Trump blames Democrats for Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization and renews claims that Dems cheated to win election, even though he has admitted he lost

(Atlanta Black Star -- Facebook)

Even when he is talking about a longtime ally's health crisis, Donald Trump cannot help but spew nonsense, with a heavy dose of b.s. Our president can't even keep his stories straight, so is it any wonder leaders and citizens around the globe have little confidence in Trump and view him as not worthy of their trust.

Consider Trump's statements about former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who was hospitalized over the weekend in Florida with what sources call an "overwhelming" bout of pneumonia. While Trump apparently wanted to draw attention and sympathy to his friend's condition, he could not do it, instead raising questions about his own mental health. Under the headline "'Absolutely demented': Trump raises eyebrows with 'bonkers' claims after pal is hospitalized, Robert Davis writes:

President Donald Trump stunned political analysts and observers on Sunday after he made a "bonkers" claim about one of his friends who was hospitalized.

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City and a close ally of Trump's, was hospitalized in Florida on Sunday, according to a report by The New York Times. Giuliani was admitted to the hospital due to pneumonia, but a spokesperson for the former mayor said he is in "critical but stable" condition.

Trump took to Truth Social to share his concerns about Giuliani's health in a post that included an absolutely wild accusation, according to analysts.

In a twist that is not surprising considering that Trump is a malignant narcissist, he turned a statement that was supposed to be about Guiliani into a commentary on himself. Perhaps even more astonishing to some observers, Trump essentially blamed Giuliani's health problems on Democrats. (I'm not kidding!) Trump did not specifically blame Joe Biden, but you know that has to be coming; give it time.

Here is the content of Trump's Truth Social post, as reported by Robert Davis. (Warning: There is a lot to unload in the following statement, but I will highlight in yellow the part I think might be most important for America's future.):

"Our fabulous Rudy Giuliani, a True Warrior, and the Best Mayor in the History of New York City, BY FAR, has been hospitalized, and is in critical condition," Trump wrote in the post. "What a tragedy that he was treated so badly by the Radical Left Lunatics, Democrats ALL — AND HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! They cheated on the Elections, fabricated hundreds of stories, did anything possible to destroy our Nation, and now, look at Rudy. So sad!"

As you might expect, that drew severe blowback from several quarters. Raw Story reports:

Analysts and observers reacted to the post on social media.

"This is an absolutely demented statement from the president. He lost the 2020 election and that has nothing to do with Giuliani’s health problems," journalist Aaron Rupar posted on Bluesky.

"Rudy Giuliani isn't the only one having a health crisis. Trump seems to have forgotten that all 60 bogus court cases regarding the 2020 election were LOST and some of those lying lawyers are no longer allowed to practice. The President of the US is stark raving bonkers, daily, publicly," Elaina McCartney, a political commentator, posted on Bluesky.

"Everything always has to be about him," Xavier Gonzalez, a political commentator, posted on Bluesky.

What about the section I highlighted above as being of particular importance? In it, Trump is claiming Democrats "cheated on the Elections," an apparent reference to the 2020 presidential election that Trump lost to Joe Biden. Here is the key point: Trump now claims, and has been claiming for some time, that he was cheated in that election -- even though he already has admitted that he lost. Here are several examples where Trump said he knew he lost, usually using the term "by a whisker":

* NBC News: Trump admits in podcast appearance that he did not win the election against Joe Biden;

* The Guardian: Trump privately admitted to aides he lost the election, top aides testify;

* Common Cause: Eight times Trump knew he lost; 

* Mother Jones: Trump finally is admitting he lost the 2020 election.

After all of these times admitting that he lost in 2020, why did Trump use the occasion of Rudy Giuliani's hospitalization to change course and claim Democrats won by cheating -- which in his own words, he knows is not true? 

I submit this is a sign of jumbled, disordered thinking that is a hallmark of a personality disorder (actually two personality disorders) that can be destructive when everyday people unknowingly encounter them -- and can be ruinous to a nation that is under the misguided leadership of a president who is afflicted with them. That is why I recently started that we must find a way to force Trump and his GOP enablers out of office -- now, immediately, before it's too late, before he causes a disaster in the Middle East, with possible spread to Asia, Russia, Eastern Europe, and beyond. Heck, this is a guy who has attacked or threatened an ever-growing list of nations -- Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Greenland, Denmark, Mexico, Canada, Cuba, Nigeria, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Panama, Iraq, the Gaza Strip and . . . you get the picture. That is not normal, but our leaders seem to be hoping Trumpism will work itself out -- or maybe wear itself out.

But I doubt that will happen, partly because our government is set up to thwart the kind of coup we sometimes see in less-advanced nations. Despite that, I have reached the following conclusion, and based on my social media feeds, I think substantial number of my countrymen (and women) have reached similar conclusions. Trump is the most dangerous adversary our nation  has faced in our lifetimes, certainly within the western hemisphere. That's right, the strange phone calls are coming from inside the house. And we can't expect to root out a lawless adversary and his cohorts by adhering to rules that no longer apply. I suspect some type of military intervention is needed to extinguish the threat, followed by a Nuremberg-style commission to impose accountability and take steps to revise our governing documents so that no such threat ever takes hold in the future. 

We will be taking a deeper look in upcoming posts at all of these challenges, especially the personality disorders that are driving Trump's unhinged approach to governance and the cult-like qualities that have some Americans -- despite all of the evidence he is unfit and never should have been allowed on the 2024 ballot due to his status as an insurrectionist -- still supporting a president who has driven us to the edge of a cliff. We invite you to stay with us.

Trump's ploy to remove U.S. troops from Germany -- based on pouting, not planning -- draws the ire of powerful GOP Congressmen from Deep South states

(Kaler Barta, Facebook)

Not content to sow chaos in Central America, South America, and the Middle East, Donald Trump is attempting to repeat his "feat" in Europe. Evidence of that comes from Trump's declaration that he will withdraw 5,000 U.S. troops from Germany. Over the weekend, Trump doubled down on his claim, saying he would bring the number of troops "way down," even below the originally stated 5,000 number. That comes from a report at Associated Press (AP) under the headline "Trump says US will reduce number of troops in Germany 'a lot further' than withdrawal of 5,000":

President Donald Trump said Saturday that the U.S. will significantly reduce its troop presence in Germany, escalating a dispute with Chancellor Friedrich Merz as he seeks to scale back America’s commitment to European security.

The Pentagon on Friday had initially announced it would pull some 5,000 troops out of Germany, but when asked Saturday about the reason for the move, Trump didn’t offer an explanation and said an even bigger reduction was coming.

Why did Trump offer no explanation? Well, he probably doesn't have one because he is America's "toddler in chief," who doesn't seem to have the forethought to plan anything. Is Trump withdrawing troops because he is in a snit over German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's critique of the U.S. war effort in Iran? Published reports, such as this one from The Hill, suggest the answer yes: 

It is not surprising that Trump was annoyed by Merz’s comments to a group of students in Germany. Merz essentially suggested that Iran was defeating the Trump administration at the negotiating table.

“The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad ​and then leave again without any result,” Merz said during a talk to students in the German town of Marsberg, Reuters reported. 

“An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so, I hope that this ends as quickly as possible,” he added.

Perhaps tired of Trump's childish, blowhard ways, at least one German official sounded as if he would be content just to have the U.S. president out of his hair. The official also suggested Trump's plans would weaken U.S. global standing -- a position Trump apparently doesn't agree with or doesn't care about. From the AP report:

Earlier on Saturday, Germany’s defense minister appeared to take in stride the news that 5,000 U.S. troops would be leaving his country.

Boris Pistorius said the drawdown, which Trump has threatened for years, was expected, and he said European nations needed to take on more responsibility for their own defense. But he also emphasized that security cooperation benefited both sides of the trans-Atlantic partnership.

“The presence of American soldiers in Europe, and especially in Germany, is in our interest and in the interest of the U.S.,” Pistorius told the German news agency dpa.

Pistorius is not the only prominent figure who is none-too-thrilled with Trump's directive. It also is meeting skepticism at home, AP reports:

The planned withdrawal faced bipartisan resistance in Washington, with swift criticism from Democrats and concern from Republicans that it would send the “wrong signal” to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose full-scale invasion of Ukraine recently entered its fifth year.

Trump’s decision comes as he seethes at European allies over their unwillingness to join his campaign with Israel against Iran. He has lashed out at leaders like Merz, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

After swift pushback from Democrats on Friday, Republican leaders of both armed services committees in Congress said Saturday they were “very concerned” about the troop withdrawal.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama said the decision risked “undermining deterrence and sending the wrong signal to Vladimir Putin.”

They also said the Pentagon had decided to cancel the planned deployment of the Army’s Long-Range Fires Battalion. A statement from Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell that the draw-down decision came after "thorough review" made no mention of that.

Wicker and Rogers said any significant change to the U.S. force posture in Europe warrants review and coordination with Congress.

How scattered has Trump administration planning been toward the security of Germany, one of America's longest and most loyal allies? The following from AP provides a disconcerting answer:

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said the branches of the U.S. military didn’t have prior knowledge of the decision to draw down the 5,000 troops and learned about it “in real time.”

What have we learned above? Let's do a quick review:

(1)  A U.S. defense official said branches of the military did not have prior knowledge of the decision to draw down 5,000 troops, learning about it in real time;

(2) Two Republican members of Congress from Deep South, deep-red states indicated input from Congress had not been included in the draw-down decision and related plans. 

Is this how a toddler in chief conducts planning for an operation that could have a major impact on global stability? That appears to be the case.

Could Wicker and Rogers lead a GOP uprising against the Trump administration's  disdainful treatment of both Congress and a trusted ally? Let's consider this from an AP report on a joint statement from the Republican senators:

“We expect the Department to engage with its oversight committees in the days and weeks ahead on this decision and its implications for U.S. deterrence and trans-Atlantic security,” they said in a joint statement.

They also noted that Germany has heeded Trump’s call to shoulder more of the burden of defense spending in Europe, while giving U.S. forces access to its bases and airspace in the war against Iran.

If Trump starts losing the support of Republican senators in Mississippi and Alabama, does that mean his regime could be heading for collapse? We certainly can hope so.

Now that Donald Trump has caused James Comey to be prosecuted for "criminally viewing seashells," even the president's allies see the case as 'embarrassing'

George Stephanopoulos and Jonathan Karl, (Good Morning America)

How bad is the criminal "seashells" case Donald Trump caused to be brought against former FBI director James Comey? Trump's fellow Republicans are expressing embarrassment about it -- at least when they are out of the president's hearing range. That's from an article at HuffPost under the headline "Even Trump's Allies Reportedly think The Comey Indictment Is Silly: 'Embarrassing"; ABC's Jonathan Karl said sources have called it the "flimsiest" federal indictment they have ever seen." Elyse Wanshel writes:

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported on “Good Morning America” (GMA) Wednesday that even President Donald Trump’s allies think the new indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is a waste of time, and have been expressing this opinion behind the president’s back, per a video published by Mediaite.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department indicted Comey after a grand jury in North Carolina accused him on two counts of making threats against the president’s life over an Instagram post that the former FBI director shared almost a year ago, and later deleted.

The post in question included a photo of seashells on a beach arranged to read, “86 47.” The number 86 is sometimes used as slang for tossing something out or getting rid of it, and is often used in restaurants to indicate a menu item is no longer available.

If that sounds laughable to you, lawyers in the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) apparently agree; they don't seem to be putting serious effort into the case. According to a report at Yahoo! News, the document makes no reference to evidence, aside from the photograph Comey took on a North Carolina beach. Has our sense of justice sunk so law that DOJ lawyers think that constitutes a crime? The answer appears to be yes. We advise caution when you next walk along an ocean's shore; you could wind up behind bars. Wanshel writes:

“GMA” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos noted to Karl Wednesday that the “first indictment of James Comey was dismissed,” and that “lawyers close to the president” said this indictment would likely see the same fate.

And this is when Karl decided to spill the tea about what sources close to the president have told him.

“I’ve been talking to current and former prosecutors, federal prosecutors who are calling this the flimsiest federal indictment that they have ever seen,” Karl said. “Even Trump’s allies are privately calling it ‘embarrassing,’ or as one very prominent former Trump DOJ official told me last night, ‘depressing.’”

In standard Trumpian fashion, we see signs that DOJ officials are lying about what prompted them to bring the case:

“There is no doubt that this indictment was driven by the president himself,” Karl said. “Look, Donald Trump has made it clear for years that he wants to indict Jim Comey. As recently as three days ago, he suggested that Comey needed to be prosecuted — although he offered an entirely different reason. And Trump has put enormous pressure on the people who work for him to go after not just Comey, but a long list of his perceived political enemies.”

He continued, “One of the main reasons he fired Attorney General Pam Bondi is that he felt she was not being aggressive enough in prosecuting those enemies, and Attorney General Todd Blanche knows that if he wants to be formally nominated as AG — right now he’s just the acting Attorney General — he needs to prove to President Trump that he will be more aggressive in prosecuting those enemies than Bondi was.”

He added, “And I can tell you this … shortly after that indictment was announced, Todd Blanche was at the White House meeting with senior White House officials.”

Donald Trump hates being known as a loser, but the criminal case he has caused to be brought against James Comey is a loser that should not even go to trial

(Instagram)

Could former FBI director James Comey actually be convicted for taking a photograph of seashells that federal prosecutors claim constitutes a threat to President Donald Trump? Legal experts say the U.S. Justice Department's case against Comey faces at least two major hurdles: (1) The free-speech protections of the First Amendment; (2) Statutory requirements that likely will be difficult to prove.

That does not include the fact Trump has publicly called for the prosecution of Comey and other perceived political enemies, which could make the Comey case an unlawful vindictive or selective prosecution. 

To the layperson's ears, the notion that taking an image of seashells on a beach and posting it to social media could lead to criminal charges likely sounds . . . well, absurd, nuts, loony. It's all of those things, but with a president who has no distinguishable regard for the rule of law -- and a justice department he has filled with suck-ups who are loyal to him, but not necessarily the Constitution -- most anything can happen. At a hearing yesterday after Comey had self-surrendered, his attorneys said part of their strategy will be to seek dismissal of the case on vindictive-prosecution grounds, noting that Trump has made it clear he wants to see Comey punished.

It should be comforting to our mythical layperson that a prominent legal expert yesterday agreed with them that the case is a non-starter. From a report at CNN:

“This is not going anywhere. This is clearly not a punishable threat,” said Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who specializes in First Amendment law.

With all of that in mind, let's examine issues that likely will take center stage when the Comey trial begins. Fox News reports under the headline "Legal experts warn Comey '86 47' indictment faces First Amendment hurdles." Fox adds this subheading: "Charges under 18 U.S.C., Sec. 871 require proof of intent, and Comey's public explanation could complicate matters for prosecutors." Morgan Phillips writes: 

Legal questions are emerging over whether charges against former FBI Director James Comey could withstand a First Amendment challenge as he is indicted for a social media post allegedly tied to threats against President Donald Trump.

Comey faces charges under 18 U.S.C. § 871, which criminalizes threats against the president, and 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which covers interstate communications containing threats to harm others. 

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News Digital just before the indictment was released that, if the case is based solely on the widely circulated image posted by Comey, it could face steep constitutional hurdles.

 "If Comey is charged for the shell picture, it would face a monumental challenge under the First Amendment," Turley said. "In my view, the image itself is clearly protected speech. Absent some other unknown facts or elements, it would be unlikely to survive a threshold constitutional challenge."

The pertinent statutory language could provide more hurdles for prosecutors, Phillips writes:

Both statutes require prosecutors to prove not only that a statement constituted a "true threat," but that it was made knowingly and with intent, standards that legal analysts say could prove difficult to meet based on publicly available information. 

The indictment was filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Comey allegedly posted the image of seashells forming the numbers "86 47" during a beach walk. 

Others pushed back on the idea that the case raises significant First Amendment concerns, arguing that threats against a sitting president fall squarely outside protected speech.

"The third assassination attempt against President Trump on Saturday made this crystal clear: The Justice Department must prosecute those who threaten to assassinate the president," said Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project. 

"No one has a First Amendment right to do this. No one is above the law, especially not a former director of the FBI who should know better. A jury of James Comey’s peers will decide his fate."

Mike Davis seems to be overlooking several important points:

(1) It's questionable whether the incident on Saturday at the White House Correspondents Dinner was an assassination attempt. Evidence indicates shots were fired in the vicinity of the Washington Hilton ballroom, but it is not clear who fired them. There seems to be no evidence so far that suspect Cole Tomas Allen fired a shot in Trump's direction. Even if one considers it an assassination attempt, how does that correlate to Comey's vacation activities on a North Carolina beach almost one year earlier?

(2) How did Comey's photo of shells on a beach constitute a threat to assassinate the president? Davis didn't, and probably couldn't, say. 

(3) Davis says, "No one has a First Amendment right to do THIS." To do what? Comey has no right to photograph shells on a beach and post the images to social media. Does Davis expect to be taken seriously?

Like a lot of folks on the political right, Davis seems to be assuming facts that aren't present. As Eugene Volokh says, "This is clearly not a punishable threat." I'll take his word for it.

Documents filed in the case indicate prosecutors will encourage jurors to find intent by essentially reading Comey's mind. That, of  course, cannot be done, and it certainly can't prove Comey's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." From the Fox News report:

Prosecutors allege that the post would be interpreted by a "reasonable recipient familiar with the circumstances" as a serious expression of intent to harm the president, signaling they intend to rely heavily on context surrounding the message rather than explicit language alone.

The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, W. Ellis Boyle, will oversee the case. Boyle was appointed in 2025 and sworn in by his father, a longtime federal judge in the district, after being selected for the role by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The indictment marks the second time Comey has been charged during the second Trump administration. 

In 2025, he was indicted on charges of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding tied to his testimony in the FBI’s Russia probe. That case was later dismissed after a federal judge ruled the prosecutor in the case had been unlawfully appointed.

Comey, who served as FBI director from 2013 to 2017, has long been a polarizing figure in U.S. politics, drawing criticism from both parties over his handling of the Clinton email investigation and the FBI’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential links between Trump’s campaign and Moscow. 

He was fired by Trump in 2017 amid escalating tensions tied in part to the Russia investigation.

The current charges stem from a social media post in which Comey shared an image of seashells arranged to form the numbers "86 47," which some critics interpreted as a coded threat against Trump. The post drew swift backlash and prompted an investigation.

That last paragraph points to all kinds of potential problems for the prosecution. The interpretations of "some critics" might matter in news coverage, but they are not likely to fly in a court of law.  Prosecutors might think they can build a case around a "coded threat," but how can they prove that Comey knew of such a code? How can they prove that Comey "knowingly" and "with intent" issued a "true threat"? That seems like an almost impossible, task.

Donald Trump might achieve his goal of forcing Comey into court. But it's hard to see how that possibly can result in a guilty verdict. In fact, it might not even result in a trial.

Donald Trump's warped DOJ, with butt-kisser Todd Blanche in control, turns a beach photo into a second indictment of former FBI director James Comey

(Peoples Gazette, Facebook)

The Trump administration first indicted former FBI director James Comey last year on charges so preposterous and brazenly retaliatory that one legal expert said it signaled the "almost wholesale  collapse" of the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ). With Trump sycophant Todd Blanche serving as acting attorney general, the department now has indicted Comey a second time, on charges so flimsy they make the first go-around seem almost judicious. What does all of this mean for the rule of law in what used to be the world's foremost democracy?

The answer is grim, with criminal charges now based on a deranged president's whims, with constitutional principles taking a distant back seat. Consider this headline and subheading, which combine to tell the story of how far the Unites States has fallen, almost to banana republic status, in the age of Trump: "Comey's second indictment shows the lengths Blanche will go to please Trump; The latest indictment of the former FBI director is ridiculous, but it's part of an unsubtle pattern for the acting attorney general" 

The Justice Department historically has been independent of the White House, even though the attorney general is nominated by the president and serves on his cabinet. But in theory, the president is to have no say in the DOJ's charging and non-charging decisions. But Blanche appears so desperate for an appointment to the full-time AG role that he will do virtually anything Trump wants. That essentially makes Trump both president and prosecutor -- even though as a non-lawyer. he has no qualifications to act in the latter role. Also, it makes those who have incurred Trump's wrath, as Comey did by overseeing the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, vulnerable to baseless criminal charges as a form of payback.

As Steve Benen, of MS NOW reports, that's not how our system is supposed to work:

When Donald Trump’s Justice Department first indicted former FBI Director James Comey last year, it was a devastating moment for American law enforcement. MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian reported that within the DOJ, many insiders believed it was “among the worst abuses” in the history of the institution. Describing the circumstances as “shocking,” Dilanian added, “It’s hard to overstate how a big a moment this is.”

Indeed, among the most striking things about the Comey indictment was it had barely a pretense of propriety. A failing, desperate and unpopular president wanted a critic to be charged, without regard for merit; he publicly demanded the indictment; and he found officials who were willing to feed his appetite for revenge. It was a tragic lesson that Americans now live in a country where the president’s political opponents are prosecuted at his command.

Alan Rozenshtein, a former DOJ official who now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School, told The New York Times, “What we are seeing is the almost wholesale collapse of the Justice Department as an organization based on the rule of law.”

The first case ultimately collapsed, but not before a federal judge blasted prosecutors for what he described as an “indict first, investigate later” attitude in the criminal case against Comey. Around the same time, a bipartisan group of former federal prosecutors and judges wrote in a court filing that the case was an “assault” on the justice system.

A reasonable person might expect that Team Trump would learn its lesson and decide to investigate first and indict later -- and to indict based on probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment demands, and not simply on the president's enemies list.  But this is an administration led by Donald Trump, who tends to view laws as inconveniences to be ignored, skirted, or broken. Benen writes:

Trump’s DOJ should have been chastened by the condemnations and by the case’s failure. In practice, the shamelessly weaponized department decided to give it another try. MS NOW reported:

The Trump Justice Department has charged former FBI Director James Comey again, following the dismissal of his first indictment due to the illegal appointment of the prosecutor who secured it.

The new indictment involves allegations that Comey made threats against President Donald Trump in a May 2025 social media posting of a picture of shells on the beach that spelled out “8647,” a source familiar with the matter told MS NOW.

I can appreciate why this might seem like an unfortunate attempt at humor, but it’s apparently quite real. While plenty of political figures from both parties have used “86” over the years as a shorthand for rejecting foes, the president and his team argued in apparent seriousness last spring that the former FBI director had used Instagram to call for violence against Trump by way of a seashell-related code.

Could James Comey actually go to prison because of the way sea shells were positioned in a vacation photograph, one that wound up on social media? Some legal experts already have said the case against Comey might not even make it to trial (more on that in an upcoming post), but with Congress and federal courts willing to be pliable on Trump's behalf, many Americans have learned not to put anything past the White House. After all, when the photo in question was published, few could have imagined it would be interpreted as a threat against Trump and lead to legal woes for Comey, Benen writes:

Nearly a full year after the photo first came to light , it’s led to a head-spinning criminal indictment.

Under the circumstances, it’s likely the Trump appointees at the DOJ were looking for a way to charge Comey during former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s tenure, but acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was in a position to either green light the indictment or to quash it. The former Trump defense lawyer apparently chose the former.

It was hardly the first such step. Amid speculation that Blanche wants Trump to nominate him as Bondi’s permanent successor, the Republican lawyer’s campaign has not exactly been subtle.

Over the course of a few weeks, the Blanche-led DOJ has prosecuted a progressive group the president hates, intensified a politically motivated purge, advocated firing squads as a method of federal execution while slamming Joe Biden in gratuitous ways, intervened in support of Trump’s ballroom crusade and indicted a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci (a leading figure on the White House’s enemies list) before indicting Comey (another leading figure on the White House’s enemies list.)

At an official event this week, the acting attorney general offered such sycophantic praise for the president he seemed to be auditioning to star in a Trump campaign ad.

Bondi was frightfully bad at her job -- mainly because she was willing to do most anything the president wanted. But for unknown reasons, Trump ousted Bondi on April 2, creating a high-profile job opening. A number of political observers have stated that Bondi might have fallen out of favor because she was slow bringing cases against Trump's enemies. Todd Blanche seems determined not to make that mistake. Benen writes:

No one should want to be an attorney general nominee this badly (under Trump, it’s not even an especially good job anyway), but Blanche’s actions are about as subtle as a sledgehammer.

Time will tell whether the acting attorney general’s efforts pay dividends, though Blanche recently told reporters, “If President Trump chooses to keep me as acting [attorney general], that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate me, that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and I go back to being the [deputy attorney general], that’s an honor. If he chooses to nominate somebody else and asks me to go do something else, I will say, ‘Thank you very much. I love you, sir.’”

Those words probably strike normal ears as downright weird. But they might be exactly what Trump wants to hear.