Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, Evanescence

Music grab bag.  Starting with Joni Mitchell.  Tim Coffman (FAR OUT) notes the recording of her song "Dancing Clown:"


By Mitchell’s standards, though, Billy Idol was always going to be a bit of a wild card. Punk rock was the exact opposite of Mitchell’s strengths half the time she played, and when looking through a lot of Idol’s best work, there was never any point where you looked at him and thought that he could do a halfway-decent version of ‘Both Sides Now’ or anything. He was the ultimate fish out of water when working with Mitchell, but that actually managed to work in his favour.

In the context of the song ‘Dancin’ Clown’, Mitchell needed a voice that sounded intimidating, and she felt that Idol’s forceful punk growl had a much better chance at playing a bully character than she ever could, saying, “I’ll need another voice to deliver a line, because [the songs] are like little plays. Like in ‘Dancin’ Clown’, Billy Idol plays the bully. He’s got the perfect bully’s voice, He’s threatening this guy named Jesse: ‘You’re a push-button window! I can run you up and down. Anytime I want I can make you my dancing clown!’ So you need an aggressive, bullyish voice to deliver that line.”

And while this is one of the wildest collaborations that Mitchell could have used, it’s not like it doesn’t go over well. Idol already that growl in his voice as far back as working on Rebel Yell, and while his contribution isn’t the most aggressive he’s ever sounded by any stretch, it made perfect sense for him to work in this context rather than try and make Mitchell write a song around his voice.

Given the other vocalists on the song, like Tom Petty, Mitchell actually caught Idol at the perfect time as well. This was in between his classics and right before his final major hits on tunes like ‘Cradle of Love’, so getting him to sound like a domineering figure in the tune must have been like a mini version of voice casting, in a sense. 

Mitchell was still the one in the centre singing her heart out, but let this be an important lesson to anyone who is making a record of their own. Not every solitary note that ends up on record needs to come from you, and sometimes you need to find those few people who can make their voice sound miles more authentic than you ever could in the right context. 

That's from her album CHALK MARK IN A RAINSTORM.



This was her follow up to DOG EAT DOG.  That album is a classic but it oot beaten up in real time.  Joni waited a bit before following it up and when she did follow it up?  She stacked the album with guest stars including Idol, Petty, Willie Nelson, Don Henley, Benjamin Orr, Peter Gabriel and Wendy & Lisa.  

Jim Beviglia (AMERICAN SONGWRITER) is a liar who wants to note four songs that he feels should have been hits for Jackson Browne.  Here he is on "In The Shape Of A Heart:"


Jackson Browne’s strongest string of singles, in terms of commercial success, came to a halt when he started delving into more political material. In the good-time 80s, it was hard to get that kind of stuff across to the mainstream, even when it was as potent as what Browne was doing on albums like Lives In The Balance. But Browne did deliver a lovelorn ballad on that record via “In The Shape Of A Heart”. And it’s a doozy, as Browne dives deep into the darker corners of a turbulent relationship to try and make sense of how it all came to that. But not even the turn to a more radio-friendly topic of heartbreak could get the song any traction.


The song was a hit.  It made it to number 10 on BILLBOARD's Adult Contemporary chart and number 15 on BILLBOARD's Mainstream Rock chart.  


He writes of "I'm Alive, "  "The song and album deal in large part with Browne’s fractured romance with actress Daryl Hannah."  And that's it.  When he was promoting -- or trying to -- the I'M ALIVE album, he was having to answer questions about Daryl, specifically did he beat her up.  That's why that album didn't do better.  And not only had a police officer been called to his home on the night of his break up with Daryl (for cheating on him) but Joni Mitchell had released her TURBULENT INDIGO album with a song about Jackson on it -- and she was talking in her press about that song and Jackson's behavior with her and other women.  


It's a little cheesy to mention that the album deals with his romance with Daryl but not to note that the press at the time was repeatedly asking -- hounding him -- on whether or not he beat Daryl.


(Jackson said he was the one who called the police the night of their break up.)


That's Evanescence's new song "Who Will You Follow." Kevin Rutherford (BILLBOARD) reports:

For the first time dating to the chart’s 2020 inception, Evanescence is No. 1 on Billboard’s Hot Hard Rock Songs ranking, debuting atop the April 25-dated survey with “Who Will You Follow.” In the week ending April 16, the song, released April 10, drew 1.2 million official streams and two million radio audience impressions and sold 2,000 downloads in the United States, according to Luminate.

The song becomes the second to debut atop Hot Hard Rock Songs in 2026, following Ice Nine Kills’ “Twisting the Knife,” featuring Mckenna Grace, in early March.

Evanescence has appeared on Hot Hard Rock Songs with seven titles, with the Amy Lee-fronted band’s previous best a pair of No. 2 peaks via “The Game Is Over” in 2020 and its 2000s classic “Bring Me to Life,” featuring Paul McCoy, in 2021. The latter was revitalized at the time sparked by iTunes sale-pricing.  

   

Max Pilley (NME) notes:


The Arkansas band will release their sixth studio record, and the follow-up to 2021’s ‘The Bitter Truth’, on June 5 via BMG and you can pre-order it now here as a digital album, or on standard or deluxe CD, or as a limited-edition box set. A 2LP vinyl version will also be available from September 4.

The first single is ‘Who Will You Follow’, a track that taps into the band’s classic sound, with Amy Lee’s soaring, emotional vocals matched by the fierce dynamism of the rest of the band. “What have you done to me / You drain the life out of me till I don’t know myself / When all your faith in reality fades away / Who will you follow,” she sings.

The track has been co-written and produced by former Bring Me The Horizon member and prolific producer Jordan Fish as well as Zakk Cervini (Spiritbox, Yungblud), both of whom have contributed to other tracks on ‘Sanctuary’, as has producer Nick Raskulinecz (Foo Fighters, Rush).


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


Wednesday April 22, 2026.  Chump continues to be all over the map on Iran, Virginia votes for redistricting, Chump continues to wreck the economy (and destroy tax refunds), Senator Elizabeth Warren questions the Fed Chair nominee about Jeffrey Epstein, and much more. 


Democrats’ success in pushing through one of the country’s most aggressively gerrymandered congressional maps on Tuesday in Virginia represented the latest example of the party’s willingness to take the gloves off as it seeks to win back control of Congress and thwart President Trump’s agenda.

It was a stark reversal for a party that has decried partisan gerrymandering for years. But Democrats said that the new map, which could flip as many as four Republican-held seats blue, was necessary to counter similar G.O.P. efforts in Texas and other states.

Their new mantra: It’s time to play hardball.

“While many expected Democrats to roll over and play dead, we did the opposite,” Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic leader from New York, said in a statement after The Associated Press called the race. “Democrats did not step back. We fought back. When they go low, we hit back hard.”

The redistricting was a success despite the GOP using false fliers and advertisements of former President Barack Obama decrying the effort.  Like most Democrats, Barack is opposed to gerrymandering.  But when the Republicans got Texas to redistrict last year and attempted to force Indiana to as well, most Democrats -- including Barack -- saw this as not a policy to embrace forever more but an effort to fight back when Republicans were not playing fair.


And that's what voters in California earlier and voters yesterday in Virginia supported and agreed with. 






Informally, the Virginia Democrats who control the state’s legislature have given themselves power to gerrymander the state’s districts as a short-term response to Republicans gerrymandering Texas and other states they control at the behest of President Trump.

The legislature has already created and adopted the new district maps. They go into effect with the passage of this amendment. But the Virginia Supreme Court could still decide that the process by which the amendment was passed or the gerrymandering itself violates the state’s constitution. Republicans have filed numerous suits to stop the redistricting, and those have not been fully resolved. They are expected to fail.

If this redistricting stands, it’s a huge boon for Democrats. The maps adopted by Virginia Democrats are projected to give the party up to a four-seat boost, potentially carrying 10 of the state’s 11 districts instead of the current six. Remember that the House is very narrowly divided today, with Republicans holding 217 seats and the Democrats 214. Every seat matters. 


Trump has threatened to “take over” the election system, and the mid-decade gerrymandering spree he started is part of a multi-faceted plan to interfere in the midterms. But while that has deeply destabilized American democracy, the president hasn’t succeeded in stopping Democrats from racking up a series of electoral victories over the past year. The passage of the redistricting referendum in Virginia is the latest sign of Democrats successfully fighting back. 


Turning to Iran, cease-fire talks to continue.  Why?  Malcolm Ferguson (THE NEW REPUBLIC) explains:

President Trump announced an indefinite extension to his ceasefire with Iran Tuesday as it became evident that peace talks between the two countries were on the brink of collapse.

“Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I have therefore directed our Military to continue the Blockade and, in all other respects, remain ready and able, and will therefore extend the Ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted, and discussions are concluded, one way or the other.”

The announcement came shortly after Vice President JD Vance suspended his travel plans to Islamabad Tuesday to represent the United States at the table. One source told The Wall Street Journal that Vance pulled out because Iranian negotiators hadn’t committed to showing up to the meeting. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei confirmed as much, telling Iranian state broadcaster IRIB that the meeting was called off due to “contradictory messages, inconsistent behavior and unacceptable actions by the American side.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi added that the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is an “act of war” and a violation of the ceasefire.

Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) addresses it in this morning's video below.





From the start, Chump has repeatedly changed his story on Iran -- including why he started the war -- to liberate the Iranian people, that's what he started with -- and it was "liberate" and not "obliterate" as it became in April.   All of these changing details make it hard for Americans to follow his goals -- not that he's bothered to define any goals or, for that matter, an end game.  Daniel Dale (CNN) analyzes Chump's ever changing words and stories:


On Monday morning, President Donald Trump told The New York Post that Vice President JD Vance was already on his way to Pakistan for negotiations with Iran. “They’re heading over now,” the Post quoted Trump as saying. “They’ll be there tonight, [Islamabad] time.”

Except that wasn’t true. A bit later on Monday morning, people familiar with Vance’s plans told CNN’s Alayna Treene that the vice president was expected to depart for Pakistan on Tuesday for talks beginning Wednesday. Vance’s motorcade was soon spotted at the White House.
Trump’s inaccurate remark might be shrugged off, the kind of little thing a busy president could understandably get wrong. But it’s part of a pattern that has accelerated over the past week – of this president being incorrect about even the most basic of matters related to the Iran war.

“One of the big differences between the current round of US-Iran diplomacy and prior rounds is that this administration and the President in particular are unreliable narrators,” Eric Brewer, a former National Security Council counterproliferation official, posted on social media on Friday. “Iran watchers have gotten pretty good at parsing statements from both sides over the years, but we’ve never had to contend with a US president that is so outspoken and prone to exaggeration, fabrication, and outright lies.”

Trump’s Monday claim about Vance’s travel was only the latest in a series of false, dubious or unproven comments about the war. Many of them were more substantive.
On Friday, after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared that the Strait of Hormuz would be “completely open” to commercial vessels during the ongoing ceasefire, Trump posted that “the Hormuz Strait situation is over” and that “Iran has agreed to never close the Strait of Hormuz again.”

But the situation very clearly wasn’t over: Trump himself had posted the same morning that the US would continue its blockade on ships heading to or from Iranian ports; Araghchi had said its opening of the strait only applied to a specific Iran-approved path near its coastline rather than the lanes ships had generally used before; and an Iranian official posted later in the day that ships had to get approval from the navy of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and pay tolls.

As for Iran’s supposed agreement to never close the strait again? Iran announced the very next day that it was closing the strait again.
On Thursday, Trump claimed to reporters: “The pope made a statement. He says, Iran can have a nuclear weapon.” Pope Leo XIV, an unequivocal opponent of nuclear weapons, had not said that. In a Fox Business interview that aired Wednesday, Trump claimed that Persian Gulf countries “were not expected to be hit” by Iran. In reality, retaliatory Iranian strikes on these countries was widely expected. In a Fox News interview the Sunday before last, Trump claimed of Iran: “Their military is gone, everything’s gone.” But Iran very obviously still had a military with destructive capabilities, though the US and Israel had degraded them.

Trump’s Monday claim about Vance was at least his second bit of misinformation about his own vice president in two days. On Sunday, Trump told MS NOW that Vance wouldn’t be part of the delegation to Pakistan for security reasons. But after the president said that, “two senior US officials told MS NOW that Vance would, in fact, lead the delegation to Islamabad,” the outlet reported.


This is bad and confusing to the American people.  It also speaks poorly of Chump at a time when questions about his health and dementia are being asked more and more.  Harry Thompson (DAILY BEAST) notes:


President Donald Trump’s mental sharpness is fading, according to a majority of Americans.

New poll results from Reuters/Ipsos on Tuesday revealed Americans are questioning their leader’s temperament, while his approval rating held at its lowest point since his return to the White House.

The Daily Beast has long raised fears that Trump’s health could be failing, even while other media outlets have chosen to overlook them. Now, it seems the public is becoming increasingly concerned about something alarming: his mind.
In all, 51 percent of respondents to the six-day opinion poll said his mental sharpness was “worse” than before.

Among them,14 percent of Republicans felt as such, as did 54 percent of independents and 85 percent of Democrats.


His erratic behavior and conflicting statements are all over the place but Chump's behavior also impact non-Americans.  Cameron Adams (THE DAILY BEAST) notes:

Donald Trump’s erratic and contradictory statements on his war with Iran have alarmed the president’s own inner sanctum, as well as annoying Iranian leaders.

Trump, 79, has repeatedly sent mixed messages on the state of the conflict with Iran, which is entering its eighth week.
His comments to reporters and on social media are becoming so problematic that it’s impacting the state of his war, according to a CNN report, which claims that as negotiators appeared close to a deal, Trump launched a media spree.

The president posted on his Truth Social account on Sunday morning about negotiations with Iran, threatening to “knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge in Iran” if they didn’t accept a deal on offer from the U.S.
But just days earlier, on Friday afternoon, Trump had told CBS that Iran had “agreed to everything,” including working with the U.S. to remove their enriched uranium. Trump spoke to numerous outlets on Friday about his war, including Bloomberg and Axios.

Trump officials told CNN that the president’s running commentary on the war has been detrimental and has inflamed Iran’s mistrust of the U.S.

Hafiz Rashid (THE NEW REPUBLIC) adds, "Trump’s remarks in the press didn’t help either. To Bloomberg, he claimed that Iran had agreed to an 'unlimited' suspension of its nuclear program, and he told CBS News that Iran had 'agreed to everything' and would remove its enriched uranium with help from the U.S. In an interview with Axios, he said 'I think we will get a deal in the next day or two,' with another meeting 'probably' coming on the weekend."

In the meantime, the economy is trashed daily as Chump's war drags on.   Lee Moran (HUFFINGTON POST) notes:

Economist Henrietta Treyz warned Monday that soaring gas prices thanks to President Donald Trump’s Iran war may soon be followed by another hit: higher food costs.

“Food inflation is the next shoe to drop,” Treyz, the Veda Partners co-founder and director of economic policy, told MS NOW’s Katy Tur.
Treyz drew a stark contrast between the economy during Trump’s second term compared to when former President Joe Biden was leaving office.

“It’s pretty amazing when you think about what the president inherited,” she said. “We were coming off of continuous prosperity, lowering inflation, prices coming down, growth in the manufacturing sector.”

There was “literally nothing you could do to stop the economy under the A.I. boom and all the rest,” she added, lamenting: “And now here we are.”


And for regular folks hoping that the meager tax refunds might help them through this period?  They can give up on that.  Nick Lichtenberg (FORTUNE) reports: 


The promise was simple and seductive: Pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, flood American wallets with historic tax refunds, and watch the consumer economy roar. For a few weeks this winter, it looked like it might actually work. Then the bombs started falling on Iran.

Now Wall Street has delivered its verdict. Two of the most closely watched economic research teams on the Street—Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley—reviewed the numbers and reached the same sobering conclusion: The Iran war’s knock-on effect on oil prices has almost entirely canceled out the biggest consumer tax windfall in years. For lower-income Americans, the ledger may be in the red.
[. . .]

On Feb. 28, U.S. and Israeli forces struck Iran. Within days, Brent crude surged past $120 a barrel as Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz—through which flows roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply—triggering what the International Energy Agency called “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” American gas prices, which stood at roughly $3.54 a gallon in early March, climbed to $4.11 by mid-April.

Goldman Sachs put a dollar figure on the damage: Higher gasoline prices now represent a roughly $140 billion annualized headwind to household incomes. Morgan Stanley’s math is even blunter at the individual level—a sustained 15% rise in gas prices is all it takes to fully offset the average bump in tax refunds. Prices have risen nearly 40%.

“Rising gasoline prices on the heels of the conflict in the Middle East are likely to neutralize most, if not all, of the anticipated fiscal impulse to household spending,” was the verdict from the Morgan Stanley U.S. economics team, led by Michael Gapen, something reiterated by Heather Berger, another economist on the Morgan Stanley U.S. team.




Turning to Chump's long term pal Jeffrey Epstein.  The now deceased Epstein is always on Chump's mind. Will Neal (THE DAILY BEAST) reports:

Donald Trump has torn into the British prime minister over a former top U.K. official’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, even though Trump himself was a longtime friend of the late pedophile.

“Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom acknowledged that he ‘exercised wrong judgement’ when he chose his Ambassador to Washington,” Trump wrote on Truth Social late Monday night.

“I agree, he was a really bad pick,” the president added, before somewhat confusingly signing off: “Plenty of time to recover, however!”
[. . .]
Trump, like Mandelson, enjoyed a longstanding relationship with Epstein, beginning in the late 1980s and lasting until the men are believed to have had a falling-out over a real estate dispute in 2005.



US House Rep James Comer Pyle chairs the House Oversight Committee and runs interference for Donald Chump.  Arthur Delaney (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:

At multiple hearings since last year, members of the House Oversight Committee have forced committee chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) to send out subpoenas related to the late Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious sexual predator and former friend of President Donald Trump. 
Democrats got the ball rolling last summer with a subpoena for the Justice Department’s files on Epstein, and in March, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) forced a vote on subpoenaing then-Attorney General Pam Bondi. 

The subpoenas have been damaging for Trump and awkward for Comer, who seems to have found a novel solution: stop holding hearings or, at the very least, stop calling them hearings. Six times since last year, the committee has instead held “roundtables” on issues such as AI, agriculture and military fitness standards.
The roundtables look a lot like hearings, with experts testifying to members about the topic at hand. But there’s a key difference: Committee members can only call for votes during official hearings, making it impossible for Democrats or rogue Republicans to try to issue further subpoenas.  

Yesterday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued the following:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, released the following statement on Oversight Republicans’ decision to abandon official hearings in favor of informal roundtables, designed to look like hearings, but with no formal rules, procedure, or power, specifically to block bipartisan subpoena motions. A memo detailing this issue was distributed to Democratic Committee Members, which can be found here.

“Chairman Comer and Republican leaders are now canceling hearings and are running scared from Oversight Democrats. They want to eliminate our ability to make motions, call witnesses, and subpoena Administration officials. After seven bipartisan motions resulting in 18 successful subpoenas, it seems that the White House and the Speaker are now trying to stop our progress. But we won’t stop fighting until we get justice for the Epstein survivors and stop the Trump corruption,” said Ranking Member Robert Garcia.

Since Ranking Member Garcia began leading the Minority in July 2025, Oversight Democrats have successfully supported seven bipartisan subpoena motions, resulting in 18 subpoenas, including subpoenas advancing the Epstein investigation. Unlike formal hearings, roundtables carry no rules, require no witnesses to testify under oath, and provide no opportunity for Members to offer motions or subpoenas. They also strip minority Members of basic protections guaranteed under House rules, including the right to invite witnesses and have their questioning time respected. Republican Subcommittee Chair Rep. Glenn Grothman (WI-06) acknowledged the roundtable strategy openly at a March 26, 2026 roundtable, stating that the shift away from formal hearings was driven by concern over Members making motions mid-hearing.

###

Comer Pyle, please note, had insisted Hillary Clinton -- who had no significant interaction with Jeffrey Epstein -- be deposed by the Committee.  But he has gone out of his way to prevent Donald and Melania Chump from being deposed and to prevent Pam Bondi from being deposed.  Comer Pyle is a hack.  






The "can of worms" that first lady Melania Trump opened up when she held a seemingly unprompted press conference about her ties to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein may be too much for President Donald Trump to survive, according to two analysts.

Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz discussed Melania Trump's recent press conference on a new episode of the podcast, "The Court of History." They speculated that Melania Trump must know something is about to be revealed about her ties to Epstein, otherwise she wouldn't have felt compelled to make some of the statements that she did.

Blumenthal described the address as a "can of worms" that the Trump administration has tried to avoid.
"Why is she so scared? That's the only question I have," Wilentz said. "Why would she do such a thing? The Epstein files have been off. He's blown up the Middle East in order to avoid the Epstein files. And here is Melania Trump coming out in the middle of nowhere saying, 'I had nothing to do with it in the way that you described.' Something's bugging her. She knows that something's coming. Obviously, something must be coming, or she wouldn't have done this." 

Moving over to Kevin Warsh, Chump's nominee for Federal Reserve Chair. 





Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren grilled Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as the next Federal Reserve chair over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, but Kevin Warsh refused to answer her directly.

The top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee accused Warsh of having more than $100 million in investments, for which he has not disclosed specific details to ethics officials or the public, as he seeks to become the next head of the U.S. central bank.

“Do the Juggernaut Fund or the THSDFS LLC invest in any companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies that have facilitated money laundering, Chinese-controlled companies, or financing vehicles established by Jeffrey Epstein?” Warren asked at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

Warsh did not answer her question directly but instead started to talk about the role of the Fed and broader ethics scandals Warren had previously referenced.

 “Will you answer my question, please?” Warren cut him off.

“I asked, you have $100 million in undisclosed assets, and what I’m asking is, are any of those with this outfit that invests in companies affiliated with President Trump or his family, companies that have facilitated money laundering, Chinese-controlled companies, or financing vehicles set up by Jeffrey Epstein? It’s a yes or no question,” Warren repeated.

[. . .]

But Warsh avoided sharing any investments tied to Epstein as he was grilled on Tuesday. Warren pointed out again that he was not directly answering her.

“Mr. Warsh, are you refusing to tell us if you have investments in, for example, vehicles set up to advance Jeffrey Epstein? Is that what you’re telling us?” Warren repeated, focusing on the late convicted sex offender. “You just won’t tell us?”

“Senator, what I’m telling you is that those assets that you represent as Juggernaut will be sold if I’m confirmed before I take office and sign the oath of office,” Warsh said about the hedge fund. 


 





Turning to immigration,  Suzanne Gamboa (NBC NEWS) reports:

A federal judge on Monday ordered the release of a mother and five children who have been detained longer than any other family in a Texas immigration detention center. They have been held since the arrest of the children’s father nearly a year ago after an anti-semitic firebombing attack in Colorado.
Hours after the judge's decision, the family had yet to be released.

Hayman El Gamal and her five children, who have been in detention more than 10 months, were detained in June after the arrest of El Gamal’s ex-husband Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45. He has been charged in connection with the attack in Boulder on a group calling for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.

El Gamal, who has divorced Soliman, has said that she and the children knew nothing about his alleged plans. The couple divorced after his arrest and his family's detention.

"We are hopeful and vindicated by this decision, however the government has not yet released this family and we are insisting it do so immediately,” said Eric Lee, the mother and children’s attorney.

He said El Gamal and her children had a mixed reaction to the news.

“The family feels vindicated, as well, by this decision and also they have gone through enough in the last 10 and a half months of detention to know it’s not over yet because of how brazenly and sadistic the White House has been to this family and five innocent children,” Lee said.


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


Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) led 16 Senators in urging the Trump administration to immediately reverse course on their illegal and dangerous decision to seek unprecedented access to the personal medical records of millions of federal workers, retirees, and their families. 

According to a notice by the White House Office of Personnel Management, this effort would involve the widespread aggregation of individuals’ health data, including medical visits, prescriptions, and treatment histories. The Senators express deep concern regarding such sweeping access of private medical data, which violates core principles of the law and places the personal information of Americans at serious risk of potential cyberattacks, unauthorized access and political exploitation.   

“This proposal is another step in the stated goal of traumatizing the federal workforce, this time by requiring the most sensitive health information about federal employees and their families to be shared with OPM. We are deeply concerned this information will be used in employment actions, including actions related to hiring, suitability determinations, appeals, reductions in force, disability accommodation requests, labor-management relations, and performance reviews,” the Senators wrote.  

“We strongly urge you to cease any further consideration of this proposal. Our federal employees work every day to serve the American people and deserve to have their health data protected,” the Senators continued. 

In addition to Schiff, Warner, and Leader Schumer this letter is also signed by Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Angus King Jr. (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.). Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.),  Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).

The full text of the letter can be found here and below. 

Dear Director Kupor, 

We are writing with grave concern regarding the Information Collection Request (ICR) noticed in the Federal Register on December 12, 2025, by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). If implemented, this proposal would require health insurance carriers that participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs to report broad medical record data of federal workers, retirees, and their families to OPM on a monthly basis. According to the notice, this effort would involve the widespread aggregation of these individuals’ health data, including medical visits, prescriptions, and treatment histories. This proposal raises profound statutory, constitutional, and public health concerns. We demand that OPM immediately reverse this action and abstain from any future efforts to illegally collect federal workers’ sensitive health data. 

Since January 2025, federal employees have been pushed into early retirement, illegally fired, demonized, seen their civil service protections weakened, and more. This proposal is another step in the stated goal of traumatizing the federal workforce, this time by requiring the most sensitive health information about federal employees and their families to be shared with OPM. We are deeply concerned this information will be used in employment actions, including actions related to hiring, suitability determinations, appeals, reductions in force, disability accommodation requests, labor-management relations, and performance reviews. 

Such sweeping access to personal health information would violate the core principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which was enacted to strictly regulate how protected health information (PHI) can be disclosed to ensure that patient data is shared only for limited, clearly defined purposes. Mass, centralized access to identifiable medical records absent individualized consent, clear necessity, or narrowly tailored legal authority undermines those protections and lacks a valid statutory basis. Both HIPAA regulations that apply to all covered entities as well as the Privacy Act statute that governs the federal government’s use of data about individuals require only the minimum amount of information necessary to be shared;[1] the data collection contemplated in this proposal to collect individualized medical claims data from all federal employees, retirees, and their families every month would far exceed those legal limits and violate OPM’s statutory authority. 

Furthermore, this proposal threatens the foundational principle of confidentiality between a patient and their health care provider. Patients must be able to trust that sensitive disclosures regarding mental health, chronic illness, or other deeply personal conditions will remain private. If individuals with health care coverage through FEHB and PSHB fear their medical records will be accessed by government agencies for unclear or non-clinical purposes, millions of Americans may withhold critical information from their providers or forego health care services altogether. This erosion of trust directly harms medical care and public health outcomes. 

The risks of misuse of the data to be shared in OPM’s proposal and subsequent data breaches cannot be overstated, as large, centralized databases of health records are prime targets for cyberattacks and unauthorized access. Past incidents across industries demonstrate that even “secure” systems are vulnerable, and breaches involving health data have historically exposed millions of individuals to identity theft, discrimination, and long-term privacy harms. Expanding access to PHI increases the number of potential failure points and amplifies these risks. 

Additionally, the potential for secondary use or mission creep is deeply concerning. This administration has demonstrated a cavalier approach toward utilizing sensitive data, breaking down firewalls that work to protect individuals’ privacy and security, and an incompetence in protecting that data. In January 2026, the Department of Justice admitted in a legal filing that employees of President Trump and Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) stole individuals’ Social Security data and stored it improperly. And as a data point that DOGE was never truly about efficiency, the legal filing also noted that one employee was working with an advocacy group to try and connect Social Security data with voter rolls in order to “find evidence of voter fraud and to overturn election results in certain States.” Additionally, the effort by the Department of Health and Human Services to share Medicaid enrollee data with the Department of Homeland Security for immigration enforcement purposes raises serious concerns that this data collection would serve a far more nefarious purpose than those stated in the Federal Register.  

Finally, we have substantial constitutional concerns regarding OPM’s proposal. The Supreme Court has recognized a protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of highly personal information, including medical data.  While not absolute, this interest requires that government intrusions be justified, narrowly tailored, and accompanied by clear safeguards. Broad policies without individualized justifications raise Fourth Amendment concerns and encroach on Americans’ reasonable expectations of privacy. We do not believe any employee, including federal employees, should be forced to give up basic rights to privacy as a condition of their employment, especially regarding their health information. 

For these reasons, we strongly urge you to cease any further consideration of this proposal. Our federal employees work every day to serve the American people and deserve to have their health data protected. Protecting patient privacy is not a bureaucratic obstacle, but a cornerstone of ethical medicine, legal compliance, and public trust. Any effort to modernize or improve data systems must prioritize strict privacy protections, transparency, and respect for individual rights. 

###



The following sites updated:


Posted by at

Tuesday, April 21, 2026

Prince, Dave Mason, Nancy Sinatra

 

That's Prince's "With This Tear" which was released today.  He wrote it for Celine Dion who recorded it in 1992.  Travis Bland (CONSEQUENCE SOUND) reports:

Prince composed, produced, and performed all the instruments for the tender, piano-driven ballad, which was recorded at Paisley Park in November 1991. The song is newly mixed and mastered by Grammy-nominated engineer and producer Chris James, who worked on Prince’s HITnRUN Phase Two, Art Official Age, and Plectrumelectrum.

The single is the first release from a series of previously unreleased recordings leading up to a new vault album, according to Prince’s estate.

“With This Tear” was put out a day before the 10th anniversary of Prince’s death and events at the musician’s famous estate and recording studio, Paisley Park, outside of Minneapolis.


Next . . .


That's "Something To Make You Happen" a song written and sung by Dave Mason and Cass Elliot from the 1970 album they did together DAVE MASON & CASS ELLIOT.  Jem Aswad and Chris Willman (VARIETY) report today:

Dave Mason, solo artist, a founding member of the band Traffic, writer of the classic rock songs “Feelin’ Alright” and “Hole in My Shoe” and sideman to the Rolling Stones, George Harrison and Jimi Hendrix, has died, according to an announcement from his publicist. No cause of death was announced, although ill health forced him to cancel a tour last year; he was 79.

Mason was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with the other original members of Traffic in 2004. In the 1970s he enjoyed solo hits with “Only You Know and I Know” and “We Just Disagree,” and over the years he also performed or recorded with David Crosby, Graham Nash, Michael Jackson, Cass Elliot, Leon Russell and others.    

A fiery guitarist and strong songwriter and singer, Mason first rose to prominence as a member of Traffic, the psychedelic-era band fronted by Steve Winwood. While he wrote some of the band’s biggest hits — notably “Hole in My Shoe” (which reached No. 2 on the British singles charts and was later covered in a novelty version by the comedy troupe the Young Ones) and the song “Feelin’ Alright,” later definitively covered by Joe Cocker — he had an on-off relationship with the band, although he contributed heavily to their first two albums, 1967’s psychedelic classic “Mr. Fantasy,” and the self-titled sophomore effort.   


Meanwhile, Nancy Sinatra has weighed in on Donald Chump trying to tie himself to Frank Sinatra's "My Way."  Judy Kurtz (THE HILL) reports:

Nancy Sinatra is ripping President Trump for posting a video of her father singing “My Way,” describing it as sacrilegious. 

“This is a sacrilege,” the eldest daughter of Frank Sinatra wrote on X on Sunday.

Sinatra’s post came in response to a video clip Trump shared on Saturday on Truth Social of the famed crooner singing his 1969 hit. The president offered no caption or explanation for posting the clip of Sinatra, who died in 1998. 

Asked by a social media user is there was something she could do about Trump posting the song, the 85-year-old “These Boots are Made for Walkin'” singer replied, “Unfortunately no. The only people who can do something are the publishers.”


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


Tuesday, Apri 21, 2026.  What did Chump do with the money donated for his library, why can't he offer a consistent explanation for the war or even for the gas prices, he's lost another Cabinet member, he wants to put a structure up in DC that will dwarf and minimize Arlington Cemetery, and much more. 



Let's start with a press release regarding Chump and disappearing money.  Senator Elizabeth Warren's office issued the following yesterday:


Paramount, ABC, Meta, X indicated that they have no explanation or are unwilling to share information about where millions in settlement money have gone — or where it will go

As much as $63 million in settlement payments to Trump Presidential Library slush fund missing

“These are troubling answers…particularly given the vast tide of corruption and self-enrichment that has occurred during your Administration, and your ongoing attempts to seek massive personal payments from the federal government.”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Paramount Response (PDF) ABC Response (PDF) Meta Response (PDF) X Response (PDF)

Washington, D.C. – In new responses to U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Representative Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Big Tech CEOs indicated that they have no public explanation for where as much as $63 million in settlement money to Donald Trump’s now-dissolved Presidential Library fund has gone. The lawmakers released these responses today and sent a new letter to President Donald Trump pressing for answers to solve the ongoing mystery of the missing millions.

“These are troubling answers…particularly given the vast tide of corruption and self-enrichment that has occurred during your Administration, and your ongoing attempts to seek massive personal payments from the federal government,” wrote the lawmakers.

The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Fund, Inc. was incorporated in late 2024 with a stated purpose “to preserve and steward the legacy of President Donald J. Trump and his presidency.” From late 2024 to mid-2025, four Big Tech companies — Paramount, ABC, Meta, and X — contributed as much as $63 million in settlement payments to President Trump's future presidential library." But in September 2025, the Fund was administratively dissolved for failure to submit a mandatory annual report, and in December, the incorporator filed articles of dissolution — with no explanation.

The lawmakers wrote to the four companies in March 2026, seeking answers about the funds. Key points from the companies’ responses include:

  • ABC reported that its “parent company made a payment by wire on December 19, 2024, to . . . the escrow account established by the Plaintiff’s counsel” and that “[i]n response to our recent ask for a status update, Plaintiff’s counsel, on Thursday, March 19, 2026, provided written notice to us that the IRS has recognized the 501(c)(3) status of ‘The Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc.,’ and requested that we provide written authorization for release of the funds to that entity.” This response appears to indicate that ABC had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the contents of the Fund in the immediate aftermath of its dissolution, and the response still fails to provide clarity on whether the ABC settlement has been transferred to the Foundation.

  • Paramount noted that it made a payment of $16 million and that “[w]ith respect to your questions regarding the disposition of funds and subsequent developments concerning the presidential library fund, the Company’s involvement was limited to making the payment as specified in the Settlement Agreement” — providing no answers about the disposition of funds following the dissolution of the Foundation.

  • Meta confirmed that it paid $22 million “to support a presidential library for President Trump . . . for the purpose of settling the pending claims” but refused to provide further “confidential” details.

  • X likewise confirmed that it paid $10 million in a group settlement that included President Trump but refused to comment further on “confidentiality” grounds.

“The companies do not know or are unwilling to share their information about what happened to the millions of dollars given to the Fund,” wrote the lawmakers. “This leaves the public completely in the dark about what happened to the Fund, whether there was any money in it when it was dissolved, what happened to that money upon the Fund’s dissolution, and why a second entity with the same purpose as the Fund was created in the first place.”

There have been no disclosures about the Fund’s disposition of any funds, and the White House press office has not responded to requests for comment. There appears to be no individual taking responsibility for the closure of the Fund and disposition of its money: no Fund board members were ever appointed, and the only person to sign any of its public documents has minimized his role.

In May 2025, a second nonprofit, the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation Inc., was incorporated with the same stated purpose as the Fund. Questions remain as to why the Foundation was formed when the Fund already existed and whether any money held by the Fund was transferred to the Foundation once the Fund was dissolved.

“You owe the public an explanation,” wrote the lawmakers to President Trump, requesting answers to a series of specific questions by May 1, 2026.

###



Every day, the news gets a little bit worse for Donald Chump.  Sarah-Jane Collins (DAILY BEAST) reports:


Donald Trump’s poll numbers have plunged to their lowest point of his second term, a brutal new poll has revealed.

The NBC News poll, conducted between March 30 and April 13, found Americans are particularly concerned about the economy, the continuing war in Iran, and how the president is handling these issues.

With an approval rating of just 37 percent, Trump’s already dwindling popularity has dropped 10 points since last June.

Overall, 63 percent of adults said they disapprove of the president’s performance, with 50 percent strongly disapproving.

Peter Aitken (NEWSWEEK) focuses on another finding in the NBC NEWS poll, "President Donald Trump is set to see his worst approval ratings of this second term as new polling from the NBC News Decision Desk released Sunday found that eight out of 10 Gen Z voters say the country is on the wrong track. The poll, conducted powered by SurveyMonkey, found that that not only is Trump seeing a 76 percent disapproval among voters aged 18 to 29, but that young Republicans are driving the downward trend, marking a troubling shift in a demographic largely credited as key to the party retaking the White House."   Kinsey Crowley and Kathryn Palmer (USA TODAY) also note his poor polling:


Trump's approval rating has been net negative for about a year and has been fluctuating but trending more negative over the last six months. Here is Trump's average approval rating on April 20, according to aggregators:

New York Times: 40% approve, 56% disapprove.
Silver Bulletin: 39.7% approve, 56.4% disapprove.
RealClearPolitics Poll Average: 41.2% approve, 56.6% disapprove.

[. . .]

A Quinnipiac University national poll found 38% of voters approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, compared to 55% who disapprove, comparable to the poll's results from March 25. The poll was conducted April 9 - 13 among 1,028 self-identified registered voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.
The poll also found a majority of voters (65%) blame Trump for the rise in gas prices, while 34% don't blame him much or at all. It is split along party lines, with a vast majority of Democrats blaming him and a majority of Republicans not blaming Trump.

The poll also asked about Trump's threat to Iran that "a whole civilization will die tonight." Sixty-four percent of voters found it unacceptable, while 28% thought it was acceptable.

As Chump chokes in one poll after another, his attacks on Pope Leo last week didn't help and aren't helping.   George Chidi (GUARDIAN) notes Catholics:

Many expressed admiration for Leo’s uncompromising position against war as a fundamental expression of Catholic doctrine, and said they viewed attacks on the pope’s call for peace as absurd.

“The president was saying that the pope wanted Iran to have nuclear weapons, and I don’t think the pope said that. The president just says stuff that people haven’t said,” said James Echols after mass at St Patrick’s Catholic church in Norcross. Asked if he viewed the president’s comments as an attack on his religion, Echols replied: “I don’t think he really cares about religion. I think he just says things to try to get people on his side.”

Echols voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. His wife, Maribic Echols, voted for Trump. The president’s comments have caused her to reconsider her support, she said.

“I’ve changed, because this is not what I was expecting when I was voting for him – about the war, and about people being arrested who are not supposed to be arrested,” she said.

About 55% of American Catholics cast a vote for Trump in 2024. Polls suggest Catholic support for the president is eroding as the war, high gas prices, the revelations in the Epstein files and a litany of scandals within the administration take their toll.

Chump's war on Pope Leo has not benefitted him.  Zoe Sottile and Gloria Pazmino (CNN) also speak to Catholics:


“I like Donald a lot, but he needs to calm down,” said Lola Reese after attending Sunday Mass at St. Patrick’s.

Growing up Catholic in New Orleans taught her the importance of the separation of church and state, Reese said.

The president’s back-and-forth with the pope might hurt his relationship with his supporters, she said. She called for the president to “back off and kind of calm down his little bitty, tiny streak of a little meanness here and there.”

Reese’s sentiment was shared by several churchgoers, including those who said they had voted for the president but saw his recent comments as out of line.
Anita Bauman, a Catholic Trump voter from Pennsylvania, said the president’s comments were “colossally stupid.”

“I don’t think it helps the president at all,” said Bauman, who supported the president’s actions in Iran, where in early April US-based rights group HRANA said more than 3,600 people had been killed since a joint US-Israeli bombing campaign began in February.

“I do think that things needed to be done in Iran,” she said. “I think that regime was dangerous, but I don’t think picking a fight with the pope or trying to school the pope on theology is a good idea at all.”


A new survey shows that nearly 60% of Catholic Republicans did not believe President Trump was right to criticize Pope Leo XIV, as the president continues an ongoing feud with the Vatican.

The survey shows that 59% of Catholic Republicans disapprove of the president’s attacks against the pope, a figure that differs greatly from that of their other Christian Republican counterparts: 68% of Evangelicals believed he was correct, while 63% of Protestants also thought he was correct. Overall, 59% of Christians felt Trump was right to criticize the pope, while 37% disagreed.
The poll, conducted by the Democracy Institute, comes as the president had a very public feud with Pope Leo XIV in response to the pontiff’s criticism of the war in Iran and appeals for peace.


A Catholic bishop who runs the Diocese of Palm Beach in Florida, which encompasses President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, issued a public rebuke of the president’s ongoing feud with Pope Leo XIV on Sunday.

Bishop Manuel de Jesús Rodríguez, recently appointed to lead the diocese, delivered the criticism during Sunday Mass by displaying a statement onto a giant screen during the service.
“The Diocese of Palm Beach stands firm with our Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV, and strongly rejects the disrespectful and violent attacks that Donald J. Trump has directed against the Holy Father,” it read, according to an image shared online.

It continued: “These attacks also constitute a grave violation of the religious freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and, as such, harm the rights of the American Catholic faithful.”

Rodríguez concluded the message with a call to the congregation: “Please pray for the safety of the Holy Father.”

Traditionally, that's the response.  By that I mean, historically, as opinion settles, it settles along those lines.  Right now, it's still being formed.  But historically, as a flock has time to absorb an event and form an opinion -- not a quick take, not a hot take, an actual opinion -- it tends to be along the lines of what Father Rodriguez expressed. 

And, remember, there was also the image he posted of himself as Jesus Christ healing people (he later insisted he thought he was a doctor in the image).  Fernando Alba (THE MIRROR) notes:


A new Democracy Institute-The Mirror US poll found that most Christian Republicans didn't buy Trump's defense of the AI image, which stoked backlash from prominent MAGA figures. The poll found 57% of Christians surveyed didn't believe the president when he said the image actually showed him as a Red Cross doctor.

Chump's participating in a week long marathon of BIBLE reading -- he's already recorded his portion -- and appears to think that will even things up.  I don't imagine many devout believers will feel that qualfies as enough. 
[. . .]
Cracks begin forming over the AI image. About 50% of respondents say the social media post was wrong while 46% indicated it was a non-issue. Catholics disapproved of the post the most at 57%, and protestants found the least problems with it at 53%.

Patrick Basham, founding Director of the Democracy Institute and former adjunct scholar and senior fellow of the Cato Institute, said the poll appears to show that Trump has lost his "Midas touch."

As gas prices continue to soar, Donald has a different claim every other week.  Aaron Blake (CNN) provides a walk through:



President Donald Trump on Monday directly contradicted Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s comments just a day earlier about how long gas prices could linger. While Wright had told CNN that we might not see gas under $3 per gallon until 2027, Trump called him “totally wrong.”

Days before, Trump contradicted his own words on the very same subject. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has contributed to some inconsistent messaging here, too.

In other words: It’s a mess. The Trump administration doesn’t seem to have taken any care to drive a consistent message that wouldn’t ultimately come back to bite it in the backside. And the situation reinforces how Trump and his team seemed to anticipate a much shorter war or at least underestimated how much damage Iran could cause to the global oil supply.

Let’s recap.

On March 8, about a week into the war, Wright told CNN’s Jake Tapper that gas would be back under $3 per gallon “before too long.” When pressed on how long, he indicated it was just weeks away.

“In the worst case, this is a weeks, this is not a months thing,” Wright said.

Wright then told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that there was a “very good chance” this would happen by the summer.
But as the weeks rolled on and the Strait of Hormuz remained closed, Wright’s prediction was proven false. More than seven weeks into the war, gas remains around $4 per gallon, according to Gas Buddy.

By April 12, reality seemed to set in. Fox News aired an interview in which Trump said gas and oil prices might not even drop at all before the November midterm elections.

“It could be [lower], or the same, or maybe a little bit higher, but it should be around the same,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo.

But when Trump spoke with Bartiromo just days later for her Fox Business Network show, his tone shifted dramatically.

He said that “gasoline is coming down very soon and very big.”

“I think they’ll be much lower before midterm,” he added. “Much lower.”


All of Chump's statements regarding the Iran War -- even on gas prices -- change repeatedly.  




Meanwhile, Donald Chump's Big Beautiful Give Away to The Epstein Class is allowing them to pay less taxes while the average person, if they are lucky, are getting a few dollars more in this year's tax refund.  Due to inflation under Chump, that money's not even going to register.  Jordan Major (FINANCEBUZZ MONEY) notes what we all saw coming:


Tax refunds are landing in bank accounts across the country, but for many Americans, that extra cash may not go as far as expected.

Gas prices have surged in recent weeks, cutting into household budgets just as refunds are arriving. As of April 9, the national average price for gasoline has climbed to $4.16 per gallon, marking the first time in four years that prices have crossed the $4 threshold.
[. . .]
The impact of higher gas prices adds up faster than many people expect. A driver using about 15 gallons per week would now spend roughly $62 per fill-up at the national average. Just weeks ago, that same fill-up cost closer to $45.

The increase comes to about $17 per week, or nearly $70 per month. Over the course of a year, that adds up to more than $800 in additional fuel costs for a typical driver. A $3,600 tax refund could see a large portion absorbed by higher gas expenses alone.




In other news, another Cabinet member has been fired by Chump. 

 


Lori Chavez-DeRemer, President Trump’s embattled labor secretary, stepped down on Monday as multiple scandals and investigations closed in on her.

“Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving the Administration to take a position in the private sector,” Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, posted on social media. He said Keith Sonderling, the deputy secretary of labor, would serve as acting secretary.

Pressure on Ms. Chavez-DeRemer had mounted in recent weeks, as investigators and congressional leaders homed in on questions about her conduct in office, and that of her aides and members of her family.

The Labor Department’s inspector general’s office is nearing the end of a monthslong investigation into a whistle-blower’s allegations of professional misconduct by Ms. Chavez-DeRemer and her closest aides. The claims include that she was having an affair with a member of her security team and used department resources for personal trips. Ms. Chavez-DeRemer was expected to be interviewed in the matter in the coming days.



Her husband was banned from Labor Department grounds after he allegedly assaulted two female staffers.

The writing may have been on the wall for Chavez-DeRemer. After unceremoniously firing ex-Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump was apparently on the warpath against his own Cabinet. An administration official anonymously told Politico at the start of the month that Trump was “very angry” with his advisers and was looking to move some of them around or even axe them entirely.

Chavez-DeRemer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick were at risk of losing their jobs “imminently,” three anonymous sources told Politico at the time.



They addressed Chavez-DeRemer's departure today on MORNING JOE. 



In other news, Chump's massive ego wants a new structure in DC dedicated to him.  AnnaMarie Houlis (MONEYWISE) reports:

Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian are suing Donald Trump, according to 9News (1). They argue that his plans to build a 250-foot "triumphal arch" near the Arlington National Cemetery's main entrance lacks congressional approval, violates federal law, and would be disrespectful of those buried there.
If erected, the triumphal arch — inspired by Arc de Triomphe in Paris — would be the largest in the world. And critics worry that the sheer size of it alone would dominate the landscape, leaving nearby landmarks like the Lincoln Memorial — and our veterans — in its shadows.
"What has happened here is that the president has decided that he can just unilaterally go ahead and erect this monument," Wendy Liu, who represents the veterans who feel personal ties to the cemetery, told 9News. "The thought of being buried in the shadow of what they have described as a vainglorious arch is profoundly disrespectful."


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


Hegseth has made deep cuts in funding, personnel for civilian harm mitigation programs

More than 1,700 civilian deaths, strikes on more than 30 schools, health care facilities since the start of President Trump’s illegal war in Iran

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) led nine senators in opening a new investigation into Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s role in weakening civilian harm prevention programs and the catastrophic civilian impacts of President Trump’s war in Iran.

“The high human toll of this war reflects the administration's broader disregard for the strategic, legal, and moral imperative to minimize civilian harm,” wrote the lawmakers. ”We call on the administration to immediately end the war in Iran and fully restore Congressionally authorized programs and staffing to mitigate civilian harm.”

Since the start of President Trump’s illegal war in Iran, attacks on civilian infrastructure have led to more than 1,700 civilian deaths, along with strikes on more than 20 schools and a dozen health care facilities.

“We are concerned that these were all preventable tragedies…This is a concerning pattern and raises questions about whether the administration is upholding international law and the laws of war,” wrote the senators. The Senators called on DoD to answer questions about reported attacks on two separate elementary schools in Iran that killed more than 170 people, most of them children.

Prior to the war, Secretary Hegseth made deep cuts to the military’s civilian harm mitigation and response (CHMR) programs, fired personnel at DoD’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, and slashed CHMR staff at the U.S. combatant commands “by more than 90 percent.” All the cuts were reportedly made over the objections of veterans organizations and top military officials, including admirals, generals, and members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“We are also concerned that your leadership is further harming the credibility of our armed forces, exacerbating threats to civilians and U.S. servicemembers alike,” wrote the senators.

Secretary Hegseth has mocked “stupid rules of engagement” and threatened to offer “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies” in Iran, which would violate international law and the military’s own Law of War Manual.

“These statements not only harm civilians and undermine established standards, but also endanger U.S. servicemembers with greater risk of reciprocation and erode good order and discipline,” warned the senators.

Senior military officials in the Trump administration agree that mitigating civilian harm is vital for national security. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby wrote to Congress that, “it is in the U.S. national interest, as well as morally right, to seek to reduce civilian harm to the degree possible.” During his confirmation, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine said that combatant commanders who incorporated CHMR personnel into planning “see positive impacts from the program.”

“Your attempts to gut DoD’s civilian harm institutions contradicts more than a decade of bipartisan consensus and DoD-led reforms, initiated during the first Trump administration,” noted the senators.

“The importance of protecting civilian life to the greatest extent possible is central to effective military operations and differentiates the United States from our adversaries…We call on the administration to immediately end the war in Iran, fully restore Congressionally authorized programs and staffing to mitigate civilian harm,” concluded the senators.

The lawmakers asked Hegseth to explain the cuts to civilian harm programs and explain what steps the Pentagon is taking to protect civilian lives in Iran by May 4, 2026.

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) joined in signing the letter.

###



Rebecca's "doj fighting and general hospital" posted and the following sites updated:







Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)