Wednesday, June 03, 2026

Peabo Bryson and Foster Sylvers

 That's Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack performing their hit "Tonight I Celebrate My Love."  Roberta passed away in February of 2025, Peabo just passed away.  In "Ronald LaPread, Peabo Bryson, Morgan Wallen" on Monday, I noted:


Beloved singer-songwriter Peabo Bryson is under medical care after suffering from a stroke.

"At this time, the family requests privacy as they navigate this deeply personal moment together," Bryson's representative said in a statement Sunday. "The thoughts, prayers and love of friends and fans are welcomed and deeply appreciated."

I read that before I saw the news of Ronald LaPread's passing.  And that upset and depressed me.  Peabo has had five gold albums and multiple hits.  "Tonight I Celebrate My Love For You" was a hit duet for him and Roberta Flack -- it made it to number four on BILLBOARD's Adult Contemporary chart, number five on the R&B chart and number 16 on the pop chart.  It was one of six charting duets the two had.  He also hit the charts dueting with Natalie Cole on "Gimme Some Time" and "What You Won't Do For Love."  He made it to number 14 on the R&B chart with his duet with Minnie Ripperton "Here We Go."  "Lovers After All" was a duet he did with Melissa Manchester and it made it to number 25 on the adult contemporary chart, number 34 on the R&B chart and number 54 on the Hot 100.  And he and Celine Dion took their duet of "Beauty & The Beast" to number nine on the pop chart (Hot 100) and number three on the adult contemporary chart.


With Regina Belle, he did "Without You" which to number 89 on BILLBOARD's HOT 100 and number fourteen on the R&B chart and number 8 on the adult contemporary chart.   But their version of "A Whole New World" did even better making it to number one on the hot 100 and on the adult contemporary charts. 


He's had a ton of solo hits but the biggest is probably "If Ever Your In My Arms Again" which made it to number one on the adult contemporary chart, number six on the R&B chart and number 10 on the Hot 100.  

He's a major talent who has been part of the soundtrack of our lives for years.  Hopefully, he'll be all better soon.  


Sadly, he did not recover from his stroke.  Lisa Respers France (CNN) reports:
 
Peabo Bryson, whose smooth tone and operatic control produced classic Disney hits as well as R&B standards, has died, according to a statement from his family. He was 75.

The statement said he died Tuesday evening “surrounded by the love of his family and those closest to him.”

Bryson is best known for contributing his talents to the Oscar-winning Disney duets “Beauty and the Beast,” sung alongside Celine Dion, and “A Whole New World,” sung with Regina Belle for the animated film “Aladdin.”

He’s also known for songs like “Feel the Fire” and “Can You Stop the Rain,” among others.



Bryson also had a string of hit singles with the late Roberta Flack, including "Tonight, I Celebrate My Love" and "You're Looking Like Love to Me" from the 1983 duet album "Born To Love," as well as "As Long as There's Christmas."
He was also known for several hit solo ballads, including "If Ever You're in My Arms Again" and "Can You Stop the Rain." "Can You Stop the Rain" was nominated for best R&B vocal performance in 1992. His other Grammy-nominated songs include "Lost in the Night" and "Did You Ever Know."

Bryson previously suffered a "mild" heart attack in 2019.

The singer's music has also garnered a Daytime Emmy nomination for outstanding original song, with Earl Rose for the 1993 "All My Children" track "I Found Love."



Over his decadeslong career, Bryson placed 12 hits on the Billboard Hot 100, starting with "Lovers After All," his 1981 duet with Melissa Manchester, and including three top 10 hits. He topped the chart in 1993 thanks to his recording of Disney's "A Whole New World (Aladdin's Theme)" with Regina Belle. Bryson had previously found success with another Disney classic, recording "Beauty and the Beast" with a then-23-year-old Celine Dion and reaching No. 9 on the Hot 100 in 1992.

Those two Disney success stories also brought Bryson his two Grammy wins out of eight nominations, with both duets taking home best pop performance by a duo or group with vocal in back-to-back years (1993 and 1994).




Laura Harding (INDEPENDENT) reports on the passing of Foster Sylvers ("Hotline," "Boogie Fever," etc) and shares this that Holly Robinson Pete posted on social media:

Tributes poured in for the late singer, including a particularly poignant message from actress Holly Robinson Peete, known for her roles in 21 Jump Street and Hangin’ with Mr Cooper.

She recalled her teenage crush on Sylvers, writing: "Foster Sylvers was my very first celebrity crush. And when I say crush, I mean CRUSHHHH.

"When I was 13 years old, I got the assignment of a lifetime: interviewing Foster and his siblings from the Sylvers for a show called Kidsworld. They were performing at Magic Mountain in LA and I showed up with a camera crew ready to be a professional journalist. The problem? I was so hopelessly in love with Foster that I completely tanked the interview. I mean, that face was just so ridiculously cute. I couldn’t focus, couldn’t get my questions out, and spent most of the time just staring at him. I was so bad, I ended up getting fired from the assignment.
"Years later, I had the chance to tell Foster that story, and we laughed about it together. He was gracious, kind, and every bit as charming as my 13-year-old self remembered him to be. Sending love and condolences to the entire Sylvers family. Thank you for the music, the memories, and for being part of the soundtrack of so many of our lives. Foster, you will live on forever in the heart of that starstruck puppy love sick 13-year-old girl. Rest peacefully."

By the way, I really enjoyed Elaine's "Stevie Nicks' discography" from last night so be sure to check that out if you haven't already.  

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


Wednesday, June 3, 2026.  Chump couldn't factor in Iran's response -- most basic rssponse -- to an attack launched by him, Todd Blanche defends Chump's IRS deal, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin appears before a Senate Committee, and much more. 


As Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) notes, the war drags on.




In mid-February, shortly before President Trump launched the war on Iran, the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps conducted live-fire drills in its coastal waters. Iranian state media publicized the exercise, whose official name made its purpose clear: “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The exercise amounted to a flashing red warning light to the Trump administration — one that, for reasons that are still not fully clear, went largely unheeded.

Within days of the war’s start, Iran’s military exerted control over the strait, menacing commercial tankers with boats, missiles and drones. Shipping ground to a halt. Energy prices soared. And Mr. Trump was backed into a strategic corner.

Three months later, Iran’s control of the strait has become its most powerful weapon, a source of huge leverage in negotiations with Mr. Trump over the country’s nuclear program.

A president used to bending opponents to his will has struggled to conceal his exasperation. In an April social media post, Mr. Trump profanely demanded that the “crazy bastards” leading Iran open the strait, “or you’ll be living in Hell.” Iran’s military mocked Mr. Trump’s threat as a sign of helplessness.

But Iran’s response has been neither crazy nor surprising, say numerous former U.S. officials who spent hours war-gaming Tehran’s likely response to a major U.S. attack.

For years, the U.S. government has conducted war games dealing with potential conflicts with Iran, including ones at the Pentagon attended by dozens of military officials and policymakers. Over and over, participants say, they concluded that Iran would respond to a major American attack by closing the strait of Hormuz.


So Iran's response should have been expected and factored in.  But Chump's a buffoon and he doesn't listen.  

The Iran War continues to drag on and there's no end in sight currently.  In fact, there's been no Chump in sight either as Nicole Charky-Chami (RAW STORY) points out:

President Donald Trump has stayed out of the public eye for the second day after negotiations with Iran were suspended, according to reports on Tuesday.

Trump was reportedly furious during a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israel's escalating military campaign in Lebanon, a condition that Iran cited as a reason to halt talks over a ceasefire with the United States. And after the derailed negotiations on Monday, Trump has stayed "out of sight," David Gardner, The Daily Beast's D.C. Bureau Chief, wrote in a post for The Swamp, The Daily Beast's Substack.
"The episode is called ‘Don’t Mention the War,’ and The Swamp suspects that is the very sentiment at the White House today after the president’s comically contradictory comments about his Iran War on Monday," Gardner wrote.

"One moment he was promising a solution and insisting all would be well, then he was saying he didn’t really care, and the Iranians made all his remarks moot by pulling out of the peace talks, anyway, which confirmed the one thing we did understand about the impasse—it’s a bloody mess," Gardner wrote.

A bloody mess.  And one that Chump - ART OF THE DEAL Chump -- can't find a way out of.  Steve Benen (MS NOW) observes:

Nearly two weeks after Donald Trump boasted that a “peace” agreement with Iran had been “largely negotiated,” and the world could expect to learn more about the breakthrough deal “shortly,” officials from Tehran effectively walked away from the negotiating table. The American president with a notoriously short attention span told CNBC, “I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less,” adding that he thought the protracted talks had become “very boring.”
As for why exactly Iran backed away from the diplomatic efforts, there were three apparent causes. One was the increased U.S. military strikes, coupled with Israel’s ongoing incursion in Lebanon. But The Washington Post reported that Iranian negotiators were also surprised and displeased when Trump made last-minute changes to the terms of the deal that had been previously worked on by members of his own team.

This, alas, was not the first time the American president had undermined what U.S. negotiators had presented to Iranian officials.

It led Joe Cirincione, the vice chair of the Center for International Policy and a longtime expert on nuclear policy, to highlight an underappreciated observation: “Trump is perhaps the world’s worst negotiator.”


Chump shouldn't struggle with admitting that he's lousy at deals.  There are so many other things that people want him to admit.  For example, Kathrine Frich (DAGENS) reports:

According to RadarOnline, US President Donald Trump is facing a fresh wave of public mockery.

The criticism sparked after he attended a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery alongside Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

During the solemn event at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, viewers noticed a large bulge under his trousers. Users on the social media platform X quickly started pointing out the wardrobe oddity.
“What exactly is Trump carrying on his a?” one observer asked online. They then added, “It looks like he has a double diaper, I am right?”
Critics used the visual moment to fuel ongoing rumors about the aging politician. Some commenters suggested the president is hiding serious neurological issues.

One person argued that the clothing choice was not the actual problem. Instead, they claimed the issue is how the leader tries to present himself to the public.
“There is no shame in wearing adult diapers,” the user wrote on X. The critic added that Trump attempts to act like an “immortal genius bodybuilder, when the truth is blindingly obvious.”




Turning to Chump's dead friend Jeffrey Epstein, Rasmus Senator (NEWSNER) reports: 

A former associate of Melania Trump has made a sensational claim that the first lady was an “escort” for Jeffrey Epstein and met the president through the notorious sex offender.

Reported by the Daily Beast, Former Brazilian model Amanda Ungaro dropped the bombshell allegation in a taped recording, accusing her ex-partner, Paolo Zampolli, of lying about having introduced Melania and Donald Trump at a party in 1998.
The story of how Melania Knauss later met her future husband while working as one of Zampolli’s models in New York has since become part of MAGA folklore.

In April, during her surprise press conference, Melania denied what she described as “mean-spirited and politically motivated lies” linking her to the late convicted sex offender.
“Let’s tell the public you never was the one introducing Melania to Trump. It was Jeffrey Epstein, as she was escort of Jeffrey Epstein. That’s how she met Donald Trump,” Ungaro claims in the WhatsApp recording.

“And I know, because I was with you 20 years and you always told me it was not you—it was Jeffrey Epstein,” she added.

However, in the post Ungaro shared on X, she challenged that version of events. Ungaro was 17 when she boarded Epstein’s private jet, known as the “Lolita Express,” on a flight from Paris to New York in June 2002. She was accompanied by her then-agent, French modeling scout Jean-Luc Brunel, who was later accused of recruiting young women for Epstein.


So which is it?  



New Mexico legislators probing Jeffrey Epstein on Monday said they have issued their first subpoenas, calling for evidence on the late sex offender from 14 entities including federal law enforcement agencies, the state governor's office and a Santa Fe scientific institute.

The New Mexico Truth Commission, in its second meeting since it was set up in February, also heard testimony from Rachel Benavidez, a survivor of alleged sexual abuse at Epstein's New Mexico ranch, as well as family members of the late Virginia Giuffre, another survivor. 

The commission, the first of its kind in the country, was established following the Justice Department's release of millions of Epstein-related files that shed new light on activities at the ranch 30 miles south of state capital Santa Fe.

The investigation could have wider, international significance if it can find evidence that public figures traveled to the ranch and took part in alleged sexual abuse. Epstein survivors have called on lawmakers in New York and Florida to also launch probes into abuse at the late financiers residences in those states.



Epstein owned Zorro Ranch in southern Santa Fe County from 1993 until his death in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019. Unlike several of his other properties, Zorro Ranch was never thoroughly investigated by federal law enforcement. The ranch is now owned by Texas political candidate and businessman Don Huffines.

“This first round of subpoenas represent the foundation of our evidentiary review: the records, communications, the documents that will allow us to ask the right questions of the individuals we have already identified as being part of this investigation,” Romero said, pledging to report publicly on how each entity responds.

The Legislature has never before exercised its power to issue subpoenas, Romero said.



The hearing featured emotional testimony from survivors and their families.

Rachel Benavidez, a New Mexico survivor who first spoke publicly about Epstein’s abuse in 2019, shared how recounting her story continues to affect her life.

“Recently when I spoke on the national news, there was rarely a word about my successes in advocacy, only the salacious details and images portray me as a victim. Each time I am retraumatized by the representation of me in this light. I am more than a salacious story for consumption. I share my experiences to share my truth,” Benavidez said.

The family of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a prominent survivor whose family says she was trafficked to wealthy men in New Mexico, also spoke about the human cost behind the headlines.

“This was about lives, and children, and young women, and girls, and boys who were abused for decades,” Giuffre’s sister-in-law, Amanda Roberts, said.

Lawmakers emphasized their commitment to centering survivors’ stories and ensuring transparency.

“I’m speaking to you directly, that we are following your lead,” one lawmaker said.

They also noted that more survivors could still come forward and that anyone ready to share their story is being directed to the New Mexico Department of Justice to avoid jeopardizing potential prosecutions.


Jon Schuppe (NBC NEWS) notes that the commission's "work is funded by money the state collected in a settlement with Epstein’s banks" (said to be $2.5 million).  Four commissioners serve: Rep Andrea Romero, Rep Marianna Anaya, Rep Andrea Reeb and Rep Bill Hall.  Alexandra Miller (10NEWS San Diego) notes, "The commission faces a deadline of July 31 to produce an interim report, with a final report scheduled for later this year."  THE STRAITS TIMES adds, "Epstein survivors have called on lawmakers in New York and Florida to also launch probes into abuse at the late financier’s residences in those states."

Will the commission do real work or is this going to be another cover up?  The reason to ask that question is John J. Kelly.  Who?  Alexander Willis (RAW STORY) reports:


John J. Kelly, who served as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico from 1993 to 2000, was exposed in April for his previously undisclosed ties with Jeffrey Epstein, and on Tuesday, veteran journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez accused the state’s “elites” of continuing to “protect him” amid the ongoing investigation into activity at Epstein’s sprawling New Mexico compound.
In 2024, Kelly was asked by a local news outlet why his name had appeared in Epstein’s contact directory, often referred to as his “little black book,” and told the ABC News affiliate that he had “no clue.” However, as uncovered by Valdes-Rodriguez, a file published by the Justice Department revealed that Epstein had given Kelly “power of attorney” to facilitate his purchase of Epstein’s infamous New Mexico compound known as Zorro Ranch.

It was during Kelly’s tenure as the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico that then-16-year-old Annie Farmer filed a report with the FBI about being sexually abused by Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell at Zorro Ranch – a tip that “protocol would require to be forwarded to Kelly’s offices,” Valdes-Rodriguez previously wrote, and one that ultimately went “ignored,” per The New York Times.
And yet, despite Kelly having “directly [contradicted] his account of barely knowing Epstein,” Valdes-Rodriguez argued, the ex-prosecutor remains on Albuquerque’s Ethics Board as a mayoral appointee, and no public announcements have been made regarding plans to question him, including from the newly created legislative committee with subpoena power dedicated solely to investigating potential crimes that occurred at Zorro Ranch.

“Kelly is still on the ethics board. And the state’s political and media elites continue to protect him, as he appears to have protected Epstein,” Valdes-Rodriguez wrote in a report published on her Substack Tuesday.


Last Friday, former Attorney General Pam da Bimbo Bondi appeared in front of the House Oversight Committee for a closed door conversation during which she repeatedly shifted the blame for problems with the release of the Epstein Files to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.  Blanche is now acting Attorney General.  Yesterday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released the following:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote to Oversight Chairman James Comer demanding the Committee bring in Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel for transcribed interviews regarding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. This letter follows former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s transcribed interview last week, where she shifted blame to Blanche and Patel regarding the handling of Ghislaine Maxwell, redactions of the Epstein files, compliance with the Oversight Committee’s subpoena of the Epstein files, and the implementation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“During her transcribed interview, former Attorney General Pam Bondi made one thing clear: we need to talk to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel. These agency leaders were directly involved in the cover up of the Epstein files and botched roll-out of the documents, which re-victimized survivors and made a mockery of our Justice Department. Oversight Democrats are demanding answers straight from the source,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

In the letter to Chairman James Comer, Ranking Member Garcia wrote, “Rather than provide answers in her testimony, Ms. Bondi repeatedly shifted responsibility to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. In her opening testimony, Ms. Bondi acknowledged that “I did not lead every aspect of this effort or conduct that document review myself. I delegated oversight over this process to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.” During questioning, Ms. Bondi invoked Mr. Blanche’s name more than 30 times, pointing to him as the person responsible for DOJ’s actions involving the review, withholding, and botched release of Epstein-related records. Ms. Bondi also indicated that it was Mr. Blanche’s decision to conduct the highly unusual interview of Ghislaine Maxwell—an interview that preceded her suspicious transfer to a minimum-security facility in violation of standing BOP policy.”

###


Blanche appeared before Congress yesterday and Tara Palmeri covered that live. 



Ahead of the hearing commencing, one of Tara's viewers was wondering what Blanche would say about the slush fund and about Chump's deal where he would never be audited again.  


Norman Eisen, the former White House ethics czar who has become one of the most aggressive legal thorns in Donald Trump's side, filed a new lawsuit Monday on behalf of former January 6 prosecutors, refusing to accept media reports suggesting the administration's $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund has been quietly shelved.
"We are NOT accepting media reports as proof that the $1.8B slush fund and 'settlements' associated with it are dead," Eisen wrote on X, announcing the filing. "That's why we have just filed a new lawsuit to make sure this ENDS."

The complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief was filed in federal court Monday, Case 1:26-cv-01907, on behalf of two former prosecutors who handled January 6 cases. It names Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano as defendants, along with the Justice Department and the Treasury Department.

According to language visible in the filing, the lawsuit argues that the fund's creation, along with its assertion that January 6 prosecutors acted for improper political reasons, has harmed the plaintiffs. The complaint notes that January 6 insurrectionists have already been "hailing the creation of the Fund," underscoring why the legal fight cannot be considered over based on press reports alone.


People are watching the slush fund.  Less so the agreement Chump's made with himself on the IRS.  Andrew Duehren and Alan Feuer (NEW YORK TIMES) report on the hearing:

The Justice Department is standing by an extraordinary measure giving President Trump, his family and his businesses potentially lucrative protection from I.R.S. investigations, Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, said on Tuesday.

Mr. Blanche’s remarks about the tax protections came during an appearance in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, in which he told lawmakers that the Trump administration was abandoning a related plan to create a $1.8 billion fund to pay restitution to people who claimed they were victims of government “weaponization.”

Mr. Blanche said the end of the fund would not affect the separate agreement shielding Mr. Trump from audits of tax returns he and his family had already filed. Both proposals had emerged in recent weeks as part of a settlement of Mr. Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the I.R.S. But now only the measure benefiting the Trumps will survive, Mr. Blanche said.

“Nothing has changed with that,” he said, referring to the tax proposal. “We’re not moving forward with the anti-weaponization fund.”

Mr. Blanche’s directive left in place a staggering public benefit to a president who has sought to bend the government toward his own financial interests. A host of thorny legal questions also remain. Mr. Trump’s lawsuit against the I.R.S. was revived last week by a judge concerned about potential deception in the agreement to withdraw the suit and to release the Trumps from any ongoing audits.







Senator Patty Murray: Well welcome, Mr. Secretary. I think from where I sit, I think it is pretty fair to say that DHS under President Trump has been a debacle. From day one, we saw rampant abuse of power and corruption. From awarding millions in no-compete contracts, to companies with direct family ties to DHS officials, to blatantly politicizing disaster relief and slow walking or outright blocking funding to blue states like mine, to making this country less prepared for disasters and leaving communities in the lurch. And then you have the absolutely shameful, unacceptable, un-American conduct we have seen from some of ICE and Border Patrol members. After Republicans gave nearly $200 billion last summer in their Big Ugly Bill -- with effectively no strings attached, President Trump and Stephen Miller built up a paramilitary force, and essentially promised it immunity, and set it loose on some of our American communities. We all witnessed the consequences: a family heading home from a basketball game that was teargassed. A priest in Chicago shot in the head and body with pepper balls. An American citizen dragged out of the house in the freezing cold, in his underwear. Renee Good, Alex Pretti, others murdered in broad daylight. Those actions shock the conscience -- and have shocked the world, which is horrified by what's unfolded on American streets. So, going back, as we negotiated the FY 26 DHS funding bill, I fought very hard alongside my Democratic colleagues to secure very basic reforms to make sure nothing like that happened again. Steps like, requiring body cameras -- and ensuring that the footage is retained and available, restoring basic training and hiring standards, requiring warrants, ending racial profiling, banning enforcement actions in sensitive locations, like schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. Taking off the masks and requiring visible identification. Those are very basic protocols the American people overwhelmingly support -- and by the way, police departments follow every day. But unfortunately, after weeks of back and forth --and at times, good discussions and good progress -- Republicans did ultimately walk away from the talks to enshrine those protections into law. And they chose to instead circumvent Democrats through reconciliation and are now trying to fund ICE and Border Patrol for the remainder of Trump's presidency -- not just this year -- without any oversight or accountability measures in place. This is exactly what led to the horrors that we did witness in Minneapolis and across the country. And I want to be very clear, Secretary Mullin, I'm watching closely to see what steps you now take as the new DHS Secretary. And I have to say -- I have yet to see you take back the reins from Stephen Miller. Because even now -- we are seeing some outrageous proposals. You plan to withdraw CBP officers from airports in cities that don't roll over for Trump -- that is insane -- it is not only dangerous, it would also spell economic crisis for blue and red states. Meanwhile, DHS is already on track to break last year's record for people dying in custody. And last week, ICE agents tear gassed a United States Senator who was simply working to peacefully mediate between ICE and protestors after federal law enforcement, we know, shoved a different Senator to the ground last year. And you continue to deport upstanding community members instead of the worst of the worst. “Accountability is desperately needed -- and I know we will all keep fighting for that.

 


That's Senator Murray speaking at the start of another hearing yesterday, this one the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing where they heard from Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullen.  



Markwayne Mullin gave a stunning answer to Tuesday's sparring partner Sen. Chris Murphy after the Connecticut Democrat asked him to specifically commit that Homeland Security will comply with a judge's ruling ordering the agency to stop an activity the court finds illegal.

"I will tell you that we will never break the Constitution and we're not going to break the law, but we're going to enforce our nation's laws," the secretary told Murphy in response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement violating nearly 100 court orders in one month. Murphy pointed out that, obviously, DHS can only follow the law if it complies with court orders.
"If we didn't think that courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that," Mullin said to Murphy. "But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law."

The senator looked around the room baffled, then reminded Mullin he cannot just choose what court orders to follow based on his personal opinions about the judge. Mullin told Murphy to not put words in his mouth before claiming the real concern is not about his compliance but about the rulings.

After a long silence, Murphy said, "If you're a Republican or a Democrat on this committee, you should be really, really freaked out."


A sitting Cabinet secretary will not commit to following the law?  How do they remain in that position? 


Let's note this exchange between Senator Murray and Secretary Mullin:

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: So let me ask you, throughout our negotiations over the [FY]26 bill, the White House and Border Czar Tom Homan told us we didn’t need to put any reforms into law, because DHS was already making changes like ending the roving patrols, restoring stronger training standards, requiring body cameras to be worn by all agents and officers.

And I know that at your confirmation hearing, you said you did not support the warrantless search and seizure policy the administration put in place and you reportedly were recently talking about legislation to require judicial warrants, restore training standards, and protect sensitive locations from raids.

But while you and Tom Homan say you’ve made some of those changes, the American people haven’t seen the proof of that. 

So, I want to ask you today, what are your current training requirements for agents?

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Thank you for the question. I want to remind the Senator that I was part of negotiating those reforms and I think you’re aware of that, so I actually know what happened during those.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I know you were not in the room, but I do know you were aware of them.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: But you were not in the room.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: No, I was very involved in it.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: I was in the room; you were not in the room. I know you were not in room.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I was very involved in it because we were talking with the House and you know—

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: It doesn’t matter; I asked you a question. What are the training requirements?  

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Senator, you know that we agreed to all the stuff you said and the fact is you guys walked away because you had primary elections.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: No, Mr. Secretary, we walked away because you would not agree to put it in writing.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We had agreed, we had asked for three and we had asked for nine and we agreed to nine. But you would never get to yes, so we walked away and did reconciliation because we were never going to get to yes between Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and you know that to be a fact. And you can’t pull the wool over my eyes because I was part of negotiating.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Mr. Secretary, you can give your side, I’m telling you I was in the room and we turned—I want to ask you what are your training requirement?

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: It’s interesting I was involved in that too, if you want to start talking about training, we’re going to -- July 1st == we'll go back to the 71, 72 hours of training. The training policy is going to change a little bit because we’re going to be doing crowd control and fit today’s needs, but all training is willing to change back-and-forth. When you start talking about warrants, I was very clear in my confirmation that judicial warrants are used when we are entering a residence unless we’re in pursuit of a criminal or the criminal continues to evade by going from one place to the next to the next to the next and we’re trying to lock the person down, but I was very clear when we started discussing that. And on the sensitive locations, it has been asked multiple times, we’re not actively being at sensitive locations. We do sometimes have to pick up a felon that is around a sensitive location, but we are not actively patrolling those, and I think you know that to be true.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Okay and can you give this committee in writing what your current training requirements are? You said as of July 1st—if you could give that to us so we can see what those are.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: Yes.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: How about the updated departmental protocols for agents engaging with protestors?

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: I’m sorry?

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: You have an updated Department protocol for agents who are engaging with protestors, can you describe that?

Senator Katie Britt: And the time has expired, so if you could get to your answer quickly then I’d appreciate it.

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: Well then let me just ask you then, if you could give the Committee in writing that answer, whether or not you have ended roving patrols, and whether or not every officer and agent in the field is now wearing a body camera, in writing so we can see what your protocols are.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We don’t have the money for all the cameras, we had it in the funding bill but since you guys decided not to vote for it, we don’t have the money to put it on all of our officers. But if you remember during the funding bill, we had $20 million set up for it and its currently unfunded because Democrats are refusing to fund CBP. [NOTE: The enacted FY26 appropriations bill did include $20 million specifically set aside for body-worn cameras. See Sec. 109(a).]

Vice Chair Senator Patty Murray: We had $20 million in it, and I will tell you this, that that was not enough but what I’d like to know is if you’d respond to that in writing what your current policies are so that we know that they are actual policies being implemented.

Secretary Markwayne Mullin: We’ll respond to you in writing.


Let's wind down with this from Senator Adam Schiff's office:

Senators Schiff, Kelly, and Slotkin held a press conference to announce the legislation. The livestream can be viewed here.

Washington, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) introduced the Drain the Slush Fund Act, new legislation that would shutter President Donald Trump’s so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to the President or his allies including those convicted of crimes or those related to the insurrection on January 6, 2021. 

The Drain the Slush Fund Act would also prevent future presidential abuse of the Department of Justice’s Settlement Fund by banning any settlements or payments stemming from a claim or lawsuit filed by the President of the United States or the Vice President. The introduction of the bill will prevent any abuse or corrupt settlements from this fund or any in the future. 

Read more about the bill here and see coverage below:     

CBS News: Senate Democrats launch campaign to kill what DOJ calls its “anti-weaponization” fund 

Senate Democrats are launching a coordinated effort to kill the Trump administration’s $1.7+ billion “anti-weaponization” fund. In a “Dear Colleague” letter released Monday, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats will use a variety of strategies, from floor action to oversight, to block President Trump’s “nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund.”   

“If Republicans return to reconciliation, we will be ready with amendments to shut the fund down,” Schumer wrote. “If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there, too. There will be no escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom promises to hide behind.”   

In addition, a trio of Democratic Senators are introducing a bill Monday to shut down the fund and prevent taxpayer dollars from being paid to the president or his allies, including those convicted of crimes or related to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The measure, dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, is sponsored by Sens. Adam Schiff, of California, Mark Kelly, of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin, of Michigan.   

“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable,” Schiff said. “And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: We will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”

Last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department from moving forward with work on the new fund. A department spokesperson said it “remains extremely confident in the legality of the Anti-Weaponization Fund which is supported by ample precedent, including Obama-era settlements.” 

The $1.776 billion fund would provide taxpayer-funded payouts to people who allege the legal system has been “weaponized” against them. It’s part of an agreement between President Trump and the federal government to settle his lawsuit against the IRS and Treasury Department over the leak of his tax returns. 

Senate Republicans are considering adding potential guardrails to the fund as part of a broader $72 billion reconciliation package for immigration enforcement agencies. GOP leaders scrapped votes on the party-line measure last month after a contentious meeting over the DOJ fund with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.  

“They (Trump administration) need to help with this issue, because we have a lot of members who are concerned,” Majority Leader John Thune told reporters at the time. 

Blanche will return to Capitol Hill this week for an oversight hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee. 

The New Republic: Democrats Are Starting to Fight Back Against Trump’s MAGA Slush Fund 

Three Democratic senators introduced a bill Monday to kill Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund.   

Senators Adam Schiff of California, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan introduced the “Drain the Fund Act,” which they said would block taxpayer dollars from being funneled to Trump and his allies, including individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 riot, public figures who spread election misinformation, and the leader of a violent hate group.  

“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable,” Schiffsaid in a statement. “And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: We will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.”  

The bill would also ban settlements stemming from suits brought by the president or the vice president, and be retroactive to January 20, 2025. That would functionally undo the recent settlement for Trump’s failing $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Services that produced the fund, and blocked the president from future audits.  

Last week, a federal judge issued a restraining order to ensure that no taxpayer dollars would be “irreversibly disbursed” from the fund before the legal battle could play out.  

But the bill is only part of the plan. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that Democrats would introduce an amendment to their $72 billion budget reconciliation bill in order to shut down the fund. “If they try to bury the issue, we will force them to the Senate floor. If they try to sneak behind appropriations, we will fight them there, too. There will be no escape hatch. No fake guardrails or backroom promises to hide behind,” Schumer said.  

The Hill: Senate Democrats unveil bill to block Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ fund  

Democratic Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) on Monday introduced legislation to block the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund, which the Department of Justice (DOJ) scrapped earlier in the day.  

The bill, dubbed the Drain the Slush Fund Act, would bar the use of taxpayer money for payments to President Trump, his associates, individuals convicted of crimes or those involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.  

The bill would also put restrictions on the DOJ’s settlement fund, prohibiting settlements or payments arising from claims or lawsuits brought by a sitting president or vice president. That restriction would be retroactive to the day of Trump’s second inauguration.   

The DOJ on Monday abandoned the $1.776 billion fund it created last month as part of a settlement agreement in Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). That was after federal judges in Virginia and Florida on Friday temporarily halted the fund from making payouts and reopened the president’s suit against the IRS, respectively.   

The department wrote on the social platform X that while it “disagrees strongly” with the decision by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Virginia, it will abide by her ruling.  

When acting Attorney General Todd Blanche unveiled the fund last month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle pushed back. Democrats largely slammed it as a “slush fund” for those involved in Jan. 6, while some Republicans argued similarly — with Senate Republicans taking Blanche to task during a May 21 meeting on the fund.  

In unveiling their legislation, Kelly, Schiffand Slotkin slammed the fund, with Kelly calling it “theft in broad daylight,” Schiff referring to it as “one of the most brazenly corrupt schemes we’ve ever seen from a U.S. president” and Slotkin saying it is “an unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money.”  

That particular trio sponsoring the bill is notable. Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro unsuccessfully sought a grand jury indictment of Kelly, Slotkin, and four House Democrats with military or intelligence backgrounds for recording a video urging military members and intelligence officers to refuse illegal orders.   

Kelly, a retired Navy captain, is also embroiled in a legal fight with the Pentagon, which has tried to reduce his rank in the wake of the video.  

Schiff, meanwhile, was the subject of a DOJ probe into alleged mortgage fraud last year.   

“As Republicans return to Washington to provide further funding for this and other mistaken priorities, we’re going to hold them accountable, and force a vote on this language to shut down the slush fund once and for all,” Schiffsaid in a release. “Americans see the cost of this corruption coming out of their own pockets.  

“And as Senators who have actually seen their government weaponized against them, we want to make it clear: we will not allow a single payout from this so-called weaponization fund to be paid.” 

Los Angeles Times: Trump’s $1.8-billion fund unravels amid court setbacks, bipartisan pushback  

California Sen, Adam Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act.” 

The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause.  

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is backing away from plans to create a $1.8-billion fund to compensate people who claim the government was weaponized against them, a retreat that comes amid a cascade of legal setbacks and a revolt within members of the Republican Party.  

But Senate Democrats say the concession is not enough, and are pushing legislation to ensure no president can ever attempt the creation of such a fund again.  

“If Republicans are serious about ending this brazenly corrupt scheme, they should have no problem voting for legislation banning any president from creating such a slush fund in the future,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Monday in a post on X.  

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added that Democrats plan to force a vote on a measure to ensure that Trump and Republicans are “truly abandoning this corrupt scheme.”  

“Trump’s word is nowhere near enough,” Schumer wrote on X. Earlier in the day, Schumer vowed to force a floor vote to make Republican lawmakers take a public stance on the issue.  

Schiff,along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act” on Monday. The bill, if approved, would bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a president or vice president, language that is designed to permanently foreclose the fund, or anything like it, from being put in place by a future administration.  

The White House did not comment on the president’s thinking. But in a statement, the Department of Justice said the decision to scrap the fund was in response to a federal judge’s ruling last week that temporarily blocked payouts from the fund while legal challenges remain pending. The department said it “disagrees strongly” with the move, but stopped short of saying it would challenge the decision.  

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the statement read. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”  

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, has scheduled a June 12 hearing for argument on whether to extend the order blocking the fund.  

While the court ruling is not permanent, the unraveling over the fund is a notable defeat for Trump, who has cast it as a long-overdue reckoning for Americans he says were targeted by “an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden administration.” For Republicans who publicly criticized the fund, it may come as a relief as the concept had been widely seen as a political liability heading into the midterm elections.  

The Department of Justice created the fund to settle a lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement also includes a clause permanently barring the IRS from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses that were filed before May 19 — a provision that, according to an analysis by Forbes, would save Trump and his family more than $600 million.  

The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause. The Democrats’ bill does not address that provision.  

“Congress doesn’t need to pass a law to remind the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche] that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a blanket pardon for tax crimes by the president, much less when the AG is his personal attorney,” a Schiffspokesperson said in a statement. “The attempt at IRS immunity is corrupt and undoubtedly illegal — and we look forward to seeing it exposed as a fraud.”  

Beyond Trump’s own legal disputes with the IRS, the fund was structured to accept claims from anyone who said they had been targeted by the government, a category the administration made clear could include those who were convicted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  

Trump pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack, and neither he nor Vice President JD Vance ruled out the possibility that those individuals would be able to receive money from the fund.  

KCAL CBS: Challenging Anti-Weaponization Fund 

Yuccas: Also, in Washington today, Senate democrats are ramping up efforts to block the Trump administration’s $1.7 billion dollar anti-weaponization fund. Three Democratic Senators, Adam Schiff, Mark Kelly, and Elissa Slotkin are introducing the Drain the Slush Fund Act. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned he has several plans to counter potential Republican moves and said, “No matter what Republicans do, we will force them to vote on it.”  

Scripps News: Under Pressure, Trump Admin Backs Off ‘Anti-Weaponization’ Fund, For Now 

Reed: Democrats yesterday making clear that they’re going to take the lead on this one, they’re going to force a vote on a bill at some point in the coming days to try and outlaw to try and prevent this weaponization fund from ever coming back or being legal in the future, a law that would potentially affect to future presidential administrations as well. Here’s Senator Adam Schiff in a press conference yesterday.  

Schiff (in clip): There will be no hiding from this issue, and our Republican colleagues need to understand that they can join us in disavowing this kind of self-dealing corruption or they’re going to own it. It is not personal to this president and vice president, it would prohibit any future president from doing the same thing. And for that reason, I would hope that we would have our colleagues join us in it.  

###



The following sites updated:




Posted by at

Tuesday, June 02, 2026

Stevie Nicks, Carole King, Patti LaBelle

Stevie Nicks?  Paul Elliott (MUSIC RADAR) writes about her when she was emerging from a difficult health period around the immediate time after STREET ANGEL:

In her absence, Fleetwood Mac weren’t doing too good either. Their 1995 album Time was a disaster, a commercial flop that would later be ranked by music writer Colin Larkin at No 10 in his list of the All-Time Worst Albums Ever Made.

But while Nicks was plotting her return to the band, she was also attempting to write songs for a solo album. And in that respect she was failing – until a conversation over dinner with her favourite fellow rock star put her back on track.

Tom Petty had been a close friend of hers since the late ’70s, and the success of her debut solo album Bella Donna in 1981 was driven by the single Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around, a duet by Nicks with Petty and his band The Heartbreakers, written by Petty and lead guitarist Mike Campbell.
In a interview with Q magazine in 2001, to promote her solo album Trouble In Shangri-La, Nicks revealed how the impetus for that album came from a pep talk from Petty.

She recalled: “In 1995 I had dinner with Tom and I was complaining a lot – because Epstein-Barr makes you so tired, you don’t have a lot of get up and go.

“You know, Tom is a good friend of mine. We’re close like a brother and sister, so he can say stuff to me that nobody else really can. And when he says something to me I know he means it and I know he’s looking out for me.

“I said, ‘Will you help me get started on this? Will you help me write some songs?’ And he got really angry with me. He said I wasn’t appreciating all that I’d done and how hard I’d worked all these years.

“He said, ‘Yeah, you’ve had a couple of bad years, but it’s okay. You need to go home and go on a mission – reinvent yourself, write some new songs. You’re one of the best songwriters I know. You don’t need my help. You don’t need anybody’s help!’

“So I did it. I followed that advice. I went home that night and said to everybody: ‘This is it – I’m starting a new record.’”

The fact that it took all of six years for that record to be released was due to Nicks reuniting with Fleetwood Mac in 1997.

And she writes about it in "Hard Advice" on TROUBLE IN SHANGRI-LA.   Writing songs?  Brian Boone (GRUNGE) takes a look at singers who've written more number ones for other artists than they've sang on their own:

Carole King spent much of the 1960s as an in-house songwriter for a music publisher, composing (often with her then-husband Gerry Goffin) tunes that were pitched to singers and groups throughout the music industry. She didn't emerge as a recording artist until 1971 with "Tapestry," a collection of era-appropriate singer-songwriter fare that spent 15 weeks atop the Billboard Hot 200 and generated the double A-side No. 1 hit single "It's Too Late" / "I Feel the Earth Move." That marked the first and only time King scaled the Hot 100 with her own material.
Before her mainstream performing career took off, it was a common occurrence for a song that King worked on to reach No. 1. The Shirelles' "Will You Love Me Tomorrow," a love song from 1960 that sounds even sweeter today, did it, and was soon followed by Bobby Vee's "Take Good Care of My Baby" in 1961 and Little Eva's "The Loco-Motion" in 1962. King (and Goffin) wrote Steve Lawrence's 1963 No. 1 "Go Away Little Girl," which would once more head all the way up the charts in 1971 when Donny Osmond covered it. James Taylor's only No. 1 hit is a 1971 cover of King's "Tapestry" cut "You've Got a Friend," while in 1974, Grand Funk's hard rock reboot of "The Loco-Motion" topped the charts all over again. That makes seven King No. 1s for other acts.


Daniela Avila (PEOPLE) writes about an artist who sang a song (by an outside writer) that went number one and only later did the artist singing learn what the song was about:

When Patti LaBelle recorded "Lady Marmalade" in 1974 — she had no idea she was singing a song about "ladies of the evening."
LaBelle, 82, went on the IRL Angie Martinez podcast on Wednesday, May 27, and revealed the moment she realized the song's true meaning.

"Well, she's a hooker," LaBelle said of "Lady Marmalade," which she recorded with her band Labelle.

"'Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?' means 'will you sleep with me tonight?' When we recorded this song, we had no clue what it was about until the song came out and was selling and doing really well," she continued.
Then, the legendary singer revealed that she received "complaints from nuns" due to the song's explicit nature.

"Nuns were having a moment with Labelle, singing about ladies of the evening. I would just say, 'Well, they have to make a living too. I can't snatch the mattress from under them. They gotta do what they gotta do.' That was a hit, not knowing it was about a hooker," she said.


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


Tuesday, June 2, 2026.  Chump and Hegseth appear to be fudging the facts on the Iran War,  Chump's slush fund may be dead, Hegseth and Chump's attacks on transgender service members takes a beating in the court system, and much more. 


Pete Hegseth regularly gets called out by senators on both sides of the aisle these days when he appears before them.  The reason being?  He gives them a rosy and unrealistic fantasy about the Iran War.  There are some who accuse him of doing the same with Chump. He may lie to Chump but, if he does, Chump wants to be lied to about the war and about himself -- especially about himself.  Will Neal (DAILY BEAST) reports of the war:

Iranian strikes have caused greater damage to U.S. military assets in the Middle East than the Trump administration is willing to admit.

Analysis by the BBC, published Monday, reveals that attacks by the Islamic Republic have cost millions of dollars in damage to at least 20, and possibly as many as 28, American military sites across eight countries in the region since Donald Trump launched his war on Iran at the end of February.
Trump has repeatedly claimed that U.S. forces have “destroyed,” “obliterated,” and “shattered” the regime’s military capabilities. The Pentagon has meanwhile tried to limit assessments of the impact on U.S. assets by pressuring Planet, a major satellite-imaging provider, to restrict public access to new images of the region.
[. . .]
The BBC notes that the Pentagon has, at latest count, put the cost of Operation Epic Fury, as Trump has dubbed his war with Iran, at $29 billion. Democratic lawmakers have slammed those figures as an underestimate.

Chump and company lie.  They've been a little hopeful in their progress reports. A little optimistic.  Not really accurate. Sarah K. Burris adds,  "The report also found that 'at least 42 aircraft - including F-15 and F-35 fighter jets, 24 MQ-9 Reaper drones and an A-10 attack plane - have been destroyed or damaged since February'."  It gets more and more difficult to believe the lies from Chump's mouth.  Jack Buckby (NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL) notes:

Last week, the Trump administration was publicly signaling that a deal with Iran was coming soon - but the prospect of a permanent peace between the two sides now appears far more remote after Iran announced that it had suspended all indirect negotiations with Washington through mediators. On Monday, Iran accused the United States of failing to restrain Israeli attacks and claimed that continued military operations in Lebanon constitute a violation of the ceasefire agreement.

The news is perhaps the most serious challenge to the ceasefire yet, which came into effect on April 8, and it suggests that a lasting deal may not be as close as the White House hopes.


Not as close as the White House hopes.  Or as it says.  Chump's just not to be believed.  Jack Hobbs (THE MIRROR) explains:

Fresh satellite imagery from Iran has contradicted President Donald Trump's assertions that Iran no longer possesses nuclear capabilities.

The latest images reveal that four out of five entrances to the missile facility in Dezful, Iran, have been reopened since last month, with just one remaining blocked. CNN reported that Iran had cleared 50 of 69 tunnel entrances that were struck by U.S. and Israeli forces across 18 underground missile installations.



President Donald Trump’s approval rating has fallen to a record low with Big Data Poll, a survey that has historically given him some of his strongest numbers, as voters express growing dissatisfaction with the economy, the cost of living and the administration’s handling of foreign policy.
In its most recent survey, conducted between May 24 and 27 among 3,121 registered voters, 39.4 percent of respondents said they approved of the job Trump was doing as president—including 19.9 percent who said they strongly approved. Big Data Poll called this a “new low for the president during his second term and the first time he has dipped into the critical 30s.”
While polls have been known to underestimate Trump’s popularity, with the president outperforming preelection expectations in three presidential campaigns, Big Data Poll has previously showed some of Trump’s highest approval ratings—so the record low approval raises questions about whether dissatisfaction with the administration is beginning to extend beyond traditional critics.


Yes, the dissatisfaction with the administration has extended beyond traditional critics. 



Turning to Chump's slush fund, Marita Vlachou (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday said his party "will launch a coordinated effort to kill" President Donald Trump's "Anti-Weaponization Fund," adding that Democrats will force Republicans to vote on the fund.

"Trump’s nearly $2 billion MAGA slush fund is his most brazen act of self-dealing yet and one of the most corrupt schemes ever launched by a president. Senate Democrats will not let it stand," Schumer wrote in a Dear Colleague letter. "This week, Senate Democrats will launch a coordinated effort to kill the slush fund before one cent goes out the door. And no matter what Republicans do, we will force them to vote."

Travis Gettys (RAW STORY) explains, "Democrats are unlikely to have the votes to kill the fund outright, but the campaign is widely seen as a political maneuver designed to put Republicans on the record ahead of the 2026 midterms, when control of both chambers could hinge on a small number of competitive seats."  Nikole Killion (CBS NEWS) points out, "Last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department from moving forward with work on the new fund." And Alexander Willis (RAW STORY) provides this context, "Trump’s nearly $1.8 billion fund has proven wildly unpopular even among GOP lawmakers, triggering a revolt of sorts within the Republican Party. The fund is even less popular with voters, with recent internal GOP polling sparking alarm among party insiders."



President Trump is backing off his plan to establish a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people who claimed they were victims of unfair prosecution by the government, two people familiar with the matter said on Monday.

The people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the president’s thinking, said he had been leaning for days toward scrapping the fund, which critics have characterized as a scheme to reward Mr. Trump’s political allies with public benefits.

The administration signaled a retreat on Monday, when the Justice Department said in a statement that it would abide by a federal judge’s temporary order not to proceed with any steps to activate the fund until at least June 12, when a hearing on the fund is scheduled. The department said the administration disagreed with the decision but did not make clear whether it intended to fight the issue further in court.

It was unclear whether getting rid of the fund would affect another part of the legal settlement in the case, which provides Mr. Trump, his family and his businesses with significant immunity from audits.


"Dead for now," Lawrence O'Donnell pronounced the slush fund last night on MS NOW. 











Chump's legal problems never fade away.  There always there.  He can't escape the judiciary.  Farrah Tomazin (DAILY BEAST) reports:

The Trump administration has been dealt another legal blow, with a federal court ruling that the president illegally banned transgender troops from military service.

A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled on Monday that Donald Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violated their constitutional rights, and was driven by a “non-legitimate state interest” to harm transgender people.
“The government’s stated reason for issuing the Hegseth Policy as based solely upon gender dysphoria was pretextual, and that instead, the Hegseth Policy was premised, at least in part, on a non-legitimate state interest to harm the politically unpopular group of transgender persons,” Wilkins wrote in an opinion, adding that Trump “declared transgender people as categorically unfit for military service explicitly because of their gender identity.”
The move is the latest humiliating setback Trump has faced in the courts within days.

Remember, the Supreme Court did not rule on the issue.  The Crooked Court just permitted Chump to do it and to allow it to work its way through the courts instead.  Well the appeals court has ruled. 


A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., said Monday that the Trump administration’s transgender military policy appears motivated by "the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group," delivering some of the strongest appellate criticism yet of a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s campaign against transgender rights.

Writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Robert Wilkins concluded that key portions of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's policy likely violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because they appear rooted in hostility toward transgender people rather than legitimate military concerns.

"The sharp contrast to the Mattis Policy ... appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender," wrote Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

"As such, at this preliminary stage, I conclude that the Hegseth Policy is both arbitrary and based upon animus."

The remarks came in a fractured ruling that partially upheld and partially narrowed an injunction against the policy. The court preserved protections for the named transgender plaintiffs currently serving in the military while allowing enforcement of portions of the policy affecting prospective recruits.

But the most striking aspect of the 107-page opinion was Wilkins' repeated focus on what he described as evidence that the administration's policy targets transgender identity itself.



Today's ruling is the latest courtroom defeat for Hegseth. Since taking office, federal judges have blocked his Pentagon press restrictions, enjoined his censure of Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and blocked his blacklisting of Anthropic — with courts repeatedly finding his actions driven by retaliation rather than legitimate policy.

The case, Talbott v. United States, now heads back to the district court. A class action motion that would extend protections to all affected servicemembers is scheduled for hearing on June 30.




In related news, Hegseth continues embracing discrimination and hate as he refuses to allow promotions to take place.  Travis Gettys (RAW STORY) reports:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth blocked the promotions of at least seven Navy officers hand-picked by a board of senior admirals, removing all women and most minority candidates from the list of nominees for promotions.

The intervention left a slate of 22 one-star admiral nominees that includes no women, despite females making up roughly 21 percent of the active-duty Navy, and only two nonwhite officers, despite racial minorities accounting for approximately 38 percent of the force, reported the New York Times.

At least two of the removed officers are women, two are Black men, and three are white men.

Four current and former defense officials, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive personnel matters, said Hegseth's actions are highly unusual and appear to breach Pentagon rules, which permit the defense secretary to remove officers from promotion lists only when new information raises specific questions about their fitness to serve — not on ideological grounds.



Friday, Chump got told to take his damn, dirty name off The Kennedy Center.  Liz Dye (ABOVE THE LAW) covers that and notes:

On Friday, a federal judge in DC ordered Donald Trump to take John F. Kennedy’s name out of his filthy mouth. More or less.

In a meticulous, 94-page order, Judge Christopher Cooper found that the toadies Trump installed on the Kennedy Center Board might have the legal right to rubber stamp a plan to shut down the storied arts center for two years and convert into a Vegas-style emporium, but they didn’t have the smarts to do it properly. And they certainly never had the power to rename the place after Trump himself.

Along the way, the court ruled that the president lied about the proposed renovation, as did his cronies.
Naturally Trump has responded with his normal gravitas, dramatically washing his hands of the entire project and personally attacking Judge Cooper and his wife — all of which will be Exhibit A should the government make good on its threat to appeal.
In 1958, President Eisenhower signed the National Cultural Center Act to create a center for the arts in the nation’s capital. At first, fundraising was sluggish. But after President Kennedy’s assassination, Congress re-designated the project in 1964 as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The “living memorial” to the slain president drew private donations and public funds, and in 1971 it opened with a performance of the Mass by Leonard Bernstein, the quintessentially American composer.

Trump, who prefers “Cats” to Callas, has a testy relationship with the performing arts. And vice versa! During his campaigns, popular musicians routinely sued to block him playing their songs at his MAGA rallies. But during his first term, Trump largely left the nation’s important cultural institutions alone. This time around, the culture warriors at Project 2025 and the America First Policy Institute were ready to wreak havoc on these “liberal” bastions on day one.
Echoing Nazi claims about degenerate art, Trump announced that he was firing the board of the Kennedy Center and appointing “an amazing Chairman, DONALD J. TRUMP!”
The new board included Pam Bondi, Florida lobbyist Bryan Ballard, Lee Greenwood, Laura Ingraham, and Dan Scavino, the guy who writes Trump’s tweets. Ric Grenell, a figure from the first Trump administration who was too toxic to be let back into the White House(!), was installed as executive director.

The fallout from this MAGA-fication was immediate.

Everyone from Renée Fleming to Issa Rae canceled scheduled performances.

“You just made it political and caved to the woke mob who wants you to perform for only Lefties,” Grenell sneered at banjo player Béla Fleck.

This charm offensive failed to staunch the bleeding, although Grenell put on a game face. In September of 2025, he bragged about sellout crowds and high demand for Kennedy Center Honors tickets, promising that America250, the nation’s 250th birthday celebration, would be a show like none other. (Wait for it …)

Then in December, the board voted to rename the institution the “Trump Kennedy Center.” Signage went up the very next day, suggesting that the outcome was essentially a foregone conclusion.

After which the bottom fell out. Ticket sales collapsed, immediately dropping 70 percent as compared to the prior three years, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Washington National Opera, the Center’s resident company since 1971, announced it was severing the relationship. In fact, so many artists canceled that there was functionally no 2026 season left.


I could excerpt the entire piece, it's so well written and it captures all the cheap tactics Chump pulled to try to get his way.  But he lost.  Yes, he did. 

And he's losing so much these days as the American people catch on to him.  Svante Myrick (THE HILL) reflects on his avarice, greed and corruption:

“Welcome to the Golden Age!” says a banner on the White House website. 

Maybe it’s golden for Trump and his family, who’ve made billions by cashing in on the presidency, and for their ultrarich friends whose political influence rises along with their wealth.

But it’s not so golden for Americans paying higher prices for food and gas prices due to economic uncertainty caused by Trump’s chaotic tariff policies. They’re also paying high energy prices and facing fertilizer shortages resulting from his war against Iran, amid massive cuts to social safety net programs and threats of unregulated artificial intelligence.  

At a time when millions of families cannot meet their basic needs, and millions more live with anxiety and economic insecurity, Trump is focused on self-aggrandizement. His ridiculous gold-plated Louis XIV ballroom. A massive arch we don’t need and nobody else wants.  

And, untethered to the actual lived experiences of the American people, he waves away questions about American families experiencing hardship due to his policies, saying he doesn’t give them a thought.   

Political authoritarianism and economic corruption go hand in hand. They’re bad for democracy, the economy, freedom and families. When political leaders don’t think they have to follow the laws that apply to other people, they have an incentive to abuse their power and manipulate the system to enrich themselves and their friends.  

To achieve their ends, they undermine the rule of law, disadvantage honest economic players and corrupt both public and private institutions.  



Meanwhile, in New Mexico yesterday. the state's Truth Commission set up to investigate the actions of the late Jeffrey Epstein held their first meeting.





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


ICYMI: In Letter, Murray, Klobuchar Raise Concerns about Food and Nutrition Service Reorganization

ICYMI: Murray, Klobuchar Raise Concerns about the USDA Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area Reorganization

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and 18 of their colleagues in sending a letter to Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Stephen Valden raising strong concerns about the plan to reorganize the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

“We write with serious concern regarding the announced reorganization of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS),” wrote the Senators. “Rather than strengthening the agency’s effectiveness, this reorganization poses a risk to FSIS’s core mission of protecting public health and ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply.”    

“Losses in staff and institutional expertise as a result of this relocation could delay the identification and containment of outbreaks involving pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, or Listeria, allowing contaminated products to remain in commerce longer and increasing illnesses nationwide,” the Senators continued. “Reduced coordination amongst FSIS and other food safety and public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, and state partners could also slow traceback investigations and public communication during multistate outbreaks, when rapid response is critical to prevent additional illnesses. Instead of moving its employees across the country, FSIS should be focused on maintaining food safety. Overall, this reorganization threatens to undermine FSIS’s effectiveness and weakens an agency that American consumers rely on every day.” 

Along with Murray and Klobuchar, the letter was signed by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

The full letter is available HERE and below.

Dear Deputy Secretary Vaden: 

We write with serious concern regarding the announced reorganization of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). Rather than strengthening the agency’s effectiveness, this reorganization poses a risk to FSIS’s core mission of protecting public health and ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply. 

FSIS plays a key role in safeguarding American consumers. Not only does FSIS provide critical frontline inspection of meat, poultry, egg, and some fish products, but the agency also plays an important role in informing the public through outreach and education and coordinating with the many international, federal, state, and local agencies that play a part in food safety. When outbreaks inevitably happen, FSIS provides a rapid response to contain illness before it spreads widely. 

The Deferred Resignation Program implemented last year has already resulted in a loss of more than 500 FSIS employees, straining a key agency that operates under significant pressure. Now the Administration is asking two-thirds of the FSIS staff in the Washington, D.C. area to relocate to Iowa, Georgia, or Colorado within months, which could weaken interagency coordination and rapid response efforts during foodborne illness outbreaks, creating a greater risk to consumers and our food supply. Since FSIS was not explicitly included in the July 2025 Secretarial Memorandum on USDA’s proposed reorganization, FSIS stakeholders, employees, consumer advocates, and industry partners have not been able to provide meaningful comments on changes that could have significant implications for the nation’s food safety system. 

Losses in staff and institutional expertise as a result of this relocation could delay the identification and containment of outbreaks involving pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, or Listeria, allowing contaminated products to remain in commerce longer and increasing illnesses nationwide. Reduced coordination amongst FSIS and other food safety and public health agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, and state partners could also slow traceback investigations and public communication during multistate outbreaks, when rapid response is critical to prevent additional illnesses. Instead of moving its employees across the country, FSIS should be focused on maintaining food safety. Overall, this reorganization threatens to undermine FSIS’s effectiveness and weakens an agency that American consumers rely on every day. 

We ask that you provide a detailed description of how you will ensure that FSIS will maintain full operational capacity during and after this transition. Specifically, we ask that you provide further details on what communication USDA has had with impacted FSIS employees, how the USDA will mitigate anticipated workforce losses, preserve critical expertise, and ensure that outbreak response, interagency coordination, and rulemaking activities are not compromised.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and we look forward to receiving your response within 30 days.

###







Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)