considered before filing the case. That makes it a particularly egregious waste of public resources -- especially for a president who once promised to fight "fraud, waste and abuse." We will take a look at those issues in an upcoming post. Please stay with us.  

The words "Todd Blanche" and "fraud on the court" keep showing up in reports about Donald Trump's IRS lawsuit, which a judge called a "sham . . . designed to fleece taxpayers"

(Instagram)

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche received a boost this week when a U.S. Senate committee advanced his nomination to serve as permanent AG under President Donald Trump. A member of the committee, however, warned that Blanche faces allegations that could amount to "fraud on the court," possibly leading to disciplinary actions against him.

U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) reminded his colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee that Blanche's actions infuriated a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida who is considering issues connected to a lawsuit Trump filed over leaks of his tax returns. The Florida case is ongoing, and it could have an impact on public perceptions about the appropriateness of Blanche serving as the nation's top law-enforcement officer. It is unclear how the case in Florida will play out, but the judge in the matter has shown signs of being deeply disturbed about Blanche's actions in the case. That comes through clearly in a brief summation from the Public Citizen, a nonprofit, consumer-rights advocacy group founded by activist Ralph Nader in 1971:

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams has ruled that President Trump’s lawsuit asking for $10 billion from the IRS was manufactured to justify a “settlement” that included a nearly $1.8B slush fund to reward political allies.

Public Citizen also has released a statement about the serious issues involved in the case before Judge Williams, and we will hear more from them in a moment.  But first, let's visit Raw Story, which provides a play-by-play of the controversy under the headline "Troubling Blanche past surfaced by irate senator: 'Worst thing you can accuse someone of.'" Alexander Willis writes:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) delivered a scathing rebuke of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a Senate committee hearing Tuesday, invoking an unprecedented allegation against the nation's top law enforcement official that he argued should derail Blanche's confirmation.

Blanche appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as lawmakers weighed advancing his nomination to serve as attorney general permanently. Whitehouse argued that confirming Blanche should be a nonstarter, flagging a past accusation leveled at Blanche in court.

“Let's not forget that there is an ongoing proceeding in Florida in federal court with an open question [of] whether Todd Blanche committed a fraud upon the court,” Whitehouse said.

“We don't hear that term 'fraud upon the court' very often – it's probably the worst thing you can accuse someone of in a court proceeding. It means you're an officer of the court, and it means you abused the process of the court, and you did so in order to accomplish an unjust and wrongful result.”

Whitehouse was referring to Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, a case in the Southern District of Florida involving Trump’s lawsuit over his leaked tax returns. A total of 35 former federal judges asked the presiding judge to reopen the case and accused Blanche of committing “fraud on the court.”

“It's actually worse than contempt of court – it is so bad that in the history of the Department of Justice, no senior official has ever been even accused of a fraud upon the court!” Whitehouse railed. “And we're advancing this guy before that question is settled?”

What about the Public Citizen statement regarding the Florida case before Judge Williams? The case involves Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, $10 billion, a slush fund, the IRS and . . . well, it's complicated. But Public Citizen has done a public service by presenting the most clear-eyed explanation of the Florida matter that I've seen. 

Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of Public Citizen, issued the statement -- and it is a model of clarity and conciseness. In four short paragraphs, they hit the highlights of what the public needs to know about a case that could wind up rocking the Trump administration and Washington, D.C. In a few words, it says volumes about the corruption that has become rampant during Donald Trump's second term. Let's take a look:

“Donald Trump had the brilliant idea of suing the government he runs and resolving the lawsuit with the creation of an illegal and unconstitutional nearly $1.8 billion slush fund, paid for at taxpayer expense and likely to be distributed to January 6 insurrectionists, among others, with an immunity deal protecting Trump and his family from IRS investigation. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was a willing participant in this fraud on the court and the American people.

“Trump and the DOJ tried to remove the issue from the court in which Trump originally filed the sham lawsuit, but now Judge Williams has had her word. In a devastating order, she finds that ‘This lawsuit was not brought to vindicate rights; it was brought to manipulate the judicial process to pursue benefits unavailable in litigation because the Parties were not adverse.” The abuse is so severe that she has ordered the bar to consider sanctions against Trump’s attorney; ordered that Trump and DOJ never again refer to their collusive deal as a ‘settlement;’ and authorized amicus filers in the case — including Public Citizen — to seek attorneys fees. 

“Crucially, Judge Williams finds that the abuse is committed equally by Trump’s private lawyers and Todd Blanche’s Department of Justice, with DOJ’s conduct ‘equally untenable.’ Blanche’s DOJ ‘disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law.’ 

“If the Senate needed an additional reason not to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, it just got it.” 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gets real: "Todd Blanche's ongoing efforts to hide the truth about Epstein and Trump should not only disqualify him from leading the DOJ, it should open him up to investigation and prosecution"

(Purple Room Politics, Facebook)

Todd Blanche might look back on yesterday as a big win because his controversial nomination to be attorney general of the United States made it through the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12-10 party-line vote. That means Blanche probably will go before the full Senate, where he is expected to be confirmed in a body controlled by his own party. It is not, however, expected to be smooth sailing as several Republicans have expressed doubt about whether they will support Blanche. Susan Collins (R-ME) is a definite no, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is calling for further conversations, and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is undecided. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is not expected to participate in a confirmation vote due to his extended absence for health reasons. That means Blanche can afford to lose no more than two GOP votes if Democrats, as expected, all vote no.

As for Blanche's reputation after yesterday's committee vote, it did not fare so well. It was the target of rough treatment from committee Democrats, especially U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who with the use of one word -- "discreditable" -- suggested that Blanche not only did not merit support in the committee hearing, but also hinted that Blanche is the kind of dishonorable individual who should not fill the role as America's chief law-enforcement officer. Will Blanche's well-earned reputation as a Donald Trump bootlicker raise persistent doubts about the traditional independence of his office from White House influence. To borrow a phrase from Billy Joel, it's "A Matter of Trust," and in my view Blanche has a long way to go before the American people can trust him in a role that should revolve around objectivity and respect for the rule of law. Blanche has shown that he has massive shortcomings on both fronts.

Sheldon Whitehouse left little doubt that he holds strong antipathy for Blache, and that isn't likely to change. Will the American people follow the lead of the Rhode Island icon? If they value democracy, the answer will be yes. In his presentation yesterday, Whitehouse made it clear he was ready to do battle, opening with the following statement:

"Today I think is a sad and embarrassing day for this committee. As it looks like, on a party line vote, we are going to advance out of this committee probably the most discreditable person ever to seek the office of Attorney General of the United States.

"The reasons to vote against him number in the hundreds, but let's just focus on a few where my Republican colleagues purport to have great concern . . .

"Let's start with the Epstein files where Todd Blanche participated in the cover-up, continues to participate in the cover-up, and is responsible for a massive screw-up of the release of the documents. Cover-up and screw-up on the Epstein files!"

Sounding like the prosecutor he was for 14 years, Whitehouse laid out his case with facts and precision. He knows what an experienced lawman sounds like, and he gave the distinct impression that Todd Blanche is not that guy:

"What do I mean by cover-up? Well, first, they looked at four FBI 302s that were the testimony of a woman who told the FBI in a formal statement that she had been sexually assaulted and physically assaulted by Donald Trump around 13 or 14 years of age."

"Of those four 302s, they released one, the one that did not mention Donald Trump. Well, fortunately for transparency, these documents had been released in other areas and bait-stamped, so people figured out that some were missing. And with that, the other 302s that mentioned Donald Trump had to be produced."

"Only because they got caught were those 302s produced, and right now, as we sit here, Todd Blanche is still sitting on 37 pages that are almost certainly the agent's notes off of which the 302s were taken. That should be disclosed under the Epstein files law, but instead, those 37 pages remain covered up."

Whitehouse is a persuasive guy, and for Americans who were paying attention, his words had to raise serious doubts about Todd Blanche. For example, the words "only because they got caught were those 302s produced," hinted that Blanche is not above engaging in skulduggery, bordering on criminality. Also, Whitehouse reminded his listeners that Blanche's actions should not be described in the past tense, but rather in the present tense -- as something going on right now. And Whitehouse provides an example -- of 37 pages of FBI agent's notes that "as we sit here, Todd Blanche is still sitting on," and helpfully adding "those 37 pages remain covered up." The obvious question for any reasonably engaged American: "Is Todd Blanche the guy I would want entrusted with sensitive documents about a pedophile's abuse of my teen-aged daughter?"

Financial aspects of Epstein's sex-trafficking operation also do not escape Whitehouse's attention, as he states:

Where else did the cover up go? The DOJ received suspicious activity reports from the treasury department about Epstein's accounts -- many of them related to Russia. You'd think that an investigative body like the Department of Justice could look at a document called "suspicious activity reports" and deduce that there might be suspicious activity. But did they even have a look? Billions of dollars in Epstein funds transferred and the Todd Blanche department never even had a look.

"My God," a reasonable listener might say, "do we really need an attorney general who did not investigate Jeffrey Epstein's possible financial ties to Russia?" The same listener might ask this question: "Was Blanche not interested because Trump is tied to both Russia and Epstein -- and Blanche's mission is to protect Trump at all costs?"

Whitehouse turns his attention to one of the most peculiar characters in the Epstein saga, stating:

Then you get to Ghislaine Maxwell, where the deputy attorney general (Blanche) flew to Tallahassee to have a private meeting with a woman convicted of participating in Epstein's depravity. What was the upshot of that meeting? Was it to get more information about who was culpable, about whose secrets were still being kept? No, it was to get exculpatory information about Donald Trump and to reward her with transfer to a ClubFed facility. The excuse was that she was in danger, so they had to move her. How often does a prisoner facing threats or danger get moved to a less secure facility. That doesn't pass the test of common sense.

As he begins to wind down, Whitehouse returns to the subject of a major screw-up that happened on Blanche's watch:

Between the botched disclosure that revealed victims, whose names had not been known, with photographs of addresses, in some cases while they were not fully clothed. . . . Where does the buck stop for that, if not with Mr. Blanche. That was an epic botch that did real harm.

Voting for this guy today gives our blessing for screw-ups that even Pam Bondi pointed at Blanche as being responsible for -- and it gives our blessing to his continuing role in these matters.  

In the end, Whitehouse makes it clear that these issues are of the utmost seriousness -- driven by an unserious president and his unserious lackeys. Even engaged Americans probably do not fully grasp how serious this all could turn out to be. Whitehouse leaves us with this thought:

Blanche's ongoing efforts to hide the truth about Epstein and Trump from the American public should not only disqualify him from leading the Justice Department, it should open him up to investigation and prosecution.

This man has no loyalty to his country or the concept of justice. He's Trump's personal lapdog and he believes in nothing beyond serving his master's interests. If he's confirmed as atorney general, he will happily turn a blind eye to the President's worsening crime wave and use the vast powers of his office to invent manufactured cases against Trump's perceived enemies.

With this Blanche confirmation process, we are witnessing nothing less than the death of the rule of law in the United States of America . . .

Donald Trump keeps claiming vandals caused damage at Reflecting Pool, even as his own DOJ files court documents saying it was a failed rush job

(Katie Couric Media, Facebook)

Donald Trump has been criticizing Jeannie Pirro almost from the moment she announced that her office was dropping criminal charges against former U.S. Olympian David Hearn in a case of alleged "vandalism" at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. But yesterday, Trump's words took on a nastier, more personal tone, saying she "choked" and "folded like an umbrella." In fact, Trump's words have become so harsh that some observers speculate that Pirro might get fired for dismissing the case.

Pirro hardly is a sympathetic figure in this matter -- and we will take a closer look at that issue in an upcoming post -- but Trump's scorching criticism says more about him than it does about her. The Associated Press (AP) provides details about the escalating tension between the president and one of his appointees who also has been a longtime friend. Under the headline "Trump says Pirro 'folded like an umbrella' in bid to drop Reflecting Pool vandalism charges," Will Weissert writes:

President Donald Trump said Monday that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro “choked” and “folded like an umbrella” in moving to drop charges against a former Olympian accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Speaking at an unrelated Oval Office event, Trump ducked questions about whether he’d fire Pirro, a former Fox News host and longtime ally he handpicked as top federal prosecutor in the nation’s capital. But the president kept up his drumbeat of sharp criticism, saying he remained disappointed by her assessment that damage to the Reflecting Pool was the result of shoddy construction, not vandalism.

“Frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her and went after her department, and I guess she choked,” Trump said in response to a reporter’s question after he signed an executive order for military spouses. “I don’t know what the hell happened.”

Let's take a close look at that last paragraph and see what it says about the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

* Trump says Pirro "choked." Of the endless supply of incompetent males on his cabinet have you ever heard Trump say that Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., Kash Patel, or Marco Rubio "choked." Gee, is our president a misogynist? My conclusion is yes, and that probably will surprise 0.00002 percent of our readers. 

* With that out of the way, Trump blames the judge, who he says "was "really vicious" For good measure, Trump is strongly suggesting the judge is corrupt, that he didn't give the Department of Justice a fair shake. Does Trump cite any unlawful ruling the judge made or any procedural standard he violated? Of course not, and that almost certainly is because Trump knows virtually nothing about the law -- and he cares even less about it. The Brennan Center for Justice has spotlighted some of the most blatant and high-profile attacks Trump has made on the judiciary. As for numbers, I can find no official count, but one online estimate is in the "dozens." My guess is that in the "dozens of dozens" would be more accurate.

Pirro's Motion to Dismiss tells the story of how her department came to realize it had no case. It boils down to this:

Work on installing the liner immediately fell behind due to rainy and windy weather, repeated failures of testing on expansion joints, delays in receiving sealing product at the worksite, and the rush to finish the project led to hasty and botched work.

In short, it had nothing to do with vandalism. That Trump still is saying it did is just another sign -- as if we needed more signs -- that our president is a sorry slug of a human being.

At this point, all of us probably could use some humor, and for that, we turn to Jeff Tiedrich, publisher of the "Everybody is Entitled to My Own Opinion" Substack newsletter. I have become a regular reader of Jeff's work, and he invariably makes me laugh while also giving the sense that I am better informed when I finish reading than I was when I started. (Perhaps I should note that Jeff makes ample use of colorful language, including more than a few F-bombs, but he appears to be a devoted and outspoken liberal with a healthy distaste for all things Trump. That's enough to earn high marks from me, and I encourage our Legal Schnauzer readers to check out his page at the link above. I know there are a lot of smart, funny people on the Web, but I can truthfully say I haven't found anyone quite like Jeff.

As for Jeff's piece on the Reflecting Pool, it comes under the headline "Good news, everyone! Grand theft paint chips is no longer a crime." Jeff writes:

Hey folks, are you sitting down right now?

I hope you are, because it turns out that the lying liars who lied to us about Iran’s nuclear program, and lied to us about Venezuelan fishermen, and lied about tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy, and lied about how tariffs work, and lied about the state of the economy, and the crime rate of migrants, and who won the 2020 election, and Dr. Fauci’s role in the pandemic, and Dear Leader’s rotting hands, bloated cankles and deteriorating brain, and every other fucking thing under the sun, have been lying to us about this so-called vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

The justice department has moved to dismiss a criminal case charging former Olympian David Hearn with deliberately damaging the Lincoln Memorial‘ reflecting pool, instead blaming damage to the pool liner as “the result of flawed installation by the contractor.”

Oh, so no big gash, huh?

Where did it go? Because for weeks on end, the Donnyverse wouldn’t shut the fuck up about how there was this ginormous gash like no one has ever seen, a gash like few thought possible, the gashiest gash that has ever gashed, man.

Did you clock how the DOJ dropped these charges late on Friday evening, hoping that We the People wouldn’t notice? but oh, we noticed.

We fucking well noticed, because we knew all along that this whole thing was bullshit. There was never a gash. there was never any vandalism. What there was, was a typical Donny clusterfuck. He handed a sweetheart no-bid contract to some unqualified and incompetent crony, who so royally screwed the whole thing up that within a matter of days, the entire Reflecting Pool was choked with broken pieces of liner that curious onlookers were gawking at, and picking up.

Yet, how many times did that smug, cow-cosplaying dipsomaniac go on Fox News and smear the good name of Olympian David Hearn, telling the world he was guilty of the heinous crime of Grand Theft Paint Chips?

Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for the District of Columbia, said that her office had received documents from the Department of the Interior only “after the return of the indictment” showing that damage occurred prior to Hearn visiting the reflecting pool and put his hand in the water on 19 June.

How do you fuck that up?

Here’s how you fuck that up: by being so horny to make headlines and get your cockeyed face on TV and please that Audience of One back in the Oval Bordello, that you rush an indictment before all the facts are in.

Pro tip: that’s the opposite of justice.

No one could have predicted that an attention-addicted fake TV judge would be so crap at the job of US Attorney.

Meanwhile, when Preznit Fuckwit caught wind of what Jeanine Pirro was up to, he spontaneously power-loaded an infinite series of diapers.

Donny was so triggered by Jeanine’s perfidy that he and the diaper nurse spent three-and-a-half rage-filled hours yesterday posting no less than 42 times to his crappy app.

Jeff winds things down by making a serious point about the difference between Jeanine Pirro's role in all of this, compared to Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who continue to falsely claim vandalism was involved:

Here’s the thing, though: Donny and Dougie are morons, shitting their stupidity on social media. Jeanine Pirro, however, is an officer of the court, bound by rules of conduct. That makes a huge difference.

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to an actual lawyer:

Let's close with a final word from Jeff Tiedrich:

We should never normalize the idea of an entire government weaponizing itself against some innocent person, just because the president is a colicky piss-baby who can never admit culpability for any of his disasters.

What kind of shithole country arrests someone for touching water? What kind of penny-ante fascist prosecutes someone for Grand Theft Paint Chips?

These vile shitweasels owe a huge apology to David Hearn.

They owe a huge apology to all of us.

Oh, and this thing isn’t over. here’s Norm Eisen, one of Hearn’s lawyers.