Monday, November 24, 2025

Don't Believe It

At some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent.

- US District Judge Sara Ellis,
commenting on ICE and Border Patrol testimony
contradicted by their body camera footage

This week's featured post is "The Vibecession and the AI Bubble".

Ongoing stories

  • Trump's assault on American democracy. A judge found that federal agents in Chicago repeatedly instigated violence against protesters, then lied about it in reports that painted the protesters as violent.
  • Climate change. According to Grist, the COP30 conference in Brazil closed with "no new agreements to wind down fossil fuel use or curb deforestation".
  • Gaza. Ostensibly there's a ceasefire, but there are still attacks and people still die. The famine conditions have abated but "the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) reports that a quarter of households in Gaza are eating just one meal daily".
  • Ukraine. Representatives of Trump and Putin put together a 28-point peace plan, which Trump has given Zelenskyy until Thursday to accept. It comes at a time of internal Ukrainian weakness, and amounts to a demand for surrender. It's currently being revised in talks with Ukraine and Europe, who were left out of the original formulation.

This week's developments

This week Trump did a lot to raise your outrage

Maybe it comes from the sting of his defeat on the Epstein Transparency Act, or from worsening dementia limiting his ability to control himself, but Trump has said and done outrageous things recently at a pace that is unusual even for him. It's hard to know how to cover them. It would be easy to fill the entire Sift with nothing else, and several hour-long news shows I watched on the rechristened MS NOW did precisely that. But I'm torn.

On the one hand, these incidents only reinforce things you already know:

  • Donald Trump is a disgusting human being.
  • He regularly gets away with outrages that would have ended the career of any previous president, or just about any previous American politician. We're a long way from the era when Obama could spark outrage by wearing a tan suit or putting his feet up on the Resolute Desk.

Meanwhile, substantive things have been happening in foreign affairs, in the economy, in the courts, and so on. Being drawn into Trump's Crazytown antics removes us from the world of events that have lasting consequences for our lives and for the future of our nation.

On the other hand, ignoring these persistent outrages makes us complicit in normalizing them. American presidents have never acted like this before, and no one should want this kind of behavior to become acceptable.

So here's my compromise: I'm going to list the three biggest outrages and link to longer accounts of them, because you should know what happened. But I'm also not going to let them take over and drive out all other news.

  • He threatened six Democratic lawmakers with arrest, trial, and death for making a video repeating the standard Defense Department doctrine that soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders. (No one seems to remember the origin story of the right-wing Oath Keepers after President Obama took office: "More specifically, the group's members, which number in the thousands, pledge to disobey orders they deem unlawful". Right-wingers considered that position patriotic in 2009.) Trump has since denied that he was making a death threat, but who knows how his more rabid followers might interpret his statements? If somebody actually does shoot at (rather than just threaten) one or more of the Democrats, it will be a textbook case of stochastic terrorism. Notably, one of the Democrats is Arizona's Senator Mark Kelly, whose wife Gabby Giffords has already survived a shooting.
  • He called a female White House reporter "piggy". A week ago Friday, Catherine Lucey from Bloomberg was part of a press gaggle on Air Force One. She asked the kind of hard, direct question reporters are supposed to put to presidents: “if there’s nothing incriminating in the [Epstein] files”, why was he blocking their release? Trump pointed to her in a threatening way (see photo above) and said, "Quiet, quiet piggy." The White House press secretary later defended this response as "frank and honest".

This wasn't an action of Trump himself, but falls into the same outrage category: The Coast Guard briefly considered reclassifying swastikas and nooses as "potentially divisive" rather than hate symbols. Public outcry made them walk that back.

Meanwhile, we still haven't seen the Epstein files. The Epstein Transparency Act gives the Justice Department 30 days to produce the files. Trump says his DoJ will because there's nothing to hide, but we'll see what happens.

The Trump-ordered sham investigations into Epstein's links to prominent Democrats opens the possibility that DoJ will claim it can't release information related to an ongoing investigation.

It bears repeating that Trump could have ordered the files released at any time and still could. He didn't need an act of Congress to force his hand. It's absurd to claim that you support doing something that you could have done a long time ago and chose not to do.

The best people to deal with absurdity are comedians, so here's The Daily Show's take on the situation, where Jordan Klepper applies "Occam's Giant Fucking Machete". The whole routine is amusing, but if you're pressed for time skip ahead to about the 12:30 mark.

and Marjorie Taylor Greene

It's been interesting these last few months watching MTG become estranged from the Trump regime on issues like Medicaid, ObamaCare subsidies, and the Epstein files. In every case, she has taken the path consistent with Trump's base and the promises he made them, while Trump has done something else. Just before he flipped back to the release-the-files side (sort of), Trump branded MTG as "Marjorie Traitor Greene", which MTG claimed (believably) resulted in death threats.

Sadly, like Jeff Flake, Adam Kinzinger, and others before her, MTG decided not to stand and fight. Friday night she released a video announcing that she will resign from Congress on January 5 (coincidentally, just after her pension vests).

Her video is worth watching, mostly because of how well she describes the people she claims to represent. There's some Christian-right stuff in there about abortion and trans rights, but mostly she's talking about working-class people who have seen their prospects diminish and who have little hope for their children to have a better life. She's not wrong about that, and Democrats have to figure out how to speak to and for these people.

Two places in the video stand out for other reasons. Around the 6:30 mark, she has just finished outlining all the ways she has fought for Trump and the Trump agenda in Congress before differing with him on a few issues. But then she says:

Loyalty should be a two-way street, and we should be able to vote our conscience and represent our district's interests, because our job-title is literally "representative". ... Standing up for American women who were raped at 14 years old, trafficked and used by rich powerful men, should not result in me being called a traitor and threatened by the president of the United States, whom I fought for.

Around 9:15, she compares her relationship with Trump to a broken marriage:

I refuse to be a battered wife, hoping it all goes away and gets better. If I am cast aside by the President and the MAGA political machine and replaced by neo-cons, Big Pharma, Big Tech, military-industrial war complex, foreign leaders, and the elite donor class that can never ever relate to real Americans, then many common Americans have been cast aside and replaced as well.

But there was real news about Ukraine

Thursday, Axios published a leaked draft of a 28-point peace plan worked out by representatives of Trump and Putin, without input from either Ukraine or its European allies. The plan is shockingly one-sided. Ukraine gives in to Russia's demands: limiting the size of its army, rewriting its constitution to outlaw NATO membership, and even surrendering more territory than Russia has conquered. In exchange it gets only nebulous commitments without clear enforcement mechanisms. Timothy Snyder goes through the proposal point-by-point.

Snyder points to something others have noticed: The plan's curious phrasing suggests that it was translated from Russian. In other words, Trump's peace plan was really just Trump's name attached to Putin's demands. Much of the plan is in the passive voice, like "Ukraine's sovereignty will be confirmed." Exactly who is doing this confirming is never specified. Treaties and other agreements are not written like this.

At first it wasn't clear whether this was a final product, but Trump quickly got behind it and insisted that Ukraine accept it by Thanksgiving. "He's going to have to approve it," Trump said of Zelensky, who is politically weak right now because of a corruption scandal in his administration.

Europe pushed back, and Trump fumed. But today it looks like a second draft will happen after consultation with Europe and Ukraine. Probably Russia will reject this, and we'll be back to square one.

and the AI bubble

That's covered in the featured post.

and the regime's bad week in court

Thursday, US District Judge Sara Ellis ordered ICE and Border Patrol thugs to stop brutalizing the people of Chicago. But an appeals court stayed her order, claiming it was too broad. Then she released 233 very damning pages of her findings. Specifically, federal agents and their leader Greg Bovino repeatedly lied, submitting reports that didn't match what their body cameras recorded.

After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible. ... Defendants specifically directed the Court to certain videos and timestamps “to aid the Court in its review of those videos.” Presumably, these portions of the videos would be Defendants’ best evidence to demonstrate that agents acted in line with the Constitution, federal laws, and the agencies’ own policies on use of force when engaging with protesters, the press, and religious practitioners. But a review of them shows the opposite—supporting Plaintiffs’ claims and undermining all of Defendants’ claims that their actions toward protesters, the press, and religious practitioners have been, as Bovino has stated, “more than exemplary.”

Quite the opposite, the videos repeatedly show federal agents as the provocateurs, introducing violence into otherwise peaceful protests:

For example, Defendants directed the Court to two videos of agents outside the Broadview facility the evening of September 19, 2025. In those videos, agents stand behind a fence preparing to leave the facility’s gates and disperse what Defendants described as an unruly mob. The scene appears quiet as the gate opens, revealing a line of protesters standing in the street holding signs. Almost immediately and without warning, agents lob flashbang grenades, tear gas, and pepper balls at the protesters, stating, “fuck yea!”, as they do so, and the crowd scatters. This video disproves Defendants’ contentions that protesters were the ones shooting off fireworks, refusing orders, and acting violently so as to justify the agents’ use of force.

Or this:

Defendants also highlighted an October 3, 2025 video, presumably to show that agents driving the streets faced constant danger from cars ramming them on purpose. But instead of leaving this impression, the video ... suggests that the agent drove erratically and brake-checked other motorists in an attempt to force accidents that agents could then use as justifications for deploying force.

After listing other examples and alluding to many others, Ellis conclude:

[A]t some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that Defendants represent. ... Overall, after reviewing all the evidence, the Court finds that Defendants’ widespread misrepresentations call into question everything that Defendants say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening at the Broadview facility or out in the streets of the Chicagoland area during law enforcement activities.

Slate's Mark Joseph Stern quotes Skye Perryman to respond to the objection that none of this matters because the Supreme Court will knuckle under to Trump anyway:

Listen, this is why we’re doing what we’re doing in the district courts. We are fully aware that somewhere down the line we can lose. But this is the place where the fog of war doesn’t enter the room. What enters the room is people telling the truth and the judge making findings. That is the story we tell, and it’s what we can do to hold the line right now. ... [I]t’s frustrating that this order has been stayed. In other words, this changes nothing on the ground. But it is important to have the judge who ordered agents to wear bodycams now make findings in which she says: You just lied. And I think that is the value of all this.

Also Thursday, US District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC was probably illegal. Her preliminary injunction gives the government until December 11 to get the troops out of DC.

And the prosecution of James Comey continues to be a comedy of errors. Recall: The career prosecutors found no case worth bringing to a grand jury, so Trump fired the US attorney and brought in Lindsey Halligan, his former personal lawyer. She couldn't get any other lawyers in her office to accompany her, so she went to the grand jury alone. Having never prosecuted a case before, and trying to move quickly before the statute of limitations ran out, she made a botch of it.

Law-fare's Benjamin Wittes comments:

It is actually hard to keep up with the pace of developments. Multiple times a day, documents land on this docket that contain new inanities, new abominations in the sight of the law, new factual revelations, new reasons to wonder not whether this case will collapse but only how. At the hearing the other day, Judge Michael Nachmanoff seemed to be struggling with exactly this question, asking an attorney for Comey—in effect—which motion he wants the judge to dismiss the case based on.

US District Judge James Boasberg will hold hearings next week to determine whether contempt charges are justified in the case where administration officials refused to turn around a plane deporting detainees to El Salvador.

and you also might be interested in ...

One of the week's great mysteries is why Trump's Oval Office meeting with NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani was such a love-fest. In the photo above, Trump is wearing the expression that South Park uses when Trump looks at his lover Satan.

The NYT is staying with the Kash Patel abuse-of-government-perks story. There are two pieces of it: use of his government jet for personal travel (something he criticized previous FBI Director Christopher Wray for), and assigning FBI SWAT agents as a protection team for his country-singer girlfriend.

and let's close with something to be thankful for

I've long thought that the Fox News canard of a "war on Christmas" had it backwards: Christmas is the aggressor and is rapidly advancing against all our other holidays. As soon as Halloween was over, Christmas decorations started appearing, and the deluge of Christmas music can't be far behind.

If you want to try to hold the Thanksgiving line, though, Country Living has a playlist of Thanksgiving songs you can use.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)