In a planning document released last month, the National Park Service conceded that the “triumphal arch” that President Donald Trump is desperate to build would cause “adverse effects” to nearby historic properties and monuments if construction advances as planned.
But, the administration added, the wildly unnecessary and legally dubious project is moving forward anyway.
A week later, the campaign to build one of the president’s many vanity projects took a rather farcical turn when Trump said, in apparent seriousness, that he planned to convert the 250-foot project into a “top grade military complex” to house drones. In case that wasn’t quite laughable enough, the Republican — who claimed to be acting in response to a “strong request” from unnamed Armed Forces personnel — added that the arch would also feature snipers on the roof, along with “large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage.”
Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, whose congressional district includes the area in question, called the president’s latest argument “stupid” and “idiotic,” adding, “Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security.”
And therein lay the point. When Trump was worried about the litigation surrounding the White House ballroom vanity project, he shifted his rhetorical focus to pretend the project had a national security component. It wasn’t the case, but someone apparently explained to him that federal courts have traditionally given presidents wide latitude to pursue national security priorities, giving him the apparent idea of trying to pull the same trick twice.
At least, that was the plan. The Washington Post reported:
The Trump administration on Friday released final plans for President Donald Trump’s 250-foot-tall triumphal arch that do not include drones, snipers or other features of the “military complex” that Trump said he would add to the project.
The National Capital Planning Commission, a federal panel that reviews major construction projects, posted new renderings and accompanying documents provided by the Interior Department, which is overseeing the controversial project. None of the new documents mentions a military purpose for the arch, with officials instead offering information on planned tourist visits and other ceremonial functions.
So, is that it? If the final plan excludes the absurd “military complex” elements, is it safe to say that even the Trump administration has moved on from this nonsense?
Alas, no. The White House told the Post that Trump’s plans hadn’t changed, and information related to a national security component for the arch may yet be released at a later date.
Whether that’s true is unclear, although in the meantime, a group of U.S. military veterans is moving forward with legal efforts to prevent work on the project from getting started in earnest. Watch this space.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
The post Trump’s own team hedges on ‘military complex’ component of ‘triumphal arch’ appeared first on MS NOW.
In January 2017, with only a couple of days remaining in Barack Obama’s presidency, the Democrat held a White House press conference in which he explained his vision of occasional political intervention.
“There’s a difference,” the outgoing president explained, “between that normal functioning of politics and certain issues or certain moments where I think our core values may be at stake.”
In other words, Obama was sending a signal to the public: If people were looking to him to condemn everything Donald Trump did on a near-daily basis, they were likely to be disappointed. Once in a great while, however, the former president might feel the need to step up and defend fundamental American principles.
Obama has largely kept that pledge, steering clear of the day-to-day political arena, but over the weekend, he made the latest in a series of exceptions. MS NOW reported:
Former President Barack Obama issued a rare statement Sunday rebuking the Trump administration for targeting the president’s political enemies, namely for launching a federal investigation into Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
“It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say,” Obama said in a lengthy statement shared on social media. “But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.”
Obama’s online statement went on to characterize the Republican administration’s crusade against Omar as “appalling.” He added, “The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president. And it’s not the first time this has happened. Under President Trump, the Justice Department has repeatedly gone after those he considers his political enemies — from the Attorney General of New York, to the former head of the FBI, to members of the Federal Reserve.
“In those cases, the prosecutions either stalled or were dismissed for having no basis in law, and the same is likely to happen in this case. But not before Congresswoman Omar’s life has been turned upside down, her legal bills have piled up, and she’s been forced to spend time fighting unsubstantiated charges instead of serving the people of Minnesota.
“The fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views. Because if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.”
Or put another way, Team Trump’s radical offensive against the congresswoman represents a clear example in which “our core values may be at stake.”
There’s overwhelming evidence to bolster the former president’s case.
Federal investigators, acting at Trump’s behest and ignoring the 60-day “blackout period” before the election, seized the laptop, cellphone and passport of a sitting member of Congress as part of an apparent campaign to strip Omar of her citizenship and ultimately deport her in response to evidence that does not appear to exist.
Throughout history, there have been countless clashes between presidents and members of Congress, but there is no modern precedent for an incumbent chief executive trying to misuse the levers of federal power in the hopes of kicking a sitting elected lawmaker out of the country.
The New York Times’ Michelle Goldberg added in her latest column, “This is more than just another persecution of one of Trump’s political enemies. Rather, his government is tacitly declaring the citizenship of all foreign-born people provisional, their Americanness something that can be revoked. It’s a frontal attack on the idea of constitutional equality. As Hannah Arendt wrote — a quote that the writer John Ganz reminded me of — ‘One is almost tempted to measure the degree of totalitarian infection by the extent to which the concerned governments use their sovereign right of denationalization.’”
Hours after Goldberg’s column ran, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin appeared on conservative media outlet Real America’s Voice and said the Republican administration is considering a possible “RICO case” against Omar, referring to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which has traditionally been used against organized crime figures.
For what it’s worth, The Washington Post reported last week that in 2019, Team Trump also ordered an investigation into Omar’s immigration records, though the “investigation was eventually abandoned” for lack of evidence.
Seven years later, the sequel to this abuse is ongoing — and significantly worse.
The post Why Obama felt compelled to condemn Team Trump’s crusade against Ilhan Omar appeared first on MS NOW.
About a month ago, JD Vance appeared on a conservative podcast and assured the hosts and their listeners that the Trump administration is “serious” about reducing the budget deficit.
Like so much of what the vice president tells the public, his rhetoric was discredited by reality. The New York Times reported:
The United States budget deficit approached $2 trillion in the 2026 fiscal year, its highest level since the pandemic, as spending on the military, safety net programs and interest on the debt dwarfed the Trump administration’s cost cuts, Treasury Department figures showed on Friday.
The widening gap between what the government spends and what it collects in taxes and other revenue comes at a critical moment. Investors are nervous about America’s surging debt load, along with stubborn inflation, and have driven up borrowing costs.
Roughly three weeks after the end of the 2025-2026 fiscal year, the Treasury Department reported that the government spent $1.99 trillion more than it took in. That massive deficit reflected an increase of roughly $217 billion from a year earlier.
There’s no great mystery as to why this happened — among other things, Republicans approved massive tax breaks last year and began financing the war with Iran in late February — and there’s no reason to believe the nation’s fiscal health will improve anytime soon.
As the public considers the implications of this, here are a handful of things to keep in mind:
The economic circumstances suggest deficits this enormous shouldn’t happen. When the nation is facing a crisis, such as responding to a pandemic or an economic crash, it makes sense for the government to take on more debt. But there was no actual crisis during the last fiscal year, making the roughly $2 trillion annual deficit that much more difficult to defend.
The problem is getting worse faster than anyone expected. When the nation’s overall debt reached $40 trillion a couple of months ago, The Washington Post reported that we’re racking up debt faster than earlier independent analyses thanks almost entirely to the cost of GOP tax breaks, the war with Iran and the White House’s failed tariffs agenda. The article added, “The faster accumulation of debt comes at a perilous moment. An array of concerns, including inflation, the war in Iran and rising debt levels around the world, are driving investors to dump government bonds.”
Trump promised voters a very different outcome. As a candidate in 2016, the Republican told voters he had unique expertise in budgetary issues that would enable him to eliminate the deficit and start paying down the debt. Trump delivered the opposite results, adding nearly $7.8 trillion to the national debt in just one term, and most of that total was racked up before the Covid-19 crisis. As a candidate in 2024, he repeated his earlier promises, before again delivering the opposite results: Trump has added nearly $4 trillion in debt since returning to the White House early last year.
Eight years ago, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio show and reflected on the nation’s fiscal health. “We have $21 trillion in debt … a number that is unthinkable,” the president said in July 2018. “But that will go down very quickly.” Eight years later, the debt has nearly doubled.
Trump and congressional Republicans are to blame. For those concerned about the deficit and the debt, there’s no point in seeing this as a “both sides” issue. Republican policies made this happen.
Trump and congressional Republicans don’t seem to care. For decades, Republican officials have expressed hysterical concerns about “fiscal responsibility” every time there’s been a Democratic president. Indeed, younger readers might find this difficult to believe, but in the not-too-distant past, Republicans treated the budget deficit as one of the single-most important crises facing the country. The gap between what the government spends and what it takes in, GOP officials said, threatened to bankrupt the nation, crash the economy and ruin the lives of our children and grandchildren.
But as last year’s deficit nearly reached the $2 trillion mark, and the debt passes the $40 trillion mark, those same Republicans are silent on the issue.
Trump and congressional Republicans aren’t even pretending to have a plan to address this. It’s not as if the GOP has a bad plan to get the nation’s fiscal house in order; it’s that the party isn’t even trying to address the issue at all.
Earlier Republican warnings suddenly look ridiculous. Throughout Barack Obama’s presidency, GOP officials said that if the national debt eclipsed the size of the overall economy, it would spell immediate doom. For the first time since World War II, the national debt has now eclipsed the size of the overall economy as Republicans pretend that the economy has reached its “golden age.”
Remember 1998? Around this time 28 years ago, Bill Clinton proudly declared that the deficit was officially gone, and record surpluses soon followed. At the time, the United States was on track to do the unthinkable: to pay off its national debt. Republican governance soon followed, which set us on a path to $40 trillion in debt.
The historical pattern is worth remembering. Despite the conventional wisdom about which party has credibility on fiscal issues, budget deficits have grown by massive amounts under every Republican administration (Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 and Trump), while shrinking under every Democratic administration (Clinton, Obama and Biden).
The next Democratic president needs to be prepared. Time will tell who prevails in the 2028 presidential election, but if it’s a Democrat, they need to understand that they’re inheriting a severe budgetary mess, which will be met by a new round of GOP hysterics about the mess that Republicans themselves created.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
The post Massive budget deficit adds to growing list of Trump’s broken promises appeared first on MS NOW.
As 2026 got underway, national polling didn’t just show that Donald Trump’s approval rating had sunk to embarrassing lows, it also showed a more specific problem: Roughly two-thirds of Americans were convinced the president simply had the wrong priorities.
Last month, we saw fresh evidence that this impression had actually intensified. A CNN poll found that 76% of Americans — a record high — agreed that Trump hadn’t paid enough attention to the country’s most important problems. This dovetailed with a Quinnipiac poll that found that 68% of Americans believed he was not focused enough on “addressing the problems most Americans are facing.”
With roughly two weeks remaining before the midterm elections, and with early voting underway across much of the United States, it’s tempting to think the Republican Party’s leader and most powerful voice would be eager to disprove these impressions. Instead, Trump is doing the opposite.
The Associated Press reported:
President Donald Trump on Sunday announced plans to close a historic public golf course in the nation’s capital for 15 months and redevelop it despite a court challenge to his long-sought renovation.
Trump posted on social media about his intent to shutter the East Potomac Golf Course, not far from the White House, starting Nov. 15 to make it “one of the Best and Most Spectacular Golf Courses anywhere in the World.”
If the underlying story sounds at all familiar, it’s probably because the ongoing legal fight has generated a lot of headlines. Indeed, as recently as last week, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ordered the administration to stop its tree-cutting efforts at the golf course until Oct. 26. As MS NOW reported, that order came one day after a nearly four-hour hearing in which Reyes slammed the Trump administration for defying her previous order to give the court notice before taking down more than 10 trees.
On Sunday, the president nevertheless published a pair of items to his social media platform, explaining in some detail how excited he was to overhaul the golf course. Trump followed up with a third post early Monday morning, writing, “The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It’s as simple as that! … Work is scheduled to begin IMMEDIATELY!”
In the same missive, the president described the judge in the case as “a crazed lunatic” who, in his estimation, might be “insane.”
The list of problems is not short. For one thing, the White House appears to be in the midst of a rather brazen move to circumvent a federal court case. For another, Trump’s preferred plan is itself misguided. As The Washington Post reported:
The rendering Trump released alongside the announcement depicts a dramatically remade Hains Point, with a single 18-hole championship course stretching nearly from shoreline to shoreline. It bears little resemblance to the existing course — or to the more modest historic-restoration plan that government attorneys have cited in court.
The design also appears to eliminate Ohio Drive, the roadway that loops around Hains Point, a century-old grove of cherry trees and a historic miniature golf course. If implemented as depicted, the plan would reshape space used daily not only by golfers, but also by thousands of cyclists, runners, walkers, anglers, birdwatchers and other visitors.
What the president wants, in other words, effectively eliminates all of the things many local residents actually like about the East Potomac Golf Course, transforming it instead into yet another vanity project tied to Trump’s ego.
But let’s also not lose sight of the broader circumstances. Amid rising inflation, a stagnant job market and an ongoing war in the Middle East that Trump started but doesn’t know how to end, the president wants Americans to know that he’s investing time and energy into a priority that apparently matters to him: overhauling a public golf course.
“Trump started an illegal war, prices are through the roof, Americans are hurting, and yet he lays awake thinking about how to screw our D.C. neighbors and take over their public parks,” Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland wrote via Bluesky over the weekend. “Out of touch doesn’t even begin to describe it.”
The post As midterms approach, Trump focuses on closing D.C. golf course for 15-month renovation appeared first on MS NOW.
Though the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act suffered from some important flaws, its central purpose was sound: The proposal was created to impose sanctions and other economic penalties against Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia and its trading partners. It cleared Capitol Hill with relative ease, and two days later, Donald Trump signed it into law, despite the Republican president’s record of weakness toward Moscow.
Late Friday — a time politicians frequently use to release information they hope will go unnoticed — the American president halted implementation of the law he had signed almost exactly one month earlier. The Associated Press reported:
President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that puts on hold a sweeping new sanctions package targeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.
Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation.
In a written statement, the Republican said he had decided to block implementation of the law because, according to the White House, it’s in “the national interests of the United States.”
Trump made no effort to explain why, exactly, it was in the United States’ interest to waive sanctions on Russia.
The condemnations from Democrats were immediate. “Trump just gave Putin the best birthday gift he’ll get this year,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. “By giving the Russian economy life support, Trump’s deal with the devil keeps getting dirtier. There’s nothing America First about Trump caving to Putin and exempting Russia from U.S. sanctions.”
The New York Democrat added, “Americans need relief from skyrocketing prices. Instead, Trump is aiding and abetting a dictator who has helped Iran target U.S. troops in the Middle East.”
The backlash, however, wasn’t limited to the president’s critics. On the contrary, several prominent congressional Republicans, as well as former Vice President Mike Pence, slammed the move and publicly urged Trump to reconsider.
Predictably, he ignored the calls. In fact, on Sunday afternoon, the American president published a defense of his policy to his social media platform, insisting that he was “in the process of negotiating Peace,” and that he believed implementing U.S. law and penalizing Russia would likely drive Putin’s government “away from the bargaining table.”
The same statement slammed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and former U.S. President Joe Biden, but it included no comparable criticism of Putin, whom the missive didn’t refer to at all.
At face value, Trump’s written rationale is difficult to take seriously. Indeed, to an almost cartoonish degree, he’s been showering Putin with unearned gifts for quite a while — offering sanctions relief for Russian diesel fuel, echoing Kremlin talking points, pumping billions of dollars into the Russian economy, peddling false accusations against Ukraine, ignoring existing U.S. laws that ban Russian oil imports, looking the other way on Russia aiding Iran during the ongoing U.S. war, delivering diplomatic victories for Moscow, etc. — and getting nothing in return except more deadly attacks.
The benefits Trump is delivering to his Russian counterpart, in other words, have not advanced the peace process in any way.
But if Trump’s stated reason doesn’t make sense, what’s the actual reason for his humiliating weakness toward Putin? The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait recently ran through some of the possible explanations, ranging from Putin running a successful flattery campaign to the Republicans’ general sympathies for authoritarian dictatorships to potential corruption.
Let’s also not forget that as recently as 2020, former Republican Sen. Dan Coats, who served as Trump’s director of national intelligence during his first term, conceded in an interview with Bob Woodward that he spent much of his tenure as DNI wondering whether Putin had something on Trump — a concern that intensified over time — that somehow compromised the American president.
“How else to explain the president’s behavior? Coats could see no other explanation,” Woodward wrote.
Looking ahead, a possible Democratic majority in Congress could launch a meaningful investigation into alleged Russian influence campaigns and Putin’s influence in Washington. But in the meantime, The Wall Street Journal reported that Putin is proposing some kind of summit between Russia, China and the United States, which would apparently decide Ukraine’s future.
Ukrainian officials, under Putin’s proposed plan, would not be welcome at the discussion about their own country’s future.
This post updates our related earlier coverage.
The post Trump’s latest pro-Putin move prompts bipartisan backlash and awkward questions appeared first on MS NOW.
Former President Barack Obama issued a rare statement Sunday rebuking the Trump administration for targeting the president’s political enemies, namely for launching a federal investigation into Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.
“It is a basic principle of American democracy that the government can’t selectively target individuals simply because of their political beliefs or what they say,” Obama said in a lengthy statement shared on social media. “But that’s exactly what the Trump Administration is doing to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.”
The remarks come after federal agents raided Omar’s Washington D.C., home last week, confiscating her laptop, cellphone and passport, as well as other notebooks and documents related to her and her family’s immigration.
“To understand why this is so appalling, it’s important to know the facts. Congresswoman Omar came to this country with her father when she was 12 years old,” Obama said, noting that both she and her father became naturalized citizens five years after arriving from Somalia.
In diatribes against Democrats, President Donald Trump has repeatedly singled out Omar, whom Obama described as “one of the Trump Administration’s fiercest critics.”
Trump has called Omar “garbage” and broadly condemned Somalis. Vice President JD Vance has also joined in, at one point claiming in March, without evidence, that Omar “definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America.”
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said last week that her office is investigating potential improprieties related to Omar’s financial disclosures, but the search warrant that authorized agents to seize Omar’s belongings listed potential violations related to immigration, not finances.
Lawyers for Omar have demanded the immediate return of all of her property.
Omar has not been charged with a crime and has denied wrongdoing, accusing the Trump administration of “political intimidation.”
“Federal agents have raided her home, confiscated personal records, and seized her phone — all to try and uncover a nonexistent smoking gun from 20 years ago that will somehow make their case,” Obama wrote on Sunday. “Think about that. The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the president.”
The search came just weeks ahead of the pivotal midterm elections. Obama weighed in as he prepared to take his star power to Michigan next weekend to campaign for Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson.
The former president added that “the fact that any president, or any administration, is willing to engage in such transparent efforts to intimidate someone should outrage all Americans, regardless of how they feel about Congresswoman Omar’s political views. Because if this becomes the new normal, there’s no reason to believe it will stop with her — or that future presidents, in either party, won’t do the same.”
The post ‘So appalling’: Obama rebukes Trump over Rep. Ilhan Omar investigation appeared first on MS NOW.
President Donald Trump’s approval rating has hit a record low as his party faces a reckoning with voters just 16 days before Election Day, new polls show.
A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos survey released Sunday shows 33% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s job performance, with 66% disapproving and 52% strongly disapproving. That represents a drop of four percentage points from July and eight points from this time last year — an all-time low in this polling.
As MS NOW’s Elections & Analytics team has noted, Trump’s approval rating has hovered below 40% for months in most surveys, signaling a politically perilous environment for Republicans.
Democrats’ fortunes are rising in the final stretch to the Nov. 3 midterm elections as they seek to regain control of Congress.
The poll, conducted Oct. 9-13, shows 52% of likely voters said they would vote for a Democratic candidate in their congressional district while 44% said they would choose a Republican. That’s a 5-point gain from the same poll conducted in July.
An NBC News Decision Desk poll released Sunday also puts Democrats ahead.
Among registered voters, 55% favor Democrats, with 44% preferring Republicans. MS NOW’s polling data with partner FiftyPlusOne shows Democrats with a 9-point edge on the generic ballot.
The NBC survey shows 71% of U.S. adults say the country is on the “wrong track” — a resounding rebuke of Trump and the Republican Party two weeks before the midterms as GOP candidates face stiff competition on their home red turfs.
The findings underscore widespread dissatisfaction with the president’s unilateral decision to take the U.S. to war with Iran and its costly effects on the economy, including the steep price of gasoline and diesel. The poll shows that 67% of respondents identified gas prices as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem.
“Those disapproval ratings are just a reflection of the pain people are feeling on the ground when, you know, they see this administration enter into this $50 billion war that is deeply unpopular and misguided,” South Carolina Senate Democratic candidate Annie Andrews said Sunday on MS NOW’s “The Weekend” when asked about recent polling in her state showing Trump’s unpopularity.
Andrews, who is facing Republican Sen. Darline Graham, said shrimpers and fishermen in the Low Country “are barely making ends meet because they’re being crushed by these diesel prices.”
The post Trump’s approval rating hits record low as GOP faces midterm reckoning appeared first on MS NOW.
Lisa Leslie
My husband and I have very different ideas about financial responsibility.
When we're feeling stressed about money, my instinct is to run the numbers and account for every financial what-if. He's a big-picture dreamer who sees what something could become and is more willing to say, "We'll figure it out."
His attitude has paid off before. He had the vision for our first home, which we bought for under $100,000 and recently sold for a decent profit after 13 years of renovations.
I know some of the best things we've done together wouldn't have happened without my husband's willingness to take a chance, but our differences have still caused some friction over the years.
Now that we're building a new home together, we're trying to balance my need to plan for the unknown with his belief that we'll find a way forward.
Lisa Leslie
For 13 years, we'd lived in the same place. My husband had moved frequently as a child, and he wanted his two daughters to have a consistent place to call home.
Leaving this house behind was bittersweet, but my oldest stepdaughter had just bought her own house, and my younger one was heading off to college. We were ready for what came next.
We could have bought an existing house needing renovations. Instead, we found land in southern Maine that felt worth taking a risk on.
We've always loved the area. My family has an annual reunion there, where we spend a week at the beach. Our new property will hopefully give us that lifestyle without the summer crowds: It's more than 2 ½ acres with hiking trails next door, a nearby kayak and paddleboard launch, and the ocean just a short drive away.
We decided to go for it, and by the end of August, our old house was nearly empty. My younger stepdaughter left for college on a Wednesday, we moved the rest of our things to a rental on a Thursday, and officially sold the house that Friday.
Lisa Leslie
In September, we began building our 1,500-square-foot house.
We're now paying $3,000 a month for a rental home — with a construction loan on top of that — and keeping track of a lot of numbers, from lumber and labor to excavation, plumbing, electrical, permits, and finishes.
My husband is doing most of the construction himself, which is what makes this project possible. If we had to pay for all of the labor, we probably couldn't afford to build right now.
However, that's not to say this hasn't been a very stressful time. We think we've accounted for everything, but every estimate has an asterisk: Unless lumber prices go up. Unless a contractor's price changes.
Unless we hit ledge — that is, solid bedrock beneath the soil that can be expensive to excavate. We might have to rethink the foundation or adjust the entire plan once we see what's underground.
I find that uncomfortable, but my husband doesn't.
Lisa Leslie
My husband can picture what this property could become over time, and has big dreams for it.
He wanted a garage, a small cottage where our family could stay when they visit, a little more space, and nicer finishes in some areas. I kept bringing us back to what we could afford right now, and how much we wanted to keep in savings rather than put everything into the house.
After a lot of discussion, we decided to start small. We're building for the life we have today, while — at his request — leaving room for the one we might want tomorrow. The garage and cottage can wait. For now, we're focusing on getting the house right without stretching our budget too far.
That means staying flexible. For instance, my husband wants a finished basement, and I agreed, knowing this would give us the option to add a third bedroom down the road.
Though the cost difference between a basement and an unfinished crawl space isn't huge upfront, hitting ledge could put us thousands — or even tens of thousands — over budget.
We're willing to give the basement a shot, but if excavation costs start climbing, we may have to scale back to a crawl space and save the extra bedroom for another day.
We have a plan, but we know it might change once we get further into the build. I'll keep making the spreadsheets and asking for the numbers. He'll keep looking at the big picture and reminding me why we decided to do this.
This project, and my husband, have taught me that financial responsibility isn't necessarily about eliminating every risk, but knowing which risks are worth taking and staying open to changing course.
It’s another No Kings weekend in the United States of America. Demonstrations against Donald Trump’s imperial presidency are taking place across the country, trying to raise awareness for the midterm elections that are just over two weeks away, while registering a collective complaint against arguably the most un-American administration in our country’s history.
And yet, I can’t help but feel underwhelmed. This is not to throw cynical shade at the resistance-coded No Kings movement. Many people are struggling (even more than usual) thanks to Trump’s mishandling of the economy, and not everyone has the time to take to the streets and demand accountability for a uniquely corrupt, lawless and bigoted president. Furthermore, anyone who does make the effort to dissent in a time of naked authoritarianism deserves commendation, not eye-rolls.
No, what underwhelms me is a certain subset of Americans who are not attending these protests. This cohort (according to recent polls) apparently exists but appears to lack the courage to stand up and be counted in public: right-of-center voters that are more loyal to the Constitution than to Trump.
There ought to be nonstop protests across the U.S. against an illegal war that’s crippling millions of Americans’ budgets, making the world less safe and failing at every one of its constantly-shifting stated objectives.
A Fox News poll conducted between Oct. 9-12 found that among self-identified MAGA Republicans, Trump’s approval rating is 95% — a figure that would make most dictators blush. Meanwhile, among Republicans who don’t self-identify with the cult of Trump, the president is underwater: 47% approve, while 52% disapprove. Among independents, 22% approve and 78% disapprove.
Hey, non-MAGA Republicans and independents who live in objective reality, now’s a good time to show your faces in public!
It’s one thing to be a career GOP politician, terrified of crossing Trump for fear of losing their position of power. It’s spineless and opportunistic, of course, but at least it’s a reason. What’s the excuse for the rest of you?
Surely Trump’s relentless disrespect of American values and constitutional rights — like freedom of speech and religion; due process; birthright citizenship; prohibitions on bribes from foreign governments and warrantless searches; the freedom to walk outside without proof of citizenship — ought to have you mad as hell and taking to the streets. If you call yourself a libertarian or a conservative, then obviously you should see Trump as a greater threat to the rule of law and civil liberties than annoying woke college undergrads. If you’re a right-leaning independent, then Trump and his family gorging on ill-gotten countless billions must have you willing to let bygones be bygones and ready to march in the streets side by side with your liberal neighbors.
There ought to be nonstop protests across the U.S. against an illegal war that’s crippling millions of Americans’ budgets, making the world less safe and failing at every one of its constantly-shifting stated objectives. There should be investigations by the party that controls both houses of Congress into his and his family’s exploitation of our government to make themselves as rich as the petroleum kleptocrats they partner with in business. The only appropriate “American” reaction to the administration’s overt bigotry toward Muslims, immigrants and any number of other people is bipartisan revulsion.
And the politicization of our military — infused with an illiberal and intolerant ideology known as Christian nationalism — ought to curl the spine of any constitutional conservative. For Americans still bitter about “Woke 1” speech-policing and temporary Covid-19 vaccine requirements, the administration’s efforts to brand its political opponents as “domestic terrorists” and its use of a secret police force to shoot and detain Americans without due process or accountability should have them firmly in the “anyone but MAGA” camp.
But I’m confident few, if any, of these folks will attend No Kings rallies this weekend. Whether because of apathy or fear of catching cooties from anything associated with Democrats or the left, the result is the same: they’ll be sitting on the sidelines as Trump gobbles up more American yardage for himself.
Hey, non-MAGA Republicans and independents who live in objective reality, now’s a good time to show your faces in public!
It’s possible that the polls predicting a “blue wave” election are correct. But a midterm “wipeout” isn’t enough for America to recover. Impeachments, investigations and public shaming ought to be the order of the day if Democrats win back one or both houses of Congress, but even that won’t do. For America to achieve some semblance of a shared national identity, there must be a near-universal call for a return to decency and respect for plurality. But that can only happen when roughly half the country demands the end of an unprecedented American personality cult that they’ve voted for in three consecutive elections.
I’m glad No Kings is drawing people to the streets and encouraging people to vote. It’s just not nearly enough. Not until the non-left — composed of non-MAGA Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and anti-woke centrists — confronts its own complicity and forges its own No Kings movement.
The post What’s missing at No Kings? The Republicans who say they’re fed up with Trump. appeared first on MS NOW.
Setting aside the jokes about the shortness of Katie Zacharia’s tenure as White House press secretary, the controversy over her claim to be a lawyer obscures a more damaging issue. For years, she promoted some of the most heinous and bizarre conspiracy theories bubbling up from the right-wing swamp. Simply put: Zacharia was ousted for the wrong reason. Her embrace of extreme and downright loony assertions amount to a much stronger basis for dismissal than her bogus lawyer claim.
Zacharia’s social media history suggests a worldview colored by baseless thinking, defamatory accusations and sinister fantasies — not exactly a good look for someone tasked with conveying the U.S. president’s policies and actions to the press and public with authority and integrity. The noxiousness of her posts and reposts was apparently evident even to her, since she deleted many of them before her new role was announced.
According to reporting by CNN, the Bulwark and the newsletter Popular Information, Zacharia has repeatedly accused people, particularly Democrats, of sexually molesting children. In April 2022, she reposted and later deleted a Truth Social post from “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander: “Democrats want to mask and rape your children. That’s their satanic platform.”
She repeatedly referred to Democratic operative and former White House chief of staff John Podesta as a “pedo,” apparently still connecting him to an outrageous child-abuse conspiracy theory that had been debunked years earlier. She later paid tribute to the late Robert David Steele, a conspiracist who claimed that children were being kidnapped and sent to a colony on Mars: “He was exposing the pedo rings of the elite cabal,” Zacharia wrote. “May he Rest in Peace and the work of his hands not have been in vain.” In another Truth Social post, she noted that “the radical left Hollywood elites are sick pedo cannibals.” She added, “Change my mind.”
If Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked.
Another of Zacharia’s reposts suggested that Joan Rivers’ death in 2014 was somehow connected to an insulting crack the comedian once made about the Obamas: “Remember that time Joan Rivers said Obama was gay and Michelle had a dick then suddenly died?”
This wasn’t the output of a mischievous teen troll; Zacharia’s controversial deleted posts and reposts date from as recently as 2022. By then, Zacharia was in her late 30s and had been employed in various senior communications roles, including most recently as an adviser to Truth Social, the Trump-owned social media platform.
Zacharia’s deleted posts on political issues were problematic for another reason. For instance, she re-posted and deleted a tweet accusing the Justice Department of covering up the crimes of people involved in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, an opinion at odds with the administration she was tapped to speak for. Last year, she advocated suspending habeas corpus — the fundamental right to challenge detention in court — for migrants arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an extreme and authoritarian measure. (Zacharia’s legal theory, if any, was that the Constitution justifies denial of this right in cases of rebellion or invasion.)
In its article Tuesday on this social media activity, CNN reported that neither Zacharia nor White House communications director Steven Cheung directly addressed the issue. In a statement, CNN reported, Cheung called her “uniquely qualified” and “whip smart to help inform the American people.” The White House responded to Popular Information’s request for comment by referring it “to the President’s TRUTH on Katie,” a post in which Trump praised Zacharia as “a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning.” Zacharia wasn’t asked about these posts in interviews with three conservative outlets, including Fox News, between Thursday and her ousting Friday.
Clearly, the safe space couldn’t last. Trump apparently realized that if she ever assumed the podium again, Zacharia would inevitably face a barrage of questions about herself. That, too, is problematic: A press secretary shouldn’t be the story. But Zacharia’s history of hair-raising statements rightly made her one.
The lawyergate bubble burst in just five days. On Thursday, in an interview with right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec — himself a noted purveyor of conspiracy theories — Zacharia acknowledged that she didn’t pass the California bar exam. On advice from legal experts, she said, she decided that it was proper to call herself a lawyer but not an “attorney.” She said much the same to the New York Times, which reported on Thursday that she had identified herself on LinkedIn as general counsel to a group led by a Trump loyalist. In the wake of a CNN report Thursday that Zacharia had shared at least 15 social media posts over the past two years in which she referred to herself as an attorney, she told Sean Hannity that those were retweets of a title she had been given — but she was out shortly after lunchtime Friday.
But if Trump does indeed find another role for Zacharia in his administration, questions should be asked. Among them: Did she really think Hollywood “elites” engaged in pedophilia and cannibalism? How did she come by this knowledge, and who are the individuals who’ve engaged in these repulsive crimes? Is the Justice Department still covering up Epstein’s crimes? Does she truly believe there’s a lost colony of kidnapped children on Mars? As press secretary, there was no way Zacharia could keep the public focus on war, the economy, healthcare and the midterm elections while also defending a conspiracy about Joan Rivers’ death. But a less prominent position doesn’t moot the questions that should be asked if Zacharia is drawing a taxpayer-funded salary.
For Trump, media controversy may be on brand. The White House’s most recent top spokesperson had been a font of misinformation, outrageous “theories” and mortifying lies. In view of her boss’ track record, that may not be a bug or even a feature. It may be why Zacharia got the job in the first place.
The post The real Katie Zacharia controversy wasn’t her claim to be a lawyer appeared first on MS NOW.
Zacharia’s departure came barely a week after she was named to the post, succeeding Karoline Leavitt, and after a heavily questioned first press briefing before the media.
RELATED: Trump’s Attack on Mail-In Voting Seeks to Create an Advantage for Republicans
The crisis was directly linked to doubts about her legal training. After initially announcing her and publicly describing her as a lawyer, questions arose over the past week as to whether she had actually passed the bar exam to practice as such, despite being a graduate of Pepperdine University’s law school in California.
Definitive confirmation of the suspicions came last Thursday, when Zacharia admitted in an interview with Fox News that she had not passed the bar exam. The revelation intensified media criticism and opened an intense debate about vetting and background-check processes at the White House.
Facing the media siege, Trump chose to intervene publicly Friday morning. Leaving the White House, Trump told reporters that he had directly advised Zacharia to reconsider remaining in the job given the hostility of the environment.
President Trump is a kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic, and hardworking man. I wish more Americans appreciated him. No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to.
— Katie Zacharia (@KatieZacharia) October 17, 2026
It was an honor to work for him. pic.twitter.com/Tp4NizrhE2
The U.S. president said there is no rush to immediately announce a replacement to fill the vacancy left by Zacharia at the press room podium.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order that puts on hold a sweeping new sanctions package targeting the Russian economy, telling Congress the pause was in the national interest.
Trump personally signed the legislation just last month and his move came just two days before a deadline set in the law itself for its implementation. It drew shift condemnation from congressional Democrats.
Named after late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the legislation had sought to clamp down more quickly on the flow of financial resources fueling the war against Ukraine.
Trump’s unexpected decision comes a week after he stunningly said the U.S. had agreed to purchase diesel from Russia to try to bring down global energy prices, despite that potentially hurting Ukraine in its war with Russia.
An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll published Oct. 1 found that Americans disapprove of the president’s handling of the Iran war and blame him for higher prices. Trump’s approval ratings have sunk to near-historic lows and pressure is mounting as Republicans try to hold control of both chambers of Congress after midterm elections on Nov. 3.
Graham, a close ally and friend of the president, had just returned from Ukraine when he unexpectedly died in July. He had advocated for stricter U.S. sanctions against Russia as a way of pressuring it to end its war in Ukraine.
His colleagues in Congress responded with bipartisan support after his death and Trump attached his signature to the legislation — then changed his mind Friday.
The package had been meant to starve Russian President Vladimir Putin of the resources Moscow needs to continue its war in Ukraine after invading its neighbor more than four years ago. The bill, also drafted by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., had sought to sanction Russian officials, banks and a shadow fleet of tankers that keeps Russian energy moving.
It also directed Trump to impose up to 100% tariffs on the top five importers of Russian oil or natural gas, with an exception for countries that import less than 15% of Russia’s natural gas exports and have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.
Blumenthal said in a statement that Trump was turning his back on “the majority of Americans, their representatives in both houses of Congress, and our European allies.”
“These waivers have nothing to do with our national security, and everything to do with sucking up to Vladimir Putin,” Blumenthal said.
Democratic Virginia Rep. Don Beyer noted on social media shortly after the announcement of the sanctions being suspended that he and others had “warned” Trump might make such a move. The veteran congressman, who spoke out against the bill as it was debated, called on Congress to “fix this flawed law to stop Trump from capitulating to Putin and ensure that it truly supports Ukraine.”
The White House did not immediately explain how pausing the sanctions was in the national interest. The decision was posted on the White House website late in the evening, and the notification noted that the report explaining the decision had been submitted to Congress.
Still, it comes as Trump has increasingly lashed out at Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, blaming him for failing to make a deal with Putin to end the fighting.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, had remained mostly quiet since the passage of the bill with large majorities in the House and Senate following Graham’s sudden death — with lawmakers urged ahead by Zelenskyy.
Under last week’s agreement, Trump said Russia would immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by an additional 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons “immediately thereafter.”
Trump’s striking a diesel deal with Putin has been pilloried by Republicans and Democrats alike who say it will help Russia execute its war against Ukraine — without making a different to global fuel prices, which are elevated mostly due to Trump’s war on Iran.
The sanctions that Trump has now suspended, meanwhile, also had become a campaign centerpiece for Sen. Darline Graham, the late senator’s sister who was appointed to serve out the remaining months in his current term. She is now running to replace him in the Senate more permanently.
Darline Graham said in a statement after Trump signed the bill, “I wish Lindsey were here to celebrate this historic day.” In a debate earlier this week with Democratic nominee Annie Andrews, Graham — who has Trump’s endorsement and is expected to campaign with him in South Carolina next week — said she had been “so proud” to help get the measure passed.
She acknowledged, however, that it was the president’s purview as to how he implemented it.
“It gives the president tools that he can use if he so chooses, to end the war through economic sanctions,” Graham said Sunday during a debate in Columbia. “So that’s up to him as to whether or not he wants to use it, or whether he wants to use something else, but I think the purpose of it is to bring down the gas prices and ultimately end the war. And when the war ends, gas prices will fall.”
The post Trump puts new Russia sanctions that he recently signed into law on hold, citing national interest appeared first on MS NOW.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Katie Zacharia's first briefing as President Donald Trump's press secretary was on Tuesday. By Friday, the White House confirmed she was out.
The record five-day tenure came after days of missteps by Zacharia, and amid two watchdog groups filing complaints with the State Bar of California on Wednesday, asking it to investigate whether she violated California law by calling herself a lawyer.
While the longest-serving press secretary was Stephen Early, who held the post for 12 years under Franklin D. Roosevelt, only four press secretaries have lasted under two months.
Here's a closer look at White House press secretaries with the shortest tenures.
Samuel Corum/Pool/FTWP
Katie Zacharia made her White House press briefing debut on Tuesday and quickly came under intense scrutiny over her legal credentials.
Shortly after Tuesday's briefing, she was asked which state she passed the bar exam in and replied: "When I moved to China."
On Thursday in an interview with right-wing provocateur Jack Posobiec, Zacharia said she took the bar exam but failed, and never retook it.
Zacharia moved to China after earning her law degree in 2011, and told Posobiec she had already preregistered for the bar exam before moving to Beijing, where her husband was working at an American private equity firm.
"I didn't want to withdraw from that," Zacharia said of the bar exam. "And we knew we would be moving out to China, and I was obviously incredibly distracted and overwhelmed and excited for finally being married to someone who I had been long-distance from for at least a year."
She served as press secretary between October 12 and October 16.
Original Caption
Stephen Early is both the longest-serving press secretary in US history and the press secretary with the second-shortest tenure.
He was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's press secretary for 12 years, from 1933 to March 1945.
Early then briefly returned as acting press secretary under President Harry S. Truman in December 1950 after the death of press secretary Charles Ross.
Early was in the position for 14 days, from December 5 to December 18, 1950.
UPI/Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
Jerald TerHorst served as President Gerald Ford's press secretary for over one month, from August 9 to September 8, 1974.
He resigned in protest of Ford's pardon of former President Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal.
TerHorst said he could not defend Ford's decision in good conscience, despite his long-standing friendship with the president.
Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
Jonathan Daniels served a short tenure as press secretary at the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency and at the beginning of Harry S. Truman's.
That brings his tenure to 48 days, from March 29 to May 15, 1945.
He was appointed shortly before Roosevelt's death and stayed on temporarily to help Truman transition into the presidency.
Truman then selected Charles Ross as Daniels' replacement.
Katie Zacharia may not be a licensed lawyer, but as they say, she plays one on TV. Or at least, she did.
On Friday, the White House confirmed Zacharia would no longer be serving as President Donald Trump’s press secretary, just three days after her first and only media briefing. Her ouster followed criticism from pundits, ethics experts and, perhaps more importantly for Trump, a less-than-friendly interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News.
Zacharia’s removal was also preceded by a California state bar ethics complaint alleging the now former press secretary had been incorrectly labeling herself a lawyer despite lacking a license to practice law. Indeed, when Trump was asked in front of cameras Wednesday in which state she had passed the bar exam, Zacharia responded, “When I moved to China.”
Zacharia has spent the past few days attempting damage control, for good reason. Few jobs require more public trust than representing the president of the United States. But trust, just like a license to practice law, must be earned.
Zacharia graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law in 2011. But that is not the same thing as being a licensed attorney, a term derived from the word “appointed” that refers to a lawyer who represents clients. State bar authorities regulate their profession, providing law licenses only to applicants who pass a rigorous written examination. The bar examination tests a broad array of legal topics, including criminal law, evidence, torts, property, constitutional law, contract law and professional responsibility, among others. Applicants must also pass a background check for “moral character” to determine whether any events in their past might cast doubt on their integrity to serve as an officer of the court.
Even after a person is admitted to the bar, lawyers must continue to pay annual dues to the state licensing authority, fulfill any continuing legal education requirements and refrain from any legal misconduct. The goal of regulators is to ensure that clients are represented only by lawyers with the requisite training, capability and trustworthiness.
According to the bar complaint filed by Campaign for Accountability, a nonprofit watchdog organization, Zacharia is not admitted to practice law in any U.S. state, including California, where she lived until her recent move to Washington, D.C. According to The Wall Street Journal, Zacharia sat for the California bar after law school but did not pass. She then worked at a law firm in Beijing for two years, but China licenses only Chinese nationals to practice law. Even if she were licensed in China, that would not be sufficient to practice law in the U.S.
California law makes it a misdemeanor to advertise or hold oneself out as “practicing law or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active licensee of the State Bar.” Zacharia’s representations that she is a “lawyer” in television appearances for Fox News may have been misleading, but they likely do not arise to the level of holding oneself out as entitled to practice law under the statute.
For her part, Zacharia told The New York Times that this was all a misunderstanding, and that Pepperdine’s president personally told her it was fine to identify as a “lawyer” when appearing on cable TV, but that she should avoid “attorney” or “esquire.” (She also tried to clean up her earlier “moved to China” comment by claiming she had thought the question she was being asked was, “Where were you after law school?”)
But the questions about her conduct don’t end there. According to Zacharia’s LinkedIn profile, she served as general counsel for a conservative advocacy organization called Fix California, founded by former Trump administration official Richard Grenell, from 2024 to 2025. The general counsel is typically the top lawyer of an organization. That title suggests someone who is actively practicing law by providing legal advice for the organization and is permitted to accept service of process on its behalf. Recipients of correspondence on letterhead from someone using the title of general counsel would certainly assume that the writer was licensed to practice law. Using the title “general counsel” would seem to be “holding oneself out as entitled to practice law.” And without a license, that use would put Zacharia in violation of California law.
Similar accusations have been made against Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan, who uses the title “doctor” despite never having practiced medicine. What is different about El-Sayed is that he not only graduated from medical school but he also obtained a doctoral degree in public health from Oxford University in England, earning the degree — and title — of “doctor.”
Zacharia’s tenure may be historically short, but her hiring still raises questions about the vetting the administration uses in hiring candidates for important positions. While some may argue that Zacharia’s position as press secretary does not require a law degree, her resume puffing should have been disqualifying for a White House role built on credibility. America must be able to have some amount of confidence in the person representing the presidential agenda in the briefing room.
Of course, Trump voters have long made peace with accepting a president who lies. What difference does it make if his press secretary did, too?
The post The rise and fall of TV ‘lawyer’ Katie Zacharia appeared first on MS NOW.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Katie Zacharia is out as White House press secretary after five days on the job, officials confirmed on Friday.
The lawyer-ish-person-turned-White House spokesperson had a rocky debut at the podium on Tuesday, during which she stumbled over prepared remarks and later raised eyebrows after she told a reporter that she passed the bar in China.
President Donald Trump said on Friday that he told Zacharia to reconsider the role. Later that day, a White House official told Business Insider that Zacharia was "transitioning out" of the position.
By standards of the Trump White House, which had a notorious revolving door during the first go-round, that's pretty short.
There are a lot of other things that lasted longer than Zacharia's tenure. Here are 10 of them.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Scaramucci's firing in July 2017 became a spectacle, not least in part because of his notably short tenure.
First came a profanity-laced call to a New Yorker reporter, in which Scaramucci badmouthed some of his colleagues in the White House. Then came John F. Kelly, laying down the law in the West Wing by firing Scaramucci and making an example of him on his first day on the job as chief of staff.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Sally Yates lasted exactly One Mooch.
Yates was a holdover from the second Obama Administration, taking on the AG role after Loretta Lynch stepped down at Trump's inauguration in 2017.
Her position as attorney general was expected to be short. Still, acting AGs from the previous administration typically held on to their roles until the incoming president picked a new attorney general, who would then be confirmed by the Senate.
Yates was fired after she told the Justice Department not to defend Trump's first travel-ban executive order.
UPI/Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
After Zacharia, TerHorst takes the record for the second shortest-serving White House press secretary.
TerHorst served under President Gerald Ford from August 9, 1974, to September 8, 1974. He resigned in protest after Ford granted Richard Nixon a full pardon.
Yui Mok/PA Images via Getty Images
An opinion piece in The Economist quipped that Truss' premiership will have the "shelf-life of a lettuce."
The comment came after Truss's economic package immediately unnerved investors, sending the pound and government-bond markets spiraling.
Thus, the lettuce meme was born. On October 14, 2022, Daily Star, a tabloid newspaper, was inspired by The Economist's comment and set up a livestream of a lettuce wearing a wig: "Will Liz Truss outlast this lettuce?"
She didn't. Truss resigned six days later. She was the PM from September 6 to October 25, 2022.
Ricardo DeAratanha/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Keeping in theme with the foods that last longer than political positions: The US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service says a hard-boiled egg can be stored in the fridge for up to seven days.
The Print Collector/Getty Images
Lady Jane Grey was proclaimed queen on July 10, 1553, but her half-sister, Mary — the eldest daughter of Henry VIII — gathered enough political support to overthrow her. Mary would claim the crown on July 19, 1553.
Grey became known as the "Nine Days Queen" and was executed by beheading in 1554.
NASA/Newsmakers
The Apollo 11 crew spent more time in space than Zacharia did as the press secretary: 8 days, 3 hours, 18 minutes, and 35 seconds to be exact.
We can dig in more. Zacharia's first press briefing lasted about 14 minutes, according to recordings. Neil Armstrong spent more time walking on the moon: 2 hours, 31 minutes, and 37 seconds, a NASA report said. Buzz Aldrin was on the moon for about 40 minutes less, according to the report.
Dan Porges/Getty Images
The 1967 conflict between Israel and neighboring Arab states was so short that its duration became its namesake. The war lasted from June 5 to June 10, 1967.
Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images
You have more time to binge-watch "Severance" or "Ted Lasso" on Apple TV than Zacharia had time in the White House.
Maybe we shouldn't point this out unless we want Apple to realize there are shorter things than the company's free-trial policy.
Paul Drinkwater/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank
Reality TV star Kim Kardashian married NBA player Kris Humphries on August 20, 2011. She filed for divorce on October 31, 2011.
To be fair, this may still be more of a reflection on Kardashian than on Zacharia. You would hope a marriage lasts longer than five days, right? Then again, this is the longest thing on the list, so you go, Kim!
MS NOW legal analyst Andrew Weissmann said President Donald Trump’s disregard for court orders has turned the nation’s justice system into a laughingstock.
“The Trump administration is making the courts look like fools,” he said.
With the midterm elections quickly approaching, Weissmann warned it is time for America’s judges to work “faster and smarter” before it’s too late.
“The administration, over and over again, is doing things unilaterally without permission and, at times, in violation of court orders,” the former Justice Department official explained.
According to an analysis from The Associated Press earlier this year, district court judges have found the second Trump administration violated or failed to follow federal court orders in at least 31 lawsuits and in more than 250 individual immigration cases.
When the court does intervene, sometimes it’s already too late, Weissmann said, pointing to the administration’s use of taxpayer dollars to run ads for the president. When a federal judge blocked that effort, it was only after nearly $22 million had already been spent.
“Tens of millions of people saw those ads, paid for by you and me,” he said.
Weissmann argued that Trump’s DOJ has effectively taken a “do now and ask questions later” approach to the law.
“The court only belatedly says, ‘Hey, don’t do that.’ But the damage is already done, and you can’t put the genie back in the bottle,” he said.
The former federal prosecutor said it was time for courts to be “faster and smarter” in responding to Trump’s blatantly illegal moves, and he cautioned against setting “a permission structure for this administration,” especially as the election approaches.
“What I am worried about is: The midterms are coming up, and is this going to be a government that goes ahead and seizes ballots with the idea that we can break the chain of custody, we can make it impossible to count votes? And maybe later a court will say, ‘You shouldn’t have done that,’ but the damage will have been done,” he explained.
“There has to be a deterrent,” Weissmann warned. “And courts have to be faster and smarter to not get outplayed.”
You can watch Weissmann’s full comments in the clip above.
The post ‘Faster and smarter’: Legal analyst warns courts they can’t let Trump outplay them appeared first on MS NOW.
Login