Thursday, October 01, 2026

The Snapshot

Thursday, October 1, 2026.  Chump's failures remain evident as the midterms loom, an unneeded war on Iran claims another US service members' life, the war of choice also continues to destroy the US economy, Pete Hegseth makes a fool of himself in a new speech, the courts are not being intimidated by Toad Blanche's hissy fits, and much more. 






Early voting has already started in some states but it is now 33 days until the midterms.  33 days.  Martha McHardy (DAILY BEAST) reports: 

Donald Trump has been dealt another brutal polling blow as Americans turn their backs on the president.
The president has received the highest disapproval rating of his second term, at 61 percent, weeks before the crucial November midterms.
The September 19-25 Angus Reid USA survey of 1,205 American adults found just 34 percent approve of the president’s governance, and that his support remains heavily concentrated among his core MAGA base.
A total of 94 percent of self-identified MAGA Republicans approve of his performance. But the picture is considerably weaker among other Republicans. While 59 percent of that cohort approves of Trump, 38 percent disapprove.
Independents are far more critical, with a sizable 72 percent saying they disapprove of Trump’s performance.
The results are a bad omen for the GOP ahead of the Nov. 3 polls, which are largely seen as a referendum on Trump’s leadership.

Andrew Stanton (NEWSWEEK) reports on a different poll but its results aren't any more encouraging for Chump:

President Donald Trump’s net approval rating fell to its lowest point of his second term in a new Quinnipiac University poll released on Tuesday.

Trump’s net approval rating fell to -27 points, his worst showing yet in any of the pollster’s surveys. He received positive marks from 34 percent of respondents, while 61 percent disapproved of him.

It marks a shift from a Quinnipiac poll released September 10, when his net approval rating was -26 points, with 59 percent disapproving and 33 percent approving of the president.

Trump’s approval rating holds major implications for the midterm elections, and Election Day is now only five weeks away.

Amanda Marcotte (SALON) notes another poll -- this one questioning your faith in whether or not he'd keep his promise to give every adult American $5,000 if the Republicans kept control of both houses of Congress:

Worse for him, only 13% of Americans, according to an analysis by G. Elliott Morris, are willing to tell a pollster they buy the president’s $5,000 check lie, showing that even people who claim to approve of him can’t be bothered to trust him any longer. 

People could be learning from experience. As Catherine Rampell of the Bulwark detailed, the $5,000 check promise is only the latest in a long list of false second-term promises that Americans would be receiving fat checks from the government. Her “partial list” includes these examples:

$5,000 stimulus checks via a “DOGE dividend” (February 2025)
$2,000 stimulus checks via a “rebate” or tariff “dividend” (July 2025, August 2025, November 2025, December 2025, February 2026)
Checks of indeterminate value that would redirect money that would have been spent on Affordable Care Act subsidies (November 2025)
$500 Obamacare “rebate” checks (September 2026)
$5,000 “dividend” if Republicans win the midterms (yesterday) 
Thankfully, there now appears to be a limit to the number of times a fraudster can promise the check is in mail before even some MAGA voters start to wonder if they’re being had. Most clung to two big reasons to justify their vote in 2024: the president’s promises to lower prices and end foreign wars. Trump broke both in a dramatic fashion, starting a war with Iran and a trade war with, well, much of the world, both of which have escalated inflation, particularly of fuel prices. Even his most ardent followers are reminded of his lies every time they buy groceries or gas. Running ads that repeat his failed promises only serve to remind people of the broken trust. 


President Donald Trump raised eyebrows on June 10 when he declared, “I love the inflation,” while discussing the latest inflation report and the ongoing conflict involving Iran (1). At the time, the May Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed prices had jumped 4.2% from a year earlier — the biggest annual increase since April 2023.

Trump was still feeling pretty good about inflation the following month. On July 17, after the June CPI showed consumer prices had fallen 0.4% from the previous month, he called the numbers “such great news,” pointing to what he described as the biggest monthly drop in more than six years (2).
But the latest numbers tell a somewhat less rosy story. The July CPI, released Aug. 12, showed prices were up 3.4% from a year earlier (3). Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, rose 3.7% over the same period (4). Both are still well above the Fed’s 2% target.

Chump did make an effort on beef prices.  It wasn't a good effort and it didn't really help but at least, for a moment or two, it had his attention.  Eric Levitz (VOX) reports:

On most fronts, President Donald Trump has shown little concern for reducing Americans’ cost of living ahead of November’s midterms. 

Trump has refused to accept Iran’s ceasefire proposals, even as the conflict pushes fuel costs to new heights. And he’s declined to abandon his trade wars — with US adversaries and allies alike — even as tariffs nudge up Americans’ expenses. 

Yet there is one area where Trump has recently tried to lower consumer prices in an economically coherent way, and it’s been a political disaster.
In late August, the president lowered tariffs on up to 661 million pounds of imported lean beef trimmings, a key ingredient in hamburger meat.

This policy directly addressed a genuine problem facing US consumers: Ground beef prices were roughly 8 percent higher last month than they had been one year earlier. And unlike many of the White House’s other ideas for increasing affordability, the meat imports proposal comported with conventional economic logic: If you reduce input costs for meat processors, they’ll be able to sell beef at lower prices. 
By endorsing this reasoning, the Trump administration was implicitly rebuking its own theory of trade economics (which holds that tariffs increase costs for foreign companies, not American consumers). In doing so, Trump also put voters’ material interests — and economists’ conventional wisdom — above his ideological hangups.

And he’s paying dearly for it. 

Instead of appeasing cash-strapped shoppers, the beef imports policy has mostly just aggravated (already aggrieved) agricultural firms. All across the farm belt, cattle ranchers are incensed by Trump aiding their foreign competition — after the president had already depressed their sales through tariffs and increased their costs via his Iran war and immigration policies. 

Cowpokes aren’t alone in resenting the White House’s affronts to agricultural interests. In dark red states like Kansas and Iowa, Democratic candidates have become highly competitive, while Republicans are racing to distance themselves from the president, in part by going after his beef plan directly.

Which raises the question: How and why did Trump’s plan for cheaper hamburgers go so wrong?






The Justice Department filed a judicial misconduct complaint against nearly all the federal judges in Minnesota, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Wednesday, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the judicial branch.

The administration’s demand that the judges be disqualified from immigration-related cases was prompted by a recent New York Times article in which six federal judges described the Justice Department’s failure to comply with court orders during an immigration-enforcement surge as a grave threat to the rule of law.

In their comments, judges focused on how DOJ staffing shortages appeared to inhibit the administration in its ability to comply with their orders – similar to comments they have previously made in legal settings. But Blanche on Wednesday said the comments were “overtly political” in violation of judicial rules and that they reflected an “an obvious bias” against the Department of Homeland Security.

While the ethics complaint is pending at the federal appeals court that the oversees Minnesota’s federal bench, Blanche is calling on the district court judges to recuse from DHS-related cases.


The laughable Toad Blanche.  





Lawyer and journalist Katie Phang cheered a Minnesota federal judge's swift reply to Attorney General Todd Blanche's judicial misconduct complaint.

Phang broke down the filing in a video Wednesday on the Katie Phang News Channel. The Justice Department lodged the complaint with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against U.S. District Judges Patrick Schiltz and John Tunheim, along with unnamed colleagues on Minnesota's federal bench. It targets comments they made to The New York Times for a September 17 article on the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in the state.

The complaint, signed by DOJ officials Stanley Woodward and Trent McCotter, accuses the judges of "unethical and partisan commentary" and asks that they be recused from cases involving the Department of Homeland Security. It also seeks an investigation into judges who it says "covet publicity."

In the Times piece, Schiltz, who served as the court's chief judge last winter, called the Trump administration's actions "a grave threat to the rule of law" and said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated nearly 100 court orders in January alone. Phang noted that Judge Nancy Brasel, a Trump appointee, was among the seven judges who spoke to the paper.

Phang then read Schiltz's response, as reported by Politico's Kyle Cheney.

"As legal ethics experts have confirmed, I was acting well within the ethical rules that apply to federal judges in speaking to the New York Times," Schiltz said. "Indeed, in February of this year, the Committee on Codes of Conduct issued an advisory opinion to emphasize that federal judges may speak and write on core judiciary matters such as advocacy for the rule of law and judicial independence. That is exactly what I did."



In other legal news, Chump has used US tax payer monies to air campaign ads featuring him in the last week.  Kathryn Rubino (ABOVE THE LAW) notes: 

Donald Trump has found a new way to spend your money on himself. This weekend, the White House rolled out its latest government-paid “public service announcement,” and this one doesn’t bother pretending to be something other than a campaign ad, because, well, it is one. The spot is a near-exact copy of a 2024 Trump campaign ad — Trump striding down a hallway, calling on viewers to join his fight to “expel the warmongers from our government” (the irony is on overload with the man who started a war with Iran) with the old campaign logo trimmed off the end and “Paid for by the U.S. government” slapped on instead. It aired during college football, NFL games, and “Fox News Sunday,” a few weeks before the midterms.

Richard Painter, George W. Bush’s chief White House ethics lawyer, so not a guy who arrived at the resistance by birth, did not mince words, writing on X, “this could be an impeachable offense. @POTUS has no right to use taxpayer money for campaign ads. Congress has expressly prohibited government sponsored political propaganda, which is dangerous for democracy.”

Painter is not alone in his assessment. “The president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it,” Norm Eisen, who did the ethics job in Barack Obama’s White House and has sued the Trump administration several times, told the New York Times. “The prior ad was bad enough, but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct.” Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, was just as blunt, “A divisive campaign commercial paid for by the U.S. government defies the Hatch Act’s very purpose.”
So what does the White House have to say for itself? On Friday, it published a defense with the extremely confident title “Presidential Public Service Announcements Are Nothing New.” The argument goes like this: these can’t be campaign ads because Trump isn’t on the ballot and there’s no call to action, and anyway, Bush did it, Obama did it, Biden did it, and so did Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
Let’s take those in order. Trump isn’t on the ballot, except that he’s told voters to “pretend” he is. There’s no call to action, except that the new ad asks viewers to join his fight. And Wilson and FDR were selling world wars, which is a different vibe from a midterm cycle.
To use the technical term, the defense is weak-ass s[**]t.


Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued the following statement on Chump's use of tax payer monies for his own campaigning:

Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Joe Morelle, Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Member of the Committee on Appropriations, sent a letter to President Donald Trump demanding information about the production of a new television advertisement with the disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. Government.”

While Americans are struggling to pay rent, feed their families, and afford a trip to the doctor, Donald Trump and Republicans have done nothing to address the crushing cost of living crisis. Instead, they have prioritized vanity projects like this advertisement and flagrantly abused hardworking taxpayer dollars while escalating the conflict abroad in Iran, leading to the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Recession.

“This advertisement indicates a potential significant misuse of taxpayer funds and federal government resources for what appears to be political advertising. Given the proximity to the November midterm elections, this advertisement—and the circumstances surrounding its development and production—warrants an immediate investigation,” the Members wrote.

The Ranking Members demanded the Trump administration immediately cease airing the advertisement. They also outlined that Americans have a right to know:

  1. Whether any federal agency or office authorized and paid for the advertisement and if so, which one;

  2. Where the advertisement was written and developed—specifically whether any part of the advertisement was produced on government property or with government resources;

  3. The specific appropriation and statutory authority used to fund and justify the advertisement;

  4. What person or persons individually authorized and approved the advertisement’s development and content; and

  5. What, if any, legal review of relevant federal statutes was conducted before it was broadcast

The Members continued, “the President of the United States already has broad latitude to speak publicly and advocate for his or her policies. Neither you nor your unnamed ideological apparatchiks, however, have the power to funnel taxpayer-funded government resources toward a political advertisement. Such behavior deepens the American people’s preexisting fury at your Administration’s rampant corruption and injures the civic health of our nation. While federal law already limits the ability of the White House to produce advertisements of this nature, it may be that Congress must consider what further legislation is needed to strengthen these guardrails to ensure that no future president—no matter how personally insecure—is able to abuse taxpayer resources as you have.”

###



Turning to Chump's stooge Pete Hegseth.  When your confirmation hearing results in a tie -- 50 for you, 50 against -- that JD Vance has to break, you might enter the office with humility and a desire to prove to everyone that you can do the job.  Hegseth's only desire has been for booze.  Joe Sommerlad (INDEPENDENT) reported ysterday: 


Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will use his State of the Force address Wednesday to announce he is cutting 20 percent of senior military positions in his latest purge at the Pentagon, according to a report.
The secretary’s speech – coming a year on from his first table-setting lecture to top brass at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia – is expected to lay out his priorities for the next 12 months and include his reduction plans for the Army, Navy and Air Force, a September memo seen by Fox News indicates.
The memo directs Pentagon officials to identify which among the roughly 800 general and flag officer positions can be downgraded as part of an emphasis on creating a culture of “less generals, more GIs.”
Hegseth’s new target doubles the 10 percent reduction in senior roles he ordered last year and is expected to be implemented by January 1, 2027.


The Defense Department on Tuesday announced plans to stop hiring civilians for tenured faculty positions at U.S. military service academies, a move that would make it easier to fire some professors in the future.

In a memo, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the change was needed to ensure the academies are focused on their “warfighting mission” of training military leaders.

“Tenure often leads to academic stagnation, faculty complacency and institutional inability to adapt to emerging needs,” Hegseth said in the memo. “Additionally, it contributes to curriculum that drifts from the mission of educating our warfighters to the research priorities of the tenured academics.”
The move appears to be the latest by the Trump administration to make it easier to fire government workers for any reason. In June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reclassify about 8,000 senior federal workers, despite complaints that the move would politicize the civil service.

It’s also the latest effort by the Trump administration to exert more control over professors at military service academies.

Last year, a tenured civilian professor sued West Point after the academy barred faculty members from publishing papers, speaking at conferences or appearing on podcasts without first seeking approval from higher-ups. Tim Bakken, the professor, was featured in a Washington Post story in July.


Remember the Pentagon has been hacked.  Andy Edser (PC GAMER) notes:

After the FBI data breach we reported on last week, in which a hacking group claimed it had stolen data on "all FBI employees", a US defence official has confirmed that the Pentagon also fell victim to a cybersecurity breach. Except this one appears to be much larger, lasted for longer, and is potentially very worrying for many civilian US government employees and serving military personnel alike.

According to ABC News, the official said that the "Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) information system experienced unauthorized access of personally identifiable information by a small number of unauthorized users between October 2025 and July 2026."

The DMDC is one of the Pentagon's main data repositories for personnel records, including info on active-duty and reserve troops, alongside civilian employees, contractors, and military veterans. All told, the breach is said to affect 2.76 million living people, and around 294,000 who are deceased.

Once the unauthorized access was discovered, the DMDC "immediately remediated the vulnerability." The data is said to have included Social Security numbers and details about military and civilian job positions, but defence officials say they've found no evidence so far that the exposed information was misused.


All of this goes into how unpopular Priss Pot Pete is in Congress.  US House Rep Thomas Massie forced Speaker of the Closet Mike Johnson to send the House home early when Massie introduced his articles of impeachment against Hegseth.  Massie's not the only Republican in Congress who has had it with Hegseth.  Jason Miciak (RAW STORY) notes:

You can hear it in their voices, the words they use, the issues brought up, the frustration evolving into tinged anger, and the conviction — no more, you're pushing it, really pushing it.

Republican senators have been talking about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth a lot more lately, and that's bad news at a particularly bad time for him, as he already faces eight articles of impeachment once the House returns (assuming it ever returns).
But it is even worse news for Donald Trump.
Because for all the talk about Hegseth's recklessness in firing officers, bumbling the war, running through money, self-aggrandizement, and self-satisfaction, it's all but impossible for these Republicans to keep Hegseth's name straight in these sentences. It is amazing they don't realize that it's not obvious that everything they say applies equally to Trump, if not more to Trump, and that this is a coded message: "If we come after your guy, the one you still strongly support, and we are coming, there's only one last hill to climb between him and you."
The cynics will laugh this away, and to a degree they are right. We cycle through this. But as has been said here too many times, we've never cycled like this when the American people are hurting and watching a new war unfold in front of us. And it really, really matters when the cycling includes Hegseth stumbles that hurt Congressional candidates in the midterms. That's a sick mix.
An unnamed Senate source was quoted as saying: "There are a lot of people that are really upset with the war in Iran and how it's being played out. We feel it's hurting our chances in the elections in the fall, and it seems rather haphazard."

Seems?

It "seems" to the American people like we had a one-week plan for a two-year war. Of course, the war might have gone better had Hegseth not emptied the cupboard of "strong, experienced senior officers," who just happen to be women, Black, or insufficiently nimble in their Trump support.








By many measures, though, Mr. Hegseth has never been weaker. He is leading the military through an unpopular war. Republicans in Congress complain privately — and increasingly in public — that he and his staff are dismissive of their questions and frequently unprepared for briefings.

If Democrats win a majority in the House, Mr. Hegseth will likely face new calls for his impeachment.

Mr. Hegseth’s firing and sidelining of senior military officers, often with no explanation, has fed mistrust and led many in the top ranks to question his leadership.

How Mr. Hegseth manages the contradiction between his tough guy image and his growing vulnerabilities in Washington and around the world could determine whether Mr. Trump — the person Mr. Hegseth must ultimately please — keeps him in the job.

Mr. Hegseth’s most immediate problems are in Iran, where the U.S. war shows no signs of ending, and on Capitol Hill. In the aftermath of the midterm elections, Mr. Hegseth will have to persuade a skeptical Congress to pass a $1.5 trillion defense budget and confirm nominees for key Pentagon posts. Several of his choices are being blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

He will also have to convince Congress to keep paying for the war, which the American people broadly oppose. 


The war that Hegseth and Chump are pursuing with Iran -- a war or choice -- has left many US service members injured (a minimum of 861) and this week the 19th death of a US service member in the Iran War was announced.  Maya Boddie (BLACK INFORMATION NETWORK) notes: 

A 37-year-old Black Army officer from Norfolk, Virginia, has died while supporting U.S. military operations in the Middle East, bringing the Pentagon’s publicly reported death toll amid the Iran war to 19.
Capt. Bianca C. Wilkerson died September 18 following a non-combat-related incident while deployed to Doha, Qatar, Military Times reported. The Army has since posthumously promoted her to major.
A defense official told Task & Purpose that Wilkerson experienced a medical emergency while aboard a military flight traveling to Saudi Arabia. The Army is investigating her death. Her cause of death remains undetermined.
Wilkerson joined the Army Reserve in 2013 as a transportation officer and served in several logistics and transportation positions, according to Military Times. She later commanded a forward-support company with the 3rd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division and was assigned to U.S. Army Central and Third Army at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina in 2025.


Wilkerson’s death has resonated especially in Hampton Roads, a region with deep military roots and one of the nation’s largest concentrations of active-duty service members and veterans. WAVY noted that she was a Norfolk native whose service reflected the area’s long-standing connection to the armed forces. While the circumstances surrounding Wilkerson’s death remain unclear, the Army has said the investigation is ongoing.

Her passing comes as public attention continues to focus on the human cost of the conflict, with lawmakers and military officials facing renewed questions about transparency surrounding casualties and the growing number of troops injured during operations connected to the war. 


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

***WATCH: Senator Murray’s remarks***

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, joined Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, in seeking unanimous consent to pass a commonsense bill to stop President Trump from robbing the American people through illegal “pocket rescissions.”

But Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) blocked the bill, which would (1) nullify the illegal “pocket rescission” that President Trump announced on Friday and (2) prevent the president from attempting to use a “pocket rescission” again by forbidding any president from submitting rescissions requests under the Impoundment Control Act with fewer than 90 days before the funds expire. This ensures Congress can act on the request and presidents cannot try to simply run out the clock.

Democrats have repeatedly sought to bar the Trump administration from so much as attempting this illegal maneuver—when marking up draft Senate spending bills, in votes on the floor, and in negotiations over spending packages, including negotiations over the continuing resolution that was recently signed into law. But Republicans have rejected every Democratic attempt over the last 18 months to enact new protections against pocket rescissions.

Senator Murray’s remarks ahead of the attempt to pass the bill, as delivered, are below:

“Thank you to my colleague from Oregon for setting out what is going on here because, as he said, on Friday night, President Trump announced that he was stealing more money from the American people. Trump and his budget director Russ Vought call it a ‘pocket rescission.’ Well, whatever you call it, it’s illegal.

“Trump is taking the bipartisan funding that we passed—funding that Democrats and Republicans agreed on, that he signed into law—and he is now ripping out the pages he doesn’t like. Forget about ideas like Congress and the law.

“Look, this is theft from the American people—plain and simple. In this case, Trump is tearing away funding to help Americans buy a home, he’s cutting off funds for health care research which would prevent things like dangerous hospital infections that are dangerous or saving taxpayers literally billions of dollars.

“But you know what, Trump could not care less. While he blows your tax dollars on an illegal war, Trump is illegally cutting off funding for health research, housing, and more.

“And I guess that’s no surprise given how this President is constantly out-of-touch with American families, saying ‘tariffs’ is his favorite word, ore saying he loves inflation, or saying he wants housing costs to go up—he said that. 

“But where are my Republican colleagues who helped pass these funds that Trump is now stealing? Because this didn’t come out of left field. No one can pretend to be surprised by what is happening now.

“When Russ Vought was nominated as Trump’s budget chief, he was pretty darn transparent about the fact that he planned to break the law, he planned to tear up our bills, and he dared us to stop him. But that didn’t stop every Republican Senator from voting for him—and when his deputy was nominated and told us this summer that pocket rescissions were very much still on the table, what happened? Once again, every Senate Republican voted to confirm him too.

 

“Anyone watching could see this coming from a mile away—Trump used this scheme to unlawfully impound $5 billion last summer, for heaven’s sake. That’s why Democrats have fought again, and again, and again, to prevent the president from being able to use this illegal tactic, including in recent negotiations over the CR that’s now law.

“But Republicans have refused to work with us to prevent Trump and Russ Vought from stealing from the American people. Time, after time, after time, they have shot down our attempts to stop this administration from defying Congress and robbing our constituents.

“Let’s talk more about this ‘pocket rescission’ scheme for a minute and what’s at stake. President Trump and Russ Vought are saying: ‘Hey, we can ignore the law, we can ignore bipartisan deals, and just make our own decisions, as long as we do it last minute.’

“Everyone knows that is ridiculous and illegal. Congress would never have created a system that gave any President the ability to decide to just ignore or bypass a law.

“It makes no sense. And in fact, GAO has looked at what this President has done and has said it’s clearly illegal—twice. Now, my Republican colleagues know some of this, some of them have even said so. But whenever they have had the chance, they have not joined us to put an end to this. Democrats had language Republicans could have let us put in the last CR, or the CR before it.

“We’ve taken vote after vote on versions of this language—on the floor, and in committee—and, of course, we had the vote where Republicans confirmed the un-abashed architect of Trump’s illegal scheme as Budget Director.

“Well now they are getting one more chance. Senator Merkley and I and others have a bill to help Congress re-assert its authority—our authority—and head off Trump’s completely illegal pocket rescission scheme.  

“We should be clear: Trump isn’t just illegally robbing our constituents through this pocket rescission. There are a whole lot of other funds that he is refusing to get out the door: more health research funding, grants to prevent teen pregnancy, funding to protect Americans from global health threats, and even a quarter of a billion dollars to help families in rural areas get the financing they need to finally achieve their dream of owning a home.

“Hundreds of families in rural America will be denied the shot to buy a home as Trump lights this money on fire tonight.

“So, it’s not just the pocket rescission—it’s all the rest of the money this administration is holding up or misspending. And Republicans have been pretty quiet about it.

“Russ Vought has always made his message to Congress painfully clear: he thinks the votes that we all take here don’t count. He thinks the laws we pass are optional.

“Now is the time for our Republican colleagues who said they would never let this happen to help us pass a bill that makes our message to Russ Vought equally clear: stop stealing from our constituents and start following our laws.”

###



Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Linda's New Super Computer"  and the following sites updated:







Posted by at