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.

As Jeanine Pirro and DOJ drop Reflecting Pool criminal case against David Hearn, Trump objects and that sets off an intramural feud within the regime

(The Hodgetwins's post, Facebook)

Even one of Donald Trump's staunchest allies cannot figure out what the president is doing by objecting to a Department of Justice decision to drop the destruction of property criminal case against former U.S. Olympic canoeist David "Davy" Hearn. U.S. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) ultimately calls the whole episode involving the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool a "a multiple vehicle pile-up." I am assuming, in Kennedyspeak, that is something akin to a "dumpster fire." 

If Trump's actions have that kind of effect on a Republican from a Deep South state, imagine what they do to normal people.

That issue is at the heart of a Trump-generated controversy that to reasonable, sane, non-cultists (and by that, I mean "Democrats') was no controversy at all. Raw Story provides insight on how Trump botched a situation that any relatively normal president would have handled by simply staying out of it. Now, he might have an ongoing drama on his hands, sort of a mini version of the Iran war. As we noted in a post last week, Trump's determination to blame "VANDALS!" for damage to the Reflecting Pool comes with a whole host of legal issues that might not go away soon.

Under the headline "GOP senator thrashes Trump's latest raging 'lie' on NBC News: 'Multiple vehicle pile-up'," Raw Story's Kathleen Culliton tries to make sense of a typical chaos-filled Trumpian moment. She writes:

A Republican Senator called out President Donald Trump for what one independent journalist dubbed "blatant reflecting pool lies."

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) appeared on "Meet the Press" Sunday to discuss U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's sudden decision to drop vandalism charges in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool case she promised would be "open and shut."

"The whole thing is a multiple vehicle pile-up," said Kennedy. "The president says it was caused by vandals. I don't know whether he really believes that or if it's part of his political messaging."

That sounds like a polite way of saying, "Trump probably is lying again. I've voted with him on many issues over the years, but I've developed a pretty strong radar for detecting his lies. And I must say that I'm finding them quite tiresome." Culliton writes:

That pile-up involves the Justice Department, the White House, and the Department of the Interior, all of whom spent the past two days hurling accusations and insults at one another.

Pirro kicked off the dispute by blaming the Interior Department for misleading her prosecutors about when the pool lining began to peel.

In her 20-page court filing Friday, she said there was no evidence that a 67-year-old Olympian canoeist had vandalized the pool — but there was evidence the damage was caused by "flawed installation by the contractor."

The contract, of course, was awarded by Trump himself, via a no-bid process, to a contractor who just happened to be a longtime Trump donor -- surprise! surprise! Naturally, our thin-skinned president took offense at Pirro's assessment of a problem that was caused largely by his own contracting shenanigans. Was Trump about to accept the blame? Hah, surely you're not serious. (And sorry for calling you Shirley.) Here's more from Raw Story:

Trump then took to Truth Social to condemn Pirro, asserting he didn't know "what she was thinking" and that vandalism was to blame.

"I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro," Trump raged on X. "There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!"

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum backed Trump up and defended his department, writing a scathing rebuke on X.

"Vandals have repeatedly caused damage to the Reflecting Pool," Burgum wrote. "We won't back down to deranged people who want to destroy, deface, or degrade our monuments."

Kennedy on Sunday expressed regret that Trump had opened his (figurative) mouth at all.

"He exists loudly, and he grows anxious when he has an unexpressed thought," Kennedy said. 

The Louisiana senator then applauded Pirro for withdrawing her case.

"You can't lie to a federal judge," he said. "She was smart to pull it back."