Note: Please join me for a Holiday Livestream on Saturday, December 20, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific / Noon Eastern. Jill and I will reflect on the past year and toast the new year with orange juice in champagne flutes! Bring your own bagel or donut and a favorite beverage! Instructions for joining the livestream can be found here.
Trump’s Epstein cover-up continues.
The DOJ flagrantly violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Friday in almost every way imaginable. But before detailing the DOJ’s contumacy,1 let’s take two minutes to recognize how far we have come.
We can point to the DOJ’s lawlessness only because Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act by a margin of 427 to 1. Trump signed the Act because 88% of Americans supported disclosure of all or some of the files. The discharge petition forced a vote in the House because four Republicans joined with all Democrats to overcome Speaker Mike Johnson’s eleven-month cover-up to protect Trump—including by keeping the House out of session for 55 days!
But most of all, we must point to the years-long struggle by the survivors to demand justice and accountability. Few people believed the day would come when Congress would require the release of the Epstein files. The fact that we arrived at this moment should be viewed as proof that grassroots activism works. The battle is not over, but we have concrete evidence that our efforts are worthwhile.
Let’s celebrate the progress we have made, even as we condemn the DOJ’s flagrant violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.
On Friday, the DOJ released a partial, heavily redacted set of documents that violated the spirit and the letter of the Act. See The Guardian, Latest Epstein files release ‘grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and letter of the law’, says congressman.
Indeed, the release was so inadequate that it is best described as a political stunt. The DOJ released only a handful of documents that mentioned Trump, while going out of its way to release photos that featured group photos of Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson, Richard Branson, and other prominent figures who are not (so far) accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. (Indeed, Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that the files contained no evidence of wrongdoing by Bill Clinton.)
Bondi and her chief deputy, Todd Blanche, took a casual, entitled view of the obligation to comply with the Act. On Friday, Blanche said that the complete production could take several weeks.
The redactions were so excessive and numerous that they scream “cover up.” GOP Rep. Thomas Massie suggested that Attorney General Pam Bondi could be guilty of obstruction of justice for failing to comply with the deadlines and disclosure requirements of the Act.
As a senior officer of the US, Bondi could (and should) be impeached for violating the statute. See Newsweek, Pam Bondi issued impeachment ultimatum ahead of Epstein files deadline. (“Ro Khanna of California said that Attorney General Pam Bondi could be “held in inherent contempt of Congress” or would be “subject to impeachment” if files related to Jeffrey Epstein are not released by this week’s deadline.”)
The initial review of the first tranche of files is ongoing as of Friday evening, so there is little to report other than the DOJ’s lawless refusal to comply with the Act.
Although Trump, Bondi, Blanche, and others may believe they are winning by playing hide-the-ball, they are instead keeping the Epstein sex trafficking conspiracy front and center in Trump’s failing presidency.
And by heavily redacting the released files, Trump is making it appear that he is hiding incriminating information. One of Trump’s most steadfast supporters, Alex Jones, has said that Trump is “falling into a trap” by withholding information. See Raw Story, ‘Disaster for Trump’: MAGA conspiracist loses it over new Epstein files. (Alex Jones said, “This is a disaster for Trump. And I predicted it and everybody predicted it, that if he obliquely joined the cover-up, the Democrats would selectively hang it around his neck.”)
Alex Jones is not wrong. If Trump is going to act like he is guilty by leading a cover-up, Democrats would be remiss if they failed to highlight that fact at every possible opportunity. Trump will never be able to escape the stench of the Epstein crimes.
If the truth is released, Trump’s involvement will likely confirm everything we suspect, and more. If the files are not released, the American public will assume the worst. It is a lose-lose situation for Trump.
Still, we must never forget that the release of the files is first and foremost about justice for the women and accountability for the perpetrators. Until we achieve those twin goals, we cannot rest.
Trump places his name on the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
Less than 24 hours after the Board of Trustees illegally voted to add his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, workmen attached the words “The Donald J. Trump And” above the words “Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
As explained in yesterday’s newsletter, the name of the Kennedy Center is set by federal statute. The Board of Trustees has no authority to change the name. But Trump engaged in self-help by directing workers at the center to attach gaudy gold letters to the front of the Kennedy Center. Clearly, Trump had planned for weeks or months to be able to attach the letters less than 24 hours after the vote.
Chris Geidner of Law Dork (on Substack) interviewed the vice president for Facilities and Operations at the Kennedy Center, Matt Floca, as he was supervising the defacement of the Kennedy Center. See A brief Q&A with the guy slapping Trump’s name on the Kennedy Center.
As reported by Chris Geidner, the VP of Facilities and Operations said, “I am just doing my job” and asked to be left alone.
At some point, “I am just doing my job” is not an acceptable answer for federal employees.
But the real blame lies with Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who told Trump he can do anything he wants without fear of criminal liability. Except for Trump, John Roberts is the person most responsible for the lawless reign of Trump’s second term. Read on!
Commentators begin calling for radical reform of the Supreme Court.
As Democrats begin thinking about life after Trump (and a trifecta), the central role of the Supreme Court in Trump’s corruption is finally beginning to draw the attention it deserves.
In The Guardian, Ryan Doerfler (Harvard) and Samuel Moyn (Yale) note that “institutionalists” are already beginning to advocate for a slow, incremental approach to reforming the Court after Democrats regain control of the government. The authors argue that the Court has so delegitimized itself that nothing short of truly radical reform will save democracy. See The Guardian, It’s time to accept that the US supreme court is illegitimate and must be replaced.
The authors’ concluding paragraph states,
In Trump’s second term, the Republican-appointed majority on the supreme court has brought their institution to the brink of illegitimacy. Far from pulling it back from the edge, our goal has to be to push it off.
We are in this mess because Joe Biden and Merrick Garland failed to act with the urgency necessary to ensure that Trump could never hold public office again. Garland, in particular, worked with the primary goal of protecting the DOJ’s reputation. As a result, he ensured the abject debasement and humiliation of the institution he sought to protect.
If we do not act boldly and quickly when we next have the chance, the damage Trump has inflicted on the DOJ and the Supreme Court may last a generation. Expand the number of justices to the point that the reactionary majority is impotent, and then begin a three-year plan to reverse every lawless, racist, anti-democratic decision issued by the Roberts Court.
Another idea is to split the Supreme Court into two divisions—one that hears cases within the “original jurisdiction” of the Court, and one that hears cases in the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.
Although this sounds like not much of a change, it would allow the assignment of “senior” justices to cases that are almost never presented to the Court—so-called cases of “original jurisdiction” involving (e.g.) disputes between princes and ambassadors. See Daily Kos, After the wave: Fixing the Supreme Court.
The Daily Kos article says in part,
We will need Congress to pass a new law that pushes the older justices aside and ties them up handling cases that don’t mean much to the American people.
The new law would say, “Justices of the Supreme Court who have served for 15 years or more shall be assigned to Division A of the court.
Division A will hear all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;—all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction . . . (These are cases that the existing Supreme Court now hears with “original jurisdiction.” It means the Supreme Court handles these cases from beginning to end with no trials in the lower courts.)
The statute should go on to say, “Division B shall be made up of justices who have served less than 15 years on the Supreme Court. After the year 2028, the president may appoint additional justices to this body . . . .
I like this idea a lot, and would be interested in hearing from lawyers, law professors, and readers about this approach. It would need to be combined with an expansion of the Court to dilute the votes of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
No more half measures or “incrementalism” to save the non-existent legitimacy of the Court. We cannot repeat the mistakes of Biden and Garland.
Concluding Thoughts
The Republican Party is coming unglued. It will take a while to gain a full head of steam, but the fear of Trump that has held the GOP together for the last eight years is beginning to dissolve. The far-right wing of the party is engaged in a civil war that is so complicated it hurts to read articles that describe the internecine wars. See Politico, MAGA infighting erupts at Turning Point USA Conference.
The exodus of women from Trump’s orbit continued with Elise Stefanik announcing that she was dropping out of the race for New York Governor. Stefanik will also give up her seat in the House. See Reuters, Elise Stefanik, loyal Trump ally, ends New York governor bid and will leave politics.
And Wyoming’s Senator Cynthia Lummis announced that she will not run for re-election after serving a single term. See Wyoming GOP Sen. Cynthia Lummis announces she won’t seek re-election.
Flipping her seat will be a long shot, but not impossible. At the very least, Republicans will lose the advantage of incumbency in defending the seat. And Wyoming’s sole representative in the House, Harriet Hageman, may give up her seat to run for Senate. That would put two Wyoming seats in play for Democrats.
There is always turnover in advance of midterms. Republicans are currently retiring at a slightly higher pace than Democrats (28 to 23), but that ratio should tip in our favor as more congressional Republicans recognize their seats are at risk.
I raise these points not to say that we will have an easy time of it in 2026 and beyond. Instead, I believe 2026 will be a time of transition for Democrats, testing our unity. Change is always tricky. So, when we read articles about the alleged “war” within the Democratic Party, we should keep our transitions in perspective in comparison to the GOP civil war.
Republicans are unwinding from a toxic relationship with Trump and dealing with the white nationalists and conspiracy theorists he admitted to a party that was organized around tax cuts. Democrats are dealing with issues of generational leadership transition and disagreements over which policies will best serve the American people. The challenges facing Democrats and Republicans could not be more different.
So, let’s take a breath and recognize that we are engaged in a healthy debate about the future of our party. That is good and necessary for progress, as long as we deal with each other in good faith and recognize that we are all fighting to preserve democracy.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Pro-democracy protest photos
40 degrees and windy, but we are in high spirits! Georgia Ave and Forest Glen, Maryland
Silver Spring, MD
Pullman, WA. The group is “The Pullman Saturday Rally for Sanity,” started by Syd and her partner, Duff. We have been gathering on a busy street corner every Saturday since early May.
We live on the “Space Coast” of Florida in a very red district and surrounded by Republican neighbors. Several weeks ago, I placed this sign on my car after you posted “WE MUST ALL BE MARK KELLY”. Not a single negative response, and the same with several pro-democracy yard signs and the messaging t-shirts I’ve worn daily for almost two years. We do have a choice….and we will continue to resist!
Sonoma, CA
This was just what I needed today. Traveling home after doing errands, there it was!!! Inspiration and verification on how to keep going.
[Author’s note: I appreciate being credited with the quote below since I repeat it often, but I did not originate it. I don’t know who did, so anyone who can source the quote would be greatly appreciated!]
Contumacy: (noun) - stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, especially disobedience to a court order or summons.
The word “contumacy” is the perfect fit for many of the Trump administration’s actions. Tuck it in your pocket for future use!
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed
You must log in or # to comment.