Friday, November 13, 2026

More no shows for R&R Hall of Fame and Alanis lies

Earlier this week, we noted that Oasis and Sade would not be attending the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame's inductees celebration.  Andrew Dalton (AP) reports that there's another act who won't be attending:


It may feel like ‘80s night at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony, with the new members including Billy Idol, Phil Collins, Sade, Queen Latifah, New Order, Luther Vandross and Iron Maiden.

But it’s hard to say exactly what the vibe will be on Saturday at the Peacock Theater in Los Angeles, with many of the inductees opting out of performing or appearing, and the Hall of Fame revealing next-to-nothing about the show during the run-up. 

[. . .]

Oasis, youngest of the inductees, won’t be coming. Guitarist Noel Gallagher is playing a gig back home in Britain, and his little brother, Liam Gallagher, just doesn’t want to come. 

“It’s too far to be going for the night,” he said in a post on the social platform X. He added in another, “I dont like award ceremonies they freak me out I dont know why I just get weird vibes.”

Iron Maiden will be on tour in Australia. Sade is opting to sit it out, too. Collins is likely to appear, but he said he has to decline from playing his songs for health reasons. Key members of New Order, getting a joint induction with their previous incarnation Joy Division, will also be out for health reasons. Vandross died in 2005. 

Graham Parsons is also being inducted and, since he has passed, Eric e-mailed to note that he wouldn't be attending either. 


Alanis needs help.  She seriously needs help.  She's lying and destroying her own career:


She said at the concert that she also experienced issues with "the women I looked up to," and named Joni Mitchell, Sinead O'Connor, Tori Amos, and Courtney Love (as well as Billy Corgan) as people who "were ripping me apart publicly" throughout the decade.

"The sisterhood I so badly needed was truly nonexistent in the '90s. There were no girl squads then," Morissette said. "The women were competitive and vicious. The scarcity message was that there was one throne, and we were all fighting for it, and whoever was in it, kill her."


She wasn't looking for the sisterhood.  She was touring with all men and she knew they were bagging women.  She knew there was abuse going on.  It was her tour.  She did nothing.  So drop the lie about the sisterhood.  Secondly, she went up to Joni Mitchell freaking out -- this is a well known story -- shrieking and crying and acting the fool and Joni was rather taken aback and honestly not in the mood.  Tori Amos?  The two of them toured together when Tori was promoting FROM THE CHOIRGIRL HOTEL.  To do their joint tour?  They both rejected joining Lillith Fair.  So how was Alanis seeking the sisterhood?


Reality, Alanis had one moment and that was with JAGGED LITTLE PILL.  She then lost it.  She could have kept it.  Her immediate follow up was worthy.  "Uninvited" from THE CITY OF ANGELS soundtrack.  It rocked.  It was heavy.  Then she went back to nonsense with her follow up album -- which didn't even include "Uninvited" -- and all that 'thank you India' nonsense.  It was badly scribbled journal entries, not lyrics, and the music really didn't pack a punch.  

Those are some hard truths Alanis might want to try addressing.

That and ceasing her tour of petty where she stands on stage and slams those women as well as Ben Affleck, Johnny Depp and others.  

Closing with C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Friday, November 13, 2026.  Chump's got a huge scandal with Nvidia and Howard Lutnick might be the fall guy for this one, Republicans in the House 'surprised' the Democrats on Wednesday and showed as much disrespect for veterans as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did at THE TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER, is Hakeem Jeffries able to lead, Epstein and much more. 




 
Let's start with the Nvidia scandal.  Daniel Hampton (RAW STORY) explains: 

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman says the Nvidia honeypot scandal reveals far more about Donald Trump’s White House than about the tech billionaire at its center.
In a Thursday Substack post and video titled “Climates of Treason,” Krugman said Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang should be permanently barred from national security matters, but that the real story lies elsewhere.
“The way the Trump administration handled it — basically, its attempt to bury any inquiry into the clear threat Huang’s affair posed to U.S. interests — is part of a bigger story of betrayal at the highest levels,” Krugman told viewers.
Huang has admitted to an affair with Alice Huang, a former Megaspeed executive whom U.S. officials suspect of spying for China. The two are not related.
[. . .]
A source told CNN that Trump was briefed on the intelligence in May aboard Air Force One, before Huang joined his trip to Beijing, though Trump has insisted he only recently learned of the allegations. On Sunday, he called Huang honorable and said he probably had an excuse.
Krugman took his title from a 1979 British book about Cambridge graduates who spied for the Soviet Union out of ideological conviction. He argued that Trump’s circle is fueled by a cocktail of ideology and greed. In his view, MAGA’s support for Russia’s war on Ukraine is largely ideological, while its handling of Huang and chip sales to China comes down to money.
He pointed to Nvidia’s $25 million commitment to Trump’s White House ballroom and argued that Trump's allies protected Huang in part because they worried the scandal would damage an industry that has poured money into their causes.
“I don’t know how much of this betrayal meets the legal standard of treason, but morally, that’s what it amounts to,” Krugman said.




Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent challenged Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick over his department’s reluctance to label Nvidia customer Megaspeed a possible national security threat in a Situation Room confrontation last week that illustrates the tension inside the Trump administration over Chinese access to Nvidia’s advanced chips, two people familiar with the matter told CNN.
Trump officials have long harbored concerns that Megaspeed has circumvented US law and funneled advanced chips into China — a prospect that Treasury staffers argued should land it on Commerce’s so-called entity list of China-connected companies that could pose national security risks. But the issue gathered newfound attention and importance in recent days when Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang admitted to an affair with a Megaspeed employee suspected of being a Chinese spy.
Senior Trump officials, including Lutnick, also were briefed months ago about Huang’s relationship with Alice Huang, a Megaspeed executive who the intelligence community suspected of being a Chinese spy, people familiar with the matter said.
But despite those warnings, Commerce has so far refused to put Megaspeed on the entity list, the people said.
Confronted on it by Bessent last Thursday, Lutnick did not immediately commit to taking any specific action, they said.

So Chump was informed and did nothing and Lutnick was given reasonable information and did nothing.  Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes: 


In January 2025, Nvidia was announced as one of the “key” technology partners in the Trump administration’s $500 billion public-private initiative to jumpstart AI-focused data center development, dubbed the Stargate Project. Months later, Donald Trump allowed the company to export previously banned chips to China, loosening trade restrictions on tech that Washington feared could be used against U.S. national security interests.
Trump reportedly knew about Huang’s affair—and his spying partner—for months. State Secretary Marco Rubio informed Trump about the alarming relationship moments before Huang joined the presidential trip to Beijing at the president’s request. It was at least the second time that Trump had been informed of Huang’s ties to the Chinese government, inside sources told The New York Times.
But Trump did not act on the information.
Instead, Trump has denied any knowledge of the illicit affair. On Tuesday, Trump refuted the Times’ report, telling a reporter in the White House press room that he “didn’t hear about” the scandal in May. Trump added that he spoke with the Nvidia leader earlier that day, when Huang claimed he had “absolutely no idea that the person in question was a spy.”
“And I really believe him,” Trump added.
But not everyone is convinced by the Trump administration’s blind eye. Connecticut Representative Jim Himes, who is expected to become chair of the House Intelligence Committee in the new year, expressed alarm that the FBI had not opened an investigation into the apparently suspicious relationship, despite the internal circulation of a memo detailing the Megaspeed executive’s myriad links to the Chinese government.
“I would hope that the FBI would launch a major counterintelligence investigation. I haven’t heard that they did,” Himes told Politico, noting that Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, apparently “didn’t know” whether the FBI had opened an investigation, either.

You put a Convicted Felon into the Oval Office, don't expect laws and rules to be followed.  Chump's a crook and he flocks to other crooks.  Thomas Barrabi (NEW YORK POST) notes, "Rumblings on 'bad findings about Megaspeed' swirled within the Commerce Department at least as far back as the summer of 2025, according to a recently departed former official at the agency who spoke to The Post on condition of anonymity."

How has Nvidia responded?  By pouring money into lobbyig.  Victor Reklaitis (MARKETWATCH) reports: 

Nvidia has been setting records with its spending on Washington lobbying, but the outlays now aren’t expected to help much, with lawmakers from both parties souring on the chip company’s policy preferences in the wake of its spy scandal.
After putting at least $4.97 million toward influencing Washington last year, Nvidia has disclosed lobbying spending of $4.69 million in this year’s first three quarters, putting the maker of artificial-intelligence chips on pace for a new company spending record by year’s end. That’s shown in the below chart, which comes from OpenSecrets, a watchdog organization.
Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress now will likely object to “the company’s default policy position — that it should be permitted to sell large numbers of AI chips to customers in China,” said Ryan Fedasiuk, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Foundation for American Innovation, in a social-media post. They’ll probably also have objections to the company’s aggressive lobbying efforts, Fedasiuk said.

And the ban on China continues to be circumvented.  Eduardo Baptista (REUTERS) notes:

A Chinese university with deep ties to the People's Liberation Army bought Nvidia's powerful H200 AI chips last month despite being on a US export blacklist, procurement records show, highlighting gaps in Washington's efforts to curb China's access to advanced technology.
[. . .]
Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have urged stronger controls on China's access to advanced AI chips, such as chip-tracking requirements and greater congressional oversight of exports. Three Republican congressional committee chairmen have requested a briefing with Huang on November 18 over his reported contacts with an alleged Chinese intelligence operative.


Why did the administration ignore all the warning signs?  Was someone tight with the CEO?  


President Donald Trump's close ties with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang ​have come under renewed scrutiny after revelations about the billionaire executive's affair with a Chinese businesswoman alleged to be a spy for Beijing.
Trump said on Monday he was "amazed" after the revelations concerning one of his closest allies in Silicon Valley, who also faces an FBI probe as well as a board meeting to decide his future.
Over the past two years, Huang has voiced support for the Trump administration's AI agenda and met the Republican leader many times as Nvidia sought to sell advanced chips to the Chinese market and lobbied for looser restrictions on Chinese access to Nvidia's sophisticated AI chips. 

Anthony Cuthbertson (INDEPENDENT) counts 11 visits and 3 trips Huang had with Chump between January 31, 2025 through October, 2026.  The trips were was him joining Chump on his visit to the Middle East in May of 2025, his visit to the UK in September of 2025 and on his May 2026 trip to China. Did his closeness to Chump mean people dismissed the security risk despite the warnings that had come in regularly?  




Since Chump is close to the problem -- he got caught with his pants down, you could say -- there will be every effort on his part to blame someone else.  Looks like that might be Howard Lutnick.   Jarrett Renshaw and Jonathan Landay (REUTERS) report:

Senior White House officials are discussing whether Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick should be pushed out in the wake of the spy scandal surrounding Nvidia's now former CEO Jensen Huang, two people familiar with the situation said on Thursday.
A growing number of lawmakers criticized Lutnick over the administration's refusal to add dozens of Chinese companies to a key US trade blacklist, and over whether the government was properly overseeing Nvidia's exports to China.
Criticism of Lutnick's actions predates Thursday's resignation of Nvidia's Huang, who announced he would step down as CEO of the leading AI chipmaker after revelations of an affair with Alice Huang, whom US authorities suspect of spying for Beijing. But the charge that Lutnick has not done enough to restrict AI chip shipments to China has bubbled up as the fallout of Jensen Huang's actions grows.







There is broad agreement among most senior Trump administration officials that the United States should more aggressively tighten controls on Nvidia’s advanced chips to keep China from using them to catch up in the race to dominate artificial intelligence.

Then there is Howard Lutnick, who runs the Commerce Department.

Over the past year, Mr. Lutnick has frequently clashed with top officials over how to regulate sales of advanced technology, particularly Nvidia’s chip sales to Asia. That has drawn accusations from others in the administration and in Congress that the Commerce Department has become too cozy with Nvidia and its co-founder, Jensen Huang, and failed to adequately police the firm’s chip sales to China, in particular.

The issue has exploded into public view in recent weeks with the revelations from The New York Times that Nvidia’s chief executive, Jensen Huang, was in a relationship with a woman believed by U.S. intelligence agencies to be a Chinese spy. The woman, Alice Huang, was a top executive at a Singapore-based company, Megaspeed, that is suspected of smuggling Nvidia chips to China. On Thursday, Mr. Huang announced that he was stepping down from the company, sending the company’s shares tumbling.

The astonishing developments have thrust Mr. Lutnick into an uncomfortable spotlight and raised questions about whether he went too far in protecting Nvidia’s interests. And it has focused attention on whether the influence of Mr. Huang, an ally of President Trump’s and among the most high-profile and successful of American business leaders, kept the United States from moving faster to clamp down on sales of Nvidia chips to companies like Megaspeed.


Let's wind down the Nvidia discussion with Desi Lydic (THE DAILY SHOW). 





Jensen Huang getting caught in bed with Alice Huang is certainly interesting. But President Donald Trump getting caught (figuratively) in bed with Jensen Huang is much more interesting.
Jensen Huang happens to be one of Trump’s closest advisers on tech matters. A Reuters reporter recalls seeing the Nvidia chief’s name pop up on Trump’s cell phone in December 2025. Trump took Huang on his May 2025 trip to the Middle East, on his September 2025 visit to the United Kingdom, and on his May 2026 trip to China. In this last instance, Huang accompanied Trump on Air Force One at Trump’s personal request. We know that because Trump announced it on Truth Social, identifying the man as “the Great Jensen Huang.” On Monday, Trump told reporters he’d phoned his Nvidia bestie earlier that day and asked, “‘Did you have any idea that she was a spy?’ He said, ‘I had no idea that she was a spy,’ and I really believe him.”

Twice before Monday, and probably more like three times, Trump was told that Huang’s lover was a suspected Chinese spy. The first time was in October 2025, according to The New York Times. Trump “chose not to do anything with the information,” the Times reported, because he was “wary of disrupting Nvidia’s chip sales, which are helping to drive the economy and the stock market, and of further complicating the trading relationship with China.”

The probable second time Trump got told about Huang’s peccadilloes was in a memo that Secretary of State Marco Rubio drafted last spring, according to the Times. The memo in effect warned: Keep your distance from Jensen Huang. The Times reported that the memo was circulated to “top Trump administration officials.” But it’s impossible to believe Trump was kept out of the loop because when Huang was initially excluded from the China trip (almost certainly for this reason), Trump objected and reversed that decision. According to a new Times report, Rubio told Trump verbally about Huang’s honey trap as Air Force One was preparing to leave for China. In the Times tally, Trump was told twice. In my (slightly more speculative) tally, Trump was told three times.

On Monday, Trump said he didn’t recall being told even once about Huang’s worrisome romantic entanglement. That suggests that Trump is either too senile to remember such things or too stupidly defiant to maintain a prudent distance. I lean toward the second interpretation because Trump is, somehow, still defending the guy. “I believe he’s suffering greatly,” Trump told the reporters. “He built a great company, American company, and I think he’s a very honorable guy. And I feel very confident that he’ll be in good shape.”




Turning to Chump's bro the late Jeffrey Epstein.  From the 80s through the 00s (some say all the way up to 2016), Chump and the sex trafficker were best buds.  For decades.  Chump probably tells Epstein in his dreams,  "I wish I knew how to quit you."  But he didn't.  Say it.  Or quit him.  Until decades later. THE MINNEAPOLIS BULLETIN notes:

On October 26, House Judiciary Democrats released a staff report that outlined allegations involving 11 women. The report said five of those women directly accused Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault in Jeffrey Epstein’s company or presence, largely in New York and Palm Beach during the 1990s.
Then, on November 10, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee issued their own report. Their conclusion was the opposite: after reviewing witnesses and documents, they said the committee did not find material implicating Trump in Epstein’s crimes.
That leaves the public with two partisan investigations pointing in different directions. Neither report is a court ruling, and neither by itself establishes criminal liability. What they do provide is a framework for understanding how lawmakers are sorting the same history into competing political and legal narratives.
Why the Democratic report is so explosive
The Democratic report leans heavily on interviews, survivor accounts, FBI records, and documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It centers on a period from roughly 1992 to 1997, and repeatedly places Trump, Epstein, Paolo Zampolli, and figures from the modeling world in overlapping social circles.
Among the named accounts are allegations from Stacey Williams, Jill Harth, Maria Farmer, and Beatrice Keul. The report also references “Jane,” who testified against Ghislaine Maxwell, and “Katie Johnson,” whose allegation involved events in 1994 when she said she was 13.
The report also challenges several of Trump’s public denials. It says flight logs show Trump traveled on Epstein’s jet at least eight times in the 1990s, and it cites a 2009 account indicating Epstein “was never asked to leave” Mar-a-Lago, contradicting later claims that Trump expelled him.

Chump's been a little less than honest -- and the House Democrats Judiciary Committee Report makes that clear.  




Epstein survivors say they are hopeful a Democrat-controlled Congress will bring more accountability.
“We need those that harmed us to be held accountable, and we need to see actual people being brought into Congress,” Epstein survivor Sharlene Rochard told Scripps News. “We need the files turned into trials.”
Some members of Congress appear to be listening. Outgoing Republicans have supported a petition to circumvent the current leadership and force a House floor vote to release unredacted Epstein files.
All 214 U.S. House Democrats and four outgoing Republicans have signed a discharge petition to strengthen enforcement of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The petition, which crossed the 218-signature threshold on Wednesday, could bring the bill straight to the House floor for a vote, bypassing House Republican leadership.
The bill (H.R. 9694) would amend the Epstein Files Transparency Act (Public Law 119-38). Among its provisions, it would:
Grant legal standing to Epstein survivors, state attorneys general, and members of Congress, allowing them to file federal lawsuits against the Justice Department (DOJ) to compel the release of unredacted or withheld Epstein files.
Give survivors the right to obtain full, unredacted FBI interview reports about themselves, and require the DOJ to share unredacted files with state and local prosecutors for their own investigations.
Prohibit the DOJ from invoking common law privileges (such as attorney-client or deliberative process privileges) to delay or redact the records.
Allow documents handed over to states to be publicly disclosed in court proceedings.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Reps. Ro Khanna of California and Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico co-sponsored the petition.


So now we wait to see whether or not it will get the necessary votes. 

Which brings up Tuesday's House embarrassment when 11 Democrats missed the vote on impeaching Priss Pot Pete Hegseth.  Ann's "Jonathan Jackson missed the vote because he was stuck in traffic - but he wasn't" notes that one member of the House,  Jonathan Jackson, told Don Lemon that he missed the vote because he was caught in traffic but then he gets confronted by TMZ which notes he was on site ten minutes before the vote.  So why didn't he vote?  He won't say. The midterms were about the American people putting their trust in the Democratic Party.  That was last week.  And yet all the Dems in the House have done this week is let us down.  There was the Hegseth vote.  Sarah K. Burris (ALTERNET) reports on another vote this week that the Dems weren't there for:


Democrats made their second big mistake in less than two days on Wednesday when they allowed a far-right veterans bill to pass the House on a voice vote.
A voice vote is when someone proposes the bill, the parliamentarian asks for the "yays" and the group yells then they ask for the "nays" and they yell. In this case, House Republicans declared the bill passed. A Democrat could have asked for a recorded vote, meaning the parliamentarian must call each name and record their vote.
"Some confusion here about what exactly happened. But this is another black eye for Democrats. Two in two days," said Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman on X.
One anonymous Democratic staffer sent a message to a source: "It appears Democratic leadership just let a controversial veterans benefits bill pass by voice vote and didn't request a recorded vote. Hence the disarray on the floor. This is a huge procedural mess-up. Texts in group chats of Dem staff right now include phrases such as: 'How could they have let that happen?' 'We are not off to a good start.' 'This coming right on the heels of the attendance issue last night is incredibly damning of current leadership.'"


Coming right on the heels of the attendance issue on the Hegseth vote?  Yes, it is.  And it makes me again question -- as Elaine has ("Can Hakeem lead? Didn't look like it on Tuesday night") -- whether or not Hakeem Jeffries is up to being Speaker of the House.  These were two serious mistakes and he is Minority Leader right now.  Why is he unable to fight back against the Republicans?  Why are they caught by surprise on who's voting and who's not voting?  Why didn't they request a recorded vote?

These are the most basic of screw ups.  Is Hakeem not up to being a leader?  If so, we need to know that and that's why I'm saying we need a real challenge on who the next Speaker is.  Prior to this week, I was fine with Hakeem. But after these two serious mistakes, I don't think we need a coronation.  I think we need a serious debate about who will be the next Speaker.  

We also need an apology from Hakeem.  He needs to apologize to the American people for the Tuesday vote and the Wednesday vote.  As Minority Leader right now, he is the Democratic Party leader of the House and this happened under his watch.  Twice is one week, he was caught unprepared twice this week.  He wants to be a leader?  A leader takes accountability and responsibility.  I've not seen him do either this week.

The people screwed over by the Democrats ineptitude -- and the Republicans lack of respect for veterans -- on Wednesday are veterans. Mia McCarthy and Riley Rogerson (POLITICO) note: 


A leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, which opposed passage of the bill, called the circumstances surrounding its passage "cowardly and dishonorable."
National Commander-in-Chief Cory Geisler said “if congressional leaders believed this proposal was worthy of passage, they should have had the courage to let every member's position be recorded for the country to see."
Takano said he was “walking through all of our options” and said he was frustrated by the GOP posture: “They're insisting on sending text that's not been fully agreed to, send it over to the Senate.”



Cowardly and dishonorable?  That certainly describes the Secretary of Defense who's still, rightly, being called out for his treating a visit to THE TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER as a lark.  








Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has taken a desperate measure to save face after a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier sentinel brutally shushed his group during a Veterans Day event.
Hegseth has posted photos of himself awarding a medal to the tomb guard who yelled at him to maintain decorum during a visit to the military’s most solemn site—an incident that followed CNN cameras capturing Hegseth’s group laughing near the tomb at Arlington National Cemetery.
“We love soldiers,” Hegseth wrote on X along with photos. “We love standards. Well done, Specialist. Carry on Patriots.”
[. . .]
Hegseth’s humiliation at Arlington comes at a trying time for the Pentagon chief. Outgoing Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a critic of the president, filed articles of impeachment against Hegseth this week. MAGA-aligned Republicans ultimately succeeded in killing off Massie’s effort after 11 Democrats bizarrely missed the vote, many blaming traffic.
Democrats are still thirsting to have Hegseth removed from power, however, and will soon enjoy a comfortable House majority come January. Hegseth barely survived Senate confirmation at the peak of MAGA’s popularity in early 2025, requiring Vice President JD Vance to break a 50-50 tie, and he faces an uphill challenge in a safely Democratic-majority Senate if he is impeached.

The guard was doing his duty.  He shouldn't have to be doing that, however, when it's the Secretary of Defense and his flunkies.  The Secretary of Defense should have curbed his own group and told them to stop clowning.  If you truly loved standards, Priss Pot Pete, you would have held your group accountable.


Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and colleagues in pressing Senate and House leadership to exclude provisions in the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would require the President to expand and enhance defense cooperation and intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel. These provisions would undermine the United States’ ability to act independently and in line with U.S. national security interests at a time when the Government of Israel’s actions are increasingly not aligned with those interests.

The Senators begin, “As you prepare to conference the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), we respectfully urge you to exclude three provisions from the final bill that would further entrench concerning aspects of the U.S.-Israel defense and intelligence relationship at a time when the Israeli government’s actions are increasingly undermining U.S. interests and values. These provisions would constrain the Administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect U.S. national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region.”

On the threats to U.S. national security, the lawmakers note, “The agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology. This is not hypothetical. The Netanyahu government has already leveraged its existing coproduction agreement with the United States on missile defense to block American Iron Dome batteries from reaching Ukraine, in direct opposition to U.S. national security interests. Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare. That is not in the U.S. interest. If enacted, these agreements would create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the U.S. defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement. President Trump, at his own discretion, could choose to enter new agreements with Israel under existing law. The executive branch does not need a congressional mandate to more deeply entrench U.S.-Israel defense cooperation.”

“Moreover, we do not share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies. To do so in this instance would be unwise, especially as the Government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with U.S. interests and values,” the lawmakers write.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly stated that such an initiative was his idea. In a letter to Representative Stutzman, who led a resolution calling for an effort similar to these provisions, Prime Minister Netanyahu states, ‘I was glad to receive your proposed Congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework of the US-Israel defense cooperation from aid to partnership.’ The intention behind this is clear: to move U.S. security assistance governed through more traditional pathways, like Foreign Military Financing and arm sales, to more opaque, less discernible avenues through defense acquisitions and programs of record that reduce transparency, as well as increase Israel’s leverage over the United States and our dependency on Israeli technology. This is particularly problematic after Prime Minister Netanyahu boasted that he has been trying to start a war with Iran for 40 years. That war has proven to be a strategic disaster for the United States and against U.S. interests,” the Senators continue.

“For all these reasons, we should not legally mandate an expansion in defense co-production or a requirement to increase intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel. We therefore urge you to exclude Section 1217, Section 219, and Section 618 from the NDAA final conference report,” they conclude.

In addition to Senators Murray and Van Hollen the letter was cosigned by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Elizabeth Warren, (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Tina Smith (D-MN), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Andy Kim (D-NJ). The letter was sent to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chair Roger Wicker, SASC Ranking Member Jack Reed, House Armed Services Committee Chair (HASC) Mike Rogers, and HASC Ranking Member Adam Smith.

The full text of the letter is available HERE and below.

Dear Majority Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Johnson, Minority Leader Jeffries, Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Reed, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Smith:

As you prepare to conference the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), we respectfully urge you to exclude three provisions from the final bill that would further entrench concerning aspects of the U.S.-Israel defense and intelligence relationship at a time when the Israeli government’s actions are increasingly undermining U.S. interests and values. These provisions would constrain the Administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect U.S. national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region.

Both Section 1217 from the Senate Armed Services Committee-reported bill and Section 219 of the House-passed bill mandate the creation of a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” to expand and accelerate the U.S.-Israel defense relationship, including technology sharing, co-production of weapons systems, and bilateral research and development across multiple domains of warfare such as biotechnology, quantum, autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, cyberwarfare, and others. 

The agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology. This is not hypothetical. The Netanyahu government has already leveraged its existing coproduction agreement with the United States on missile defense to block American Iron Dome batteries from reaching Ukraine, in direct opposition to U.S. national security interests. Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare. That is not in the U.S. interest. 

If enacted, these agreements would create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the U.S. defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement. President Trump, at his own discretion, could choose to enter new agreements with Israel under existing law. The executive branch does not need a congressional mandate to more deeply entrench U.S.-Israel defense cooperation.

Moreover, we do not share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies. To do so in this instance would be unwise, especially as the Government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with U.S. interests and values.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly stated that such an initiative was his idea. In a letter to Representative Stutzman, who led a resolution calling for an effort similar to these provisions, Prime Minister Netanyahu states, “I was glad to receive your proposed Congressional resolution endorsing my plan to shift the framework of the US-Israel defense cooperation from aid to partnership.” The intention behind this is clear: to move U.S. security assistance governed through more traditional pathways, like Foreign Military Financing and arm sales, to more opaque, less discernible avenues through defense acquisitions and programs of record that reduce transparency, as well as increase Israel’s leverage over the United States and our dependency on Israeli technology. This is particularly problematic after Prime Minister Netanyahu boasted that he has been trying to start a war with Iran for 40 years. That war has proven to be a strategic disaster for the United States and against U.S. interests.

In addition to the provisions discussed above in the Senate and House NDAAs, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) FY27 Intelligence Authorization Act, which is typically incorporated in the final NDAA, includes a provision (Sec. 618) that mandates the executive branch “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel,” and also states that intelligence sharing with Israel “shall not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited.” The provision would tie the President’s hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect U.S. national security. That would be irresponsible and especially troubling given public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level.

For all these reasons, we should not legally mandate an expansion in defense co-production or a requirement to increase intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel. We therefore urge you to exclude Section 1217, Section 219, and Section 618 from the NDAA final conference report. 

###


The following sites updated:

Posted by at

Thursday, November 12, 2026

Usher, Chris Brown, Placebo's Brian Molko, Prince

Usher and Chris Brown have been on tour together.  It has not gone well.  Michael Saponara (BILLBOARD) reports: 

Usher and Chris Brown have canceled another pair of shows on their extended R&B Tour. As of Wednesday (Nov. 11), Ticketmaster displayed cancelation notices for Nov. 16 in Los Angeles at SoFi Stadium and the Dec. 6 date at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami. No reason has been provided for the scrapping of the concerts, and neither musician has made a statement as of press time.
Billboard has reached out to reps for Chris Brown, Usher and Live Nation.
The R&B Tour is currently wrapping up a mini-residency in Atlanta with a fifth and final ATL show on tap for Wednesday night.
There are nine more dates until the Dec. 12 finish line for Usher and CB, while the total number of canceled shows has risen to six on the trek, although all have come from added dates extending the tour in August.


The cancellations come after a tense Atlanta performance where the singers reportedly blamed each other for delays and stopped sharing the stage.
[. . .]
Tensions between the two boiled over during the first night of their shows in Usher's hometown, with both sides blaming the other for a lengthy delay. Unlike in previous shows, neither performed with the other, leaving fans puzzled as to why they were being treated to what felt like two different concerts.

Another tour not going well?  Martha McHardy (DAILY BEAST) reports: 


Brian Molko is done playing to an audience of phone screens.
The Placebo singer delivered an expletive-heavy dressing-down to audience members at the band’s Milan concert last week, threatening to have persistent camera users kicked out.
The flare-up came during Placebo’s 30th anniversary tour, where the band has made a point of asking fans to experience the music without staring at their screens. Pre-show notices have urged concertgoers to keep their devices tucked away, reminding them: “You’ll remember the moment, not the recording.”

To which I say: Wah!

This is not 1997.  People are even more devoted to their phones and recording at a concert is now a regular and expected occurrence.  If you don't like it, you probably shouldn't tour.


Prince's legendary performance of “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” at the 2004 Rock & Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony may have been more than a spectacular display of electric-guitar playing. According to revelations from an unreleased documentary about the musician, it was also an opportunity to settle a score with Rolling Stone.
The guitarist reportedly felt slighted after being omitted from the magazine’s 2003 list of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. And when he took the stage the following year alongside Tom Petty, Jeff Lynne, Steve Winwood and Dhani Harrison to honor George Harrison, he apparently had something to prove.
Prince’s contribution to the Beatles classic became one of the most celebrated guitar performances of his career. Stepping forward for an extended solo, he unleashed a breathtaking display of melodic playing, high-speed runs and showmanship before tossing his guitar into the air and strutting offstage.

As a New York Times Magazine feature on an epic, nine-hour Prince documentary by Oscar-winning filmmaker Ezra Edelman revealed in 2024, the performance may have carried a more personal message.
“On its face, it’s a supreme expression of Prince’s superiority and bravura,” the magazine wrote. “But the film gives it a new context. Questlove, on the screen, talks about his disbelief, the previous year, when Rolling Stone made a list of the 100 greatest guitar players of all time, and Prince was left off it.”
The documentary reportedly suggests that Prince didn’t forget the omission, waiting for an opportunity to make his feelings known.
“Prince nursed these kinds of slights, and his commandeering of the stage — at an event associated with [founder] Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone — was, in part, an act of revenge,” the article continued. “There’s spite and aggression in the performance. But there’s also pain — in his wincing face, his apartness: a small, soigné Black man onstage with these rumpled white rockers.”

Closing with C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Thursday, November 12, 2026.  Chump and his allies attempt to bully Congress with threats of prosecution for exercising the powers the Constitution grants Congress, Priss Pot Pete Hegseth disgraces himself in front of THE TOMB OF THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER, AG Toad Blanche gets smacked around by a judge over Blanche's inability to follow the law, and much more. 




Chump and his administration are attempting to bully the newly elected incoming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate.  Ana Ceballos (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reports: 

The White House’s top lawyer is raising the possibility of criminal investigations into House Democrats, arguing that the inquiries they plan to open into President Trump and administration officials could themselves break the law.
Will Scharf, the White House counsel, made the warning in a letter dated Monday to Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), who is in line to lead the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, when Democrats take control of the chamber in January.
“We are monitoring the abusive and capricious threats that are now proliferating from Democrat legislators who seek to abuse the legislative process to intimidate and to interfere with the lawful functioning of government,” Scharf wrote.

Monitor whatever you want, you freak, THE CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land and you're not only attempting to bypass it, you're also making legal threats in an attempt to intimidate.  If the Justice Dept had a real Attorney General -- and not fat boy Toad Blanche -- you might be facing a sit-down-and-come-to-Jesus moment.  Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued the following statement:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released the following statement after the White House sent a letter to Oversight Democrats threatening to infringe upon the Committee’s constitutionally protected right to conduct congressional oversight.
"It appears Donald Trump has something to hide. Let's be clear: Congress' authority comes from Article I of the Constitution, not from the permission of the White House. Congress has wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight, an authority inherent in the power to legislate.
The American people voted overwhelmingly for us to pass laws to root out corruption and abuse. The Trump Administration continues to weaponize the government with threats of unconstitutional attacks on Congress. We are a co-equal branch of government and will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized DOJ or from the President’s lawyers," said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.
###

As Mike noted last night the administration is staffed with bullies and you have to stand up to bullies. 









Some legal experts also criticized Scharf's letter Wednesday, with Deborah Pearlstein, director of Princeton University's Program in Law and Public Policy, describing it on Bluesky as "a particularly ham-fisted stab at intimidation" that's "worth the paper it's written on, not more."


Erik De La Garza (RAW STORY) notes legal expert Elie Honig's take: 

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig delivered a blistering assessment Wednesday of the Trump administration’s attempts to portray congressional investigations by Democrats as potential criminal activity, calling the legal arguments advanced by two top administration lawyers "quite embarrassing."
"No, this is not a thing. No, this is not a crime. No, this is not anything even remotely close to a crime," Honig told CNN’s Brianna Keilar.
[. . .]
Honig said Democrats have discussed aggressively wielding subpoena powers after last week’s election victory, including promises to "throw subpoenas out like Mardi Gras beads."
But he flatly rejected suggestions that such rhetoric constitutes criminal threats or extortion.
“Not even close,” Honig said Wednesday. “All of this is core First Amendment protected political speech.” The CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor then took his criticism of the Trump administration a step further.
"It's actually quite embarrassing that experienced attorneys like Will Scharf and Todd Blanche are trying to say this is a crime," he added. "They have to know that it's not. This has to just be political posturing."


Accountability is long overdue.  Erin Banco and Jonathan Landay (REUTERS) report: 

Democrats in the US House of Representatives, who will control key committees next year, are preparing investigations into what they say was President Donald Trump’s politicization and gutting of US spy agencies, including whether analysts have censored themselves to avoid retaliation.
“There's absolutely evidence that analysts are hesitant to write on topics that they think might be controversial. There's absolutely evidence of a decline in morale in the analytic community because of the pressures that they are under,” US Representative Jim Himes, a Connecticut Democrat who will become chairman of the House intelligence committee in January, told Reuters on Tuesday.
There has been little scrutiny of the state of the US intelligence community by the Republican-run Congress during the first two years of Trump’s second term, during which the administration fired or forced out hundreds of officers and disrupted the production of analyses on key issues, including Iran.

That investigation might require testimony from former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard who was last seen fleeing the administration right before it was revealed that as a member of Congress her controller was Guru Chris the head of her cult who regularly instructed her on how to vote and what to say publicly.  Banco and Landay note, "Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last year cut her agency’s staff by about 40%."  


There is so much accountability that has been missing for the last two years.  Finya Swai (THE HILL) notes the journalist organization Reporters Without Borders:

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is urging the incoming Congress to impeach Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr, accusing him of undermining press freedom by punishing news outlets critical of President Trump and his administration.
The organization, which advocates for journalists worldwide, claimed Carr has repeatedly used the FCC’s regulatory authority to pursue politically motivated investigations and influence media mergers in ways that benefit Trump and his allies.
“Few individuals have been more instrumental to the White House’s campaign to weaken the First Amendment than Brendan Carr,” Clayton Weimers, the executive director of RSF North America, said in a statement.
This is the first time RSF has called for the removal of a U.S. official, a step the group said was warranted by what it described as Carr’s persistent abuse of power. The group cited several of Carr’s high-profile clashes with major broadcasters, including ABC, as examples of the FCC’s alleged use of regulatory threats to influence news coverage.

And two US senators have grave concerns about gifts to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Zachary Leeman (MEDIAITE) explains: 

Senate Democrats have launched a new probe into Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the lavish gifts he’s received from a donor, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Kennedy received a number of gifts from donor Gavin de Becker in 2025, including use of his yacht in a summer “funded” by de Becker, according to people familiar with the matter. Sailing around Greece in a donor’s yacht was a previously unreported gift. Democrats are currently probing $250,000 in gifts Kennedy reportedly received, which include about $45,000 in airfare and use of a Washington, D.C. home.
The yacht trip in Greece was not included in previous financial disclosures.
“It seems abundantly clear that Mr. de Becker is a prohibited source and that you are not permitted to accept gifts from him while you serve as Secretary,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) wrote to Kennedy in a letter. “Even if you consider him a friend, your relationship is not purely personal.”

And along with gifts, he needs to be investigated for his actions.  Isabel van Brugen (DAILY BEAST) notes:

The U.S. could soon lose its official designation as a nation that has eliminated measles as outbreaks intensify under President Donald Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Eight independent public health experts are meeting in Washington, D.C., this week to assess whether the country has experienced at least a year of uninterrupted measles transmission, the threshold for losing its elimination status.
The review comes as the U.S. faces its worst year for measles since 1991, raising scrutiny of Kennedy’s leadership and his efforts to reshape federal vaccine policy. Eight people have died from measles in the U.S. since the beginning of 2026, among them six in Pennsylvania, one in New York, and one in Wisconsin.
The panel advises the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the World Health Organization’s regional office. Its recommendations will inform a final decision by the PAHO director.
The U.S. achieved measles elimination in 2000 following decades of vaccination efforts. International travel and growing vaccine hesitancy are thought to be behind its resurgence.
Kennedy, who leads the administration’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, has repeatedly cast doubt on vaccine safety. Since taking office last January, he has continued to promote misleading claims, including that the measles vaccine contains “aborted fetus debris.”


Meanwhile, Cross-Eyed Victoria Foxx looks closer and closer to losing the seat in Congress that has contained her bigoted butt for 11 terms. Luciana Perez Uribe Guinassi, Esther Frances and  Ronni Butts (THE STATE) reports: 

Republican U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx narrowly trails her Democratic challenger after county election boards reviewed and counted more ballots in North Carolina.
The lead flipped back and forth Tuesday, as counties posted provisional ballot counts, but Chuck Hubbard’s lead ultimately stretched to 335 votes, extending his 99-vote lead from election night.
That 0.12% difference is well within the 1% margin for Foxx to request a recount. The candidates could also file formal challenges if they believe the vote count includes ineligible voters.



A Democrat is close to flipping a staunchly red district in North Carolina after he decided to run for office to fight for the rights of his LGBTQ+ daughter.
With more than 95% of votes counted, Chuck Hubbard currently leads 11-term anti-LGBTQ+ incumbent Virginia Foxx (R) by 325 votes in North Carolina’s Fifth Congressional District. According to NBC News, Foxx would need to win 64.3% of the remaining vote to catch up to Hubbard. S he beat Hubbard by 19 points in 2024.
A moving video of Hubbard at a town hall shows him explaining why LGBTQ+ issues are among the closest to his heart.
“The day Trump was elected the first time,” he said, “My daughter, Meredith, called me… crying and said, ‘Dad, every bit of progress we ever made is gonna be taken away from us. These people hate me… and they’re coming after me.'”
“That’s about as important as it gets,” he continued. “So I will do whatever, whenever, however I can to protect the LGBTQ community and make sure that they’re not bullied. Everybody deserves to be able to live their lives the way they want. You don’t get to tell me who to love. You don’t get to tell me how to dress, who to associate with, how to speak. These are core issues in the United States and the LGBTQ community. With MAGA folks in control, believe me, they are under threat.”


Cross-eyed Virginia may be out of Congress.  And we can all be thankful for that. 


A Democrat in the House who needs calling out?  Pete Aguilar.  Arthur Delaney (HUFFINGTON POST) reports that Aguilar is insisting that the 11 missing Democrats Tuesday when the vote to impeach Priss Pot Pete Hegseth would not have mattered had they been there:

“It’s disappointing, but even if we were at full attendance, it wouldn’t have changed the result,” the House Democratic Caucus chairman told HuffPost on Wednesday. 
The House approved a procedural motion to kill the impeachment resolution by referring it to a committee by a vote of 211 to 204, with 11 Democrats and seven Republicans missing the vote.
If the 11 Democrats had showed up, they could have given Democrats enough votes to defeat the resolution. But in that scenario, Aguilar said, Republicans would simply have held the vote upon until their absent members could be rounded up. 
“If everybody showed up on both sides, it still wouldn’t have impacted it. If only the Democrats showed up, Republicans would have held it open for a while,” Aguilar said. 

If everybody showed up on both sides?  I'm not worried about the Republicans.  I want to see the Democrats deliver.  And they didn't on Tuesday and there's no excuse for 11 of them missing the vote.  Had they shown up, they would have voted.  But they didn't show up.  And that reflects poorly on the Democrats and it reflects especially poorly on Hakeem Jeffries who wants to be the next Speaker of the House but who couldn't even get all the Dems to show up for the vote.  And he also didn't stall to buy the Dems time to get there.  But even Aguilar states that if the Dems has arrived the "Republicans would simply have held the vote until their absent members could be rounded up."  I don't doubt him that the GOP might have tried to hold it up.  But, again, that's what Hakeem should have been doing -- holding up the vote until the 11 Dems arrived. He didn't do that either.

We went from last week when voters delivered for the Democratic Party and gave them control of both houses and woo-hoo let's celebrate to the first vote that matters and the Dems lose because 11 of them didn't show up to vote.  That is not a good look and Aguilar looks like an idiot trying to mealy mouth it when he should be calling it out.  

Again, the American people have put their trust in the Democratic Party.  Before the new members are even sworn in, the party is already a disappointment. This cannot continue.





Democrats, fresh off their sweeping victories in last week’s elections, faced bitter criticism and recriminations on Wednesday from within their own ranks after 11 of their members missed a vote on the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The absences, which boosted Republicans’ successful effort to block the impeachment on Tuesday, cast a shadow over what was otherwise a triumphant week for Democrats that was supposed to be focused on savoring their electoral wins, welcoming new members and plotting out their agenda for when they take the helm of both chambers of Congress.

Instead, Representative Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, the No. 2 Democrat in charge of tracking votes among her members, began a closed-door party meeting on Wednesday morning scolding lawmakers who had been absent for the impeachment vote, as others chastised their colleagues in public.

“Show up and do your job,” Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, Democrat of Michigan, said bluntly on CNN Tuesday evening.

Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Democrat of California, appeared to be seething as she left the Capitol following the vote Tuesday night, telling the MeidasTouch Network that Democrats had squandered the opportunity to push the impeachment charges forward over Republican opposition. “People should have gotten their raggedy selves up these steps to vote,” she said.


As shameful and embarrassing as that vote was for House Democrats, Priss Pot Pete brought more shame on the office of Sectary of Defense yesterday.














In commemoration of Veterans Day today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, a monument that honors unidentified American service members who died in war.

Video captured Hegseth’s group of five people laughing near the monument. In response, one of the elite soldiers — tasked with helping maintain decorum at the monument literally 24 hours a day, 365 days a year — then turned and yelled to Hegseth’s group, “All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times!” The video clip of the interaction was broadcast nationwide by CNN.



Turning to Chump's old roll dog Jeffrey Epstein, the dead sex trafficker and pedophile remains in the news.  Caitlin Yilek (CBS NEWS) reports: 

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has secured enough support to force a vote on legislation that would compel the release of the remaining Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein. 
Massie launched a discharge petition over the summer to circumvent leadership and force a vote on the bill, known as the Epstein Files Transparency Act II. 
In order to bring the legislation to the floor, the discharge petition needs 218 signatures. It hit that threshold Wednesday. Four Republicans, including Massie, and all Democrats have added their names. The other Republicans who signed on are Reps. Brian Fitzgerald of Pennsylvania, Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman, both of South Carolina. 

Why do we need this?  Didn't The Epstein Transparency Act that passed both houses of Congress and was even signed by Chump call for all documents to be released?  Yes, it did.  But AG Toad Blanche doesn't follow the law.  He does what he wants and breaks the law.  He's withheld millions of pages.  So now Congress is going to attempt a new act of Congress to force him to follow the law.    

This as a judge is also attempting to do the same.  Brett Meiselas (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) notes:

A federal judge has ordered Attorney General Todd Blanche to release previously unpublished handwritten FBI interview notes involving allegations of sexual abuse against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, delivering one of three significant rulings in MeidasTouch host Katie Phang’s lawsuit over the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files.
Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued three orders on November 9, rejecting the Justice Department’s attempt to delay producing records explaining its Epstein-files decisions, requiring a sworn accounting of foreign-language documents, and directing the publication of FBI notes that the department has withheld from public view.
The rulings represent another significant development in Phang’s legal effort to force the Justice Department to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the attorney general to make covered unclassified Justice Department records public within 30 days of its November 19, 2025 enactment.
Nearly 11 months later, the department is still fighting over records that Phang argues should have been released long ago.












Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren:

Video of Remarks (YouTube)

Washington, D.C. — At the 2026 Popular Mandate conference, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) urged Democrats to deliver on the populist economic policies that led them to an historic victory in the 2026 midterm election last week.

“Democrats won – and won big – by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse, and pledging to upend this system,” said Senator Warren. “That is a powerfully important lesson going into this next Congress and the next presidential primary in 2028.”

Senator Warren pointed to the evidence that populism won across the country, including Senators-elect James Talarico, Sherrod Brown, Adam Hamilton, Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, Peggy Flanagan, and Julianna Stratton.

  • In Texas, James Talarico said bluntly that “the system is rigged” and pledged support for Senator Warren’s bipartisan bill with Republican Senator Josh Hawley to break up big medicine.
  • In Ohio, Sherrod Brown channeled voter fury against AI data centers and said, “A handful of corrupt billionaires think they can buy power and keep this rigged system working in their favor… We’re proving that our voice is louder than their money.”
  • In Kansas, Adam Hamilton won by calling for cracking down on corporate price gouging, stopping data centers from jacking up utility bills, and expanding Medicare.
  • In North Carolina, Roy Cooper rolled out an ad in the final weeks saying he would, “fight the insurance companies and take on the utility monopolies.”
  • In Iowa, Josh Turek put forward a serious plan to scrap the cap to tax the richest Americans so we can extend Social Security.
  • In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed defended one of the most vulnerable Senate seats on the map with a full-on embrace of Medicare for All, a wealth tax for billionaires, and universal child care.

Senator Warren also laid out the task ahead, saying, “There are two massive barriers for Democrats to enact the change people want: First, the Senate filibuster. And second, Trump’s potential veto. But here’s the good news: we have tools to get where we need to be.”

She pointed to several ways Congress can make inroads now, including:

  • Working with President Trump and Republicans if they’re willing to deliver for families;
  • Pushing policies through reconciliation and spending bills “to pass big chunks of legislation that would improve people’s lives without a single Republican vote;”
  • Challenging Trump and Republicans to oppose popular legislation to crack down on Trump’s corruption;
  • And “hold(ing) Donald Trump and his cronies accountable for ripping off the American people.”

“Democrats are determined to make this economy and this government work for hard working people, and we have a plan for that: Part One: win the midterms. Part Two: Deliver big change. The time for Democrats to fight hard and produce results is now,” Senator Warren concluded in the speech.

Transcript: Senator Warren’s Speech at Popular Mandate Conference
November 10, 2026
As Prepared for Delivery 
Senator Elizabeth Warren: 

Intro

Thank you, Lindsay! It’s great to be with so many friends here at Popular Mandate!

One week after the 2026 midterms, the results are clear: Democrats won by fighting for populist economic policies.

In the most competitive 2026 races, in blue, purple, and red states, including places like Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina, Democrats won – and won big – by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse, and pledging to upend this system.

That is a powerfully important lesson going into this next Congress and the next presidential primary in 2028. 

Recall how Donald Trump swept back into power in the first place. Sure, I get it, lots of dog whistles and ugly stuff, but that wasn’t all. Trump promised he would lower costs “on Day 1.” Every day, over and over again,Trump got out and bragged that he would quote “end inflation and make America affordable again.” In his first major interview after the election, Trump said, “I won on groceries. Very simple word, groceries.” 

Of course, Trump’s promises were empty. Instead of helping working people, Trump and Congressional Republicans took a wrecking ball to our economy, saying yes, yes, yes to every disastrous plan that he put in place. 

  • Cutting health care to finance tax breaks for rich people and giant corporations. 
  • Imposing chaotic and illegal tariffs. 
  • Launching a forever war. 

Every one of those actions increased the cost of nearly everything for American families. 

While he has been breaking the economy for regular people, Trump and his buddies have run the most corrupt administration in modern US history. Trump has turned the federal government into a corruption machine designed to rake in profits for himself, his family, and his cronies—and make everyone else pay the bill. 

Gas prices over $5 a gallon. Ground beef prices spiking to more than $7 a pound. Inflation surging from the one-two-punch of Trump’s trade wars and Iran war. Mortgage rates above 7 percent. Credit card interest and car loans squeezing families hard. 

But not everyone has felt the pressure. Corporate profits have skyrocketed to record levels while the share of income going to workers crashed to an all-time low. 

Given the economic disaster that Trump unleashed, many DC pundits want to chalk up this election to nothing more than a referendum on the Republican Party, because of Trump’s failures on inflation and Iran. And yes, this is surely part of the story. 

But those failures have a name – affordability. When the President said high prices mattered to him, he won. When he drove up prices and enriched himself instead of addressing those high costs, he lost. 

In the wake of these historic wins, now is the time to listen to voters. It’s time to be clear-eyed about what voters heard – and liked – from winning candidates. 

Populism Wins – Evidence 

I’m going to focus on the Senate races, because that’s where I’ve put a lot of my efforts over the past two years – and where Democrats performed better than anyone thought was possible. 

First, all kinds of Democrats who won were straightforward about the fact that the economy is rigged against working people. And they didn’t pull punches about whose fault that is. 

Take James Talarico, the first Democratic senator from Texas in thirty years. Week after week on the trail, Talarico said bluntly that “the system is rigged.” In the final stretch of his campaign, he called out Elon Musk for trying to buy a Senate seat. Talarico won by over 10 points – in Texas. The future governor of Texas, Gina Hinojosa, made a similar argument. She said, quote “The one fight in this country is about economic power.” 

In Ohio, my friend Sherrod Brown channeled voter fury against AI data centers. And when crypto bros and Big Tech billionaires tried to buy this Senate seat for the Republicans, Sherrod didn’t mince words. He said, “A handful of corrupt billionaires think they can buy power and keep this rigged system working in their favor, ”We’re proving that our voice is louder than their money.” And Sherrod was right. 

In Kansas, yes, Kansas, Adam Hamilton won by calling for cracking down on corporate price gouging, stopping data centers from jacking up utility bills, and expanding Medicare. And by the way, speaking of Kansas, Dr. Roger Marshall lost because voters rejected him nickeling and diming his struggling patients. It was a stark contrast that made clear which candidate would fight for you. 

Every winner made these arguments and made them loudly – Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, Peggy Flanagan, Juliana Stratton – the list goes on and on. Many of them did so in their primaries as well, beating DC establishment candidates who were just too damn timid to call out the rich and powerful. 

Now, you might be thinking that the rhetoric was fiery, but that doesn’t mean this is actually a different breed of Democrats headed to Washington. And in fact, there are some self-titled “strategists” in our party who are happy to have Democrats rail against billionaires at their rallies – but they expect softer, more middle-of-the-road, corporate-friendly economic policies once in office. According to this logic, it’s fine to call yourself a populist if it helps you win in the general election, but don’t rock the boat so much that you tip your wealthy donors or rich CEO buddies into the water. 

If we want a clue as to what these voters actually want from Congress, just look at what the winners actually promised to do. 

For the first time in over a decade, North Carolina will have a Democratic Senator. Roy Cooper’s campaign slogan was “Make Stuff Cost Less.” His ad in the final weeks said he would  “fight the insurance companies and take on the utility monopolies.” And Roy isn’t playing a part. He is a seasoned former attorney general, and his campaign plan to lower grocery prices called for blocking anti-competitive mergers and stopping companies from using algorithms to fix prices for food—pretty specific plans to favor customers over corporations. 

Also, for the first time in 18 years, Iowa will have a Democratic Senator: self-described prairie populist Josh Turek. Josh believes that (quote) “health care is a human right.” He proudly calls himself a moderate Democrat. And he is. But this moderate Democrat made clear he’s ready to fight the powerful on behalf of the people of Iowa. He’s ready to fight the monopolies that own your health insurance, your pharmacy, and your PBM. He’s talked about breaking up Big Ag monopolies and the right to repair your own stuff. And with cuts to Social Security looming, he put forward a serious plan to scrap the cap to tax the richest Americans so we can extend Social Security in the future. Strong—and very specific. 

James Talarico pledged support for my bipartisan bill with Republican Senator Josh Hawley to break up big medicine. Mary Peltola promised to ban price gouging and called to (quote) “block anti-competitive mergers that let grocery chains … (that) drive up prices.” Abdul El-Sayed criss-crossed Michigan and defended one of the most vulnerable Senate seats on the map with a full-on embrace of Medicare for All, a wealth tax for billionaires, and universal child care. 

Populism Wins – Private Equity in Housing 

I want to spend a minute telling you about one of my very favorite issues out on the campaign trail this year, because it offers an insight into what’s going on. 

One of the biggest economic issues in these elections was housing. Last summer, Congress passed the biggest housing affordability legislation in 30 years. It’s a terrific bill with dozens of provisions designed to build more housing and lower costs. But here’s my favorite part: the new law also stops private equity and these Wall Street investors from buying up huge numbers of homes. The idea is simple: homes are for families, not corporations. As we got to the final passage of the Housing bill, there was a big fight inside the beltway to get that provision into the housing bill, and to keep it there. But in the real world, out on the campaign trail, in high school gymnasiums and parking lot rallies, the cheers for dumping private equity were long and loud. The private equity portion of the bill was the most remembered and most beloved. 

In the final stretch of the midterms, candidates have debates. And one common gotcha question is: you’re a Democrat, so what do you agree with Trump on? Two answers in two states were exactly the same. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Josh Turek in Iowa both said they agree with Donald Trump that we should get private equity out of housing. Shazam! 

This issue of private equity in housing caught fire in competitive races, including many House races. In New Mexico, Gabe Vasquez pushed back against private equity buying up manufactured housing. In Florida, Darren Soto made sure the Orlando voter guide included his vote in support of stopping “hedge funds from buying up many single-family homes.” In Iowa, Christina Bohannan told the Des Moines Register that she will take on corporate price gouging, including “the private equity firms that are buying up Iowa properties.” 

But that’s not all. Adam Hamilton and Annie Andrews, two of the biggest underdog races in the county, both campaigned on going even further to rein in private equity. They looked at the bill we passed in the summer and said, “Hey, that’s pretty good, but we should do more.” And they are right. Congress should do more to stop Wall Street from buying up homes and private equity’s looting. 

The Task Ahead 

So yes, we won big by naming what is wrong and convincing voters that we would take on a rigged system in order to fix it. 

But here’s the thing. It would be a tremendous breach of faith with the people who voted for us to spend the next two years ahead of the 2028 election railing against Trump and waiting for a future Democratic trifecta to deliver meaningful change. 

Democrats must spend the next two years fighting to deliver for working people now. Yes, even with Donald Trump in the White House. 

There are two massive barriers for Democrats to enact the change people want: First, the Senate filibuster. And second, Trump’s potential veto. But here’s the good news: we have tools to get where we need to be. 

First, I’m ready to team up with any Republican who’s heard the American people loud and clear. 

  • If Trump is serious about lowering costs, then let’s take him up on his promise to cap credit card interest rates and save families hundreds of dollars. 
  • Trump says he supports cracking down on corporate healthcare middlemen – we’ve got a bipartisan bill to get it done. 
  • Protect Social Security from benefit cuts? I have a plan with Republican Senator Moreno to force billionaires to pay into Social Security at the same rate as a public school teacher, making the program solvent for a generation. 
  • And now is the time for Congress to expand on our bipartisan ROAD to Housing bill and pass additional legislation to build more homes. 

Ready to go, Mr. President. Tell your Congressional team, and we’ll get this done. 

But hear this: if Republicans won’t join us, Democrats will move ahead without them. 

The reconciliation process allows us to pass big chunks of legislation that would improve people’s lives without a single Republican vote. Reverse the health care cuts the Republicans put in place, expand health care coverage, and fund universal childcare – all with a 51-vote majority in the Senate. And, to pay for it, we can start by reversing the tax breaks Trump and the Republicans handed out to millionaires and billionaires – again with 51 votes. A Democratic majority in Congress can also send the president a resolution that revokes his authority to wage war in Iran – again with 51 votes. 

And let’s not forget one of our most powerful tools: Democrats have power on spending bills that require our votes, and we should use it. No more funding for a forever war with Iran. Cancel the looming cuts to health insurance and nutrition benefits put in place by Republicans last summer. 

Next, where Democrats agree reconciliation is not an option, like with bills to ban stock trading by federal officials or crack down on Trump’s corruption in plain sight, Democrats should put the bills up for a vote. Let the Republicans decide if they want to stay tied to such corruption and, if they do, then let’s clear away Senate filibuster rules and pass the laws anyway. 

Look, I get it. These bills could still face a veto from Donald Trump. But for me, that’s not enough reason not to try. Democrats must deliver popular, meaningful legislation to Trump’s desk and dare him to veto it. 

  • Dare him to veto an increase in the minimum wage for hard-working Americans. 
  • Dare him to veto a ban on price gouging. 
  • Dare him to veto a ban on AI surveillance pricing. 
  • Dare him to veto a ban on stock trading 
  • Dare him to veto legislation that gets money out of politics so no one can buy our democracy. 

You can’t win what you don’t fight for. And if we don’t fight – if we hang back and sand down the edges of our economic agenda or trim our ambitions because we’re worried about what rich donors or giant corporations might think – then shame on us. I have already heard some Democrats accept defeat before we even tried fighting for progress. That breaks faith with the people who sent us here. Change can’t wait. We must deliver now. 

Finally, accountability. Congress has the power to hold Donald Trump and his cronies accountable for ripping off the American people to make themselves richer. Under the Trump Administration, the corruption has been massive—beyond anything seen in American history. 

Accountability is coming. If you’re a Wall Street executive, Big Tech CEOs, giant corporations that have been cheating people, you should be worried. And government officials who have put their own interests ahead of the public interest, should be worried too.

Democrats are determined to make this economy and this government work for hard-working people, and we have a plan for that: Part One: win the midterms. Part Two: Deliver big change. The time for Democrats to fight hard and produce results is now. 

###




The following sites updated:

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)