Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

It seems to me that Victor Davis Hanson (a pretty smart guy) would have everyone dismiss obvious Trump self-serving character and personality flaws and use of public office for personal enrichment and revenge as mostly inconsequential when weighted against his policies and achievements. The office of POTUS is important to our people, our nation and the world well beyond the measure of policies, facts and figures. I believe a critique of all aspects of a presidents behavior, deportment, civility is justified. Should not we expect, even demand, our president be the best of what we hope a Lady or Gentleman should be at all times, at all places, in all circumstances? — Scott K.

I agree with your thoughts on what a president should be, Scott, but I’ve always been willing to except lower than the highest bar you describe. I’m fine dismissing a number of things in the grand scheme of evaluating a presidency, but Trump has committed so many harmful, corrupt, and unpatriotic acts as president (many of them highly consequential) that one has to almost be in clinical denial of them (as in genuinely convincing themself they never even happened) in order to authentically arrive at the mindset you describe. And I think it’s clear that a lot of people have conditioned themselves to do just that.

As I described last week, Hanson goes a little further in his analysis. He seems inclined (whether for personal or professional reasons) to formulate an intellectual or ideological rationale for pretty much anything Trump does (when there often isn’t one beyond that of Trump’s own self-interest).

So regarding the latest allegations about Platner, of course his defenders are making hay out of the political affiliations of Lyndsey Fifield, and are trying to brush off the accusations as just another political hit job.

Unfortunately, I know many people (including women) whose default response to any accusations of DV or SA against politicians is, “I assume they’re all lies, they don’t affect my voting decisions at all, it’s just too easy for a political operative to find some floozy willing to make up a He Said She Said story”.

Others, of course, have the same skeptical attitude towards allegations against their political allies, but are quick to assume the worst of their political opponents.

So what would you say are your own standards for judging whether such allegations are credible? — Alyene W.

Hi Aylene. I wrote a piece back in 2018 on the state of the #MeToo movement (it was during the Brett Kavanaugh controversy), that I think holds some relevance to your question. My broad point in it was that the truth, not simply the accusation (and certainly not political expediency), should be everyone’s priority. And as Ramesh Ponnuru recently wrote, Lyndsey Fifield has A LOT of truth on her side that backs up her claims. It’s also worth noting that even ex-girlfriends of Platner who agree with him politically have horrific stories to tell of his behavior. I think he’s a very bad and disturbed guy who’s clearly unfit for office. Those who rationalize his candidacy do so to their own discredit.

I could only laugh at the story (which I believe) of J.D. Vance proposing the idea of asking Tucker Carlson to interview Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, so that she could serve as a character witness for Donald Trump. How did the administration even get itself here? It’s like watching a never ending dark comedy. — Ben G.

Since I’ve already commented more on this topic than I ever wanted to, Ben, I’ll try and keep my answer relatively short. From the beginning, this insane political controversy was entirely of MAGA’s own making. People in Trump’s orbit (including Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and I think even Vance himself) made this a campaign issue in 2024, arguing that Americans needed Trump back in office to blow the lid off the “Epstein Files.” For whatever reason, none of these people bothered to consider, at the time, that Donald Trump was previously a friend and associate of Jeffrey Epstein, and that there’d be information in the case files that would, at minimum, embarrass Trump. Everything since then has indeed been a darkly comedic effort to protect our president from the fallout. Vance clearly had faith in his buddy, Tucker Carlson, to help whitewash the situation, on behalf of the White House, to the MAGA base. Is it laughable in its absurdity? Yes, but that’s true of a lot of things in this political era.

John: Republican politics of the day remind me of two quotes. From Jim Valvano: “Survive and advance.” From my first business mentor: “Just tell me what the game is, and I’ll play it.” I know you have expressed extreme disappointment in many Republican officials selling their souls to bow at the feet of Trump and his MAGA acolytes, but isn’t this the game they must play to survive and advance and remain in the arena of conservative public policy? I’m thinking of Marco Rubio in particular, who seems to have deftly balanced his own basic American statesmanship with the requisite gushing over his boss. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it is. — Steve R.

Hi Steve. You’re right that in the Trump era, completely prostrating yourself for Donald Trump (including surrendering your congressional and constitutional authority to him) is how one survives as a Republican office holder. If you don’t do that, Trump will do everything he can to end your political career. That usually means endorsing (and in some cases even drafting) a GOP primary opponent — even if that opponent can’t win in the general election (which, over the years, has led to the GOP losing a number of otherwise winnable seat to the Democrats).

I discussed this very topic with The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg earlier this week:

What I disagree with, Steve, is the notion that surrendering to Donald Trump — for the sake of personal political survival — has helped advance conservative public policy. I think it’s done the opposite. There were certainly important conservative gains early in Trump’s first term (largely thanks to Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell taking lead behind the scenes). But that was before all the “disloyalty” purging began. Conversely, today’s Republican Congress (aside from a couple lame-duck members) has sat back and let Trump dismantle conservative policies on all kinds of things: trade, spending, foreign relations, constitutional deference, the rule of law, etc.). Heck, the GOP isn’t really even a pro-life party anymore. And while we’re about to surpass $40 trillion in national debt, and Social Security is now on track to go insolvent in just six years, members of Congress are carrying on about things like the Reflection Pool, and trying to find ways of funding more of Trump’s vanity projects. It’s a joke.

To your last point: Has the Trump administration and the country benefited from having Marco Rubio (who played this horrid game to stay politically viable) as our Secretary of State? Yes. I think he’s one of the few adults in the room. But the fact that he’s just one guy (surrounded mostly by corrupt figures and incompetents), in a modern GOP that has been downright hostile toward the ideas, moral clarity, and policies he passionately defended (and espoused) up until ten years ago, illustrates just how much has been sacrificed.

John -- I personally can't see our president completing his term due to his health issues, at the same token, if we acquire a Democratic as house speaker and Trump was replaced by Vance, do you foresee a more stable Congress, or will that happen if Rubio were to be elected? I do have hope. — Sharon H.

I don’t think Trump has reached Joe Biden levels of health-concern yet, Sharon, but I understand what you’re saying. He’s 80 years old, he’s increasingly nodding off on camera, he’s saying even more erratic and scattered things than usual, and he’s apparently being checked out by lots of doctors as of late. Thus, it’s not inconceivable that, for whatever reason, he may not be able to do the job through the end of this term. (As with Joe Biden, that was a risk of electing someone of that age to such a difficult and highly consequential office).

If that happens, and JD Vance, becomes president, I do think a number of things would change — some for the better and some for the worse. I certainly think that with Vance, we’d have a more functional GOP Congress, in the respect that Republicans wouldn’t just let him do whatever crazy or corrupt thing he wants to do (the way they have with Trump). That would be a good thing. As for the Dems, I’m not sure they’d have any better of a working relationship with Vance than they’ve had with Trump. But after the midterms (regardless of who’s the president), they’ll be better positioned to oppose the executive branch, and conduct investigations into whatever they feel like investigating.

Greetings Sir John: Many Trump (and Israel) haters on the left AND the right gleefully exclaim that “TRUMP LIED” about keeping the U.S. out of war. They seem to forget that sometimes the global situation changes and that liberal icons Wilson AND FDR both made similar promises. Do YOU think Trump consciously lied about this? And what’s this nonsense from Trump continually saying that “deals” are made or are close to being made when the Iranian leaders deny it? Why doesn’t he just shut up about it and say nothing until real progress is made? And finally, I myself agree with the pundits that say as long as Trump continues extending the deadlines for the Iranian leadership to make an acceptable deal, the more his credibility on the world stage suffers, so why won’t he just give the orders to bomb Kharg Island (& any other strategic sites) or simply allow Israel and the UAE to. do the dirty work instead and free the Iranian citizens from the tyranny once & for all? This makes no sense to me. What are your thoughts on all these quandaries, Sir John? —“Deal Or No Deal” regards from The Emperor

I’ll answer one question at a time, Emperor…

Do I think Trump “consciously lied” about no new wars? No. While he lies frequently, and made all kinds of campaign promises that he was never going to deliver on (lots of politicians do that), I’m sure he had no intention of taking us to war when he was running for president in 2024. That said, he should have never made that promise. No president should ever make that promise, for the simple reason that world events can alter things, and warrant us making the tough decision to go to war. By making that promise (repeatedly), and attacking his political opponents (in both parties) as neocons and warmongers, he set himself up for the criticism he’s now receiving.

As for why Trump keeps carrying on publicly about “deals” that either don’t exist, or aren’t agreed upon, I think a lot of it is attributable to Trump just being Trump: he casually says false things that he wants to be true, and believes make him look better. And because a big part of his longtime brand is the idea that he’s a master negotiator, he’s working that angle. It weirdly still works on a lot of Americans (including Wall Street at times), but it has gotten us nowhere on Iran. You’re right, Emperor. It would be good if he just stopped talking about it until he really does have a serious, qualified deal.

Like you, I think it would be a great idea to just let Israel do their thing on Iran. Trump hasn’t wanted that, seemingly because he’s still holding out hope for a “deal” that he can brag about. I think he should reconsider that position, and take Israel up on its offer.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

John, You are easy to fundamentally agree with. But your assessment of Trump and that of Victor Davis Hansen’s is widely different and I’ve been curious about that for quite some time. Can you comment on that difference? — Al

In order to be totally fair to your question, Al, I’d have to listen to more of Hansen’s analysis of Trump than I have, as well as better familiarize myself with his political ideology (I know he’s a rightie, but he strikes me as more of a populist than the type of conservative I am).

What I will say is that on the occasions when I have caught a video clip of him talking about Trump, he seems to be doing what I’ve seen a number of other Trump-friendly commentators do: Start with their audience’s preferred conclusion (that Trump’s a genius), and then twist and shape Trump’s decisions and conduct into artificial alignment with some ideological or intellectual framework… until that conclusion is reached. It’s a form of that whole “Trump is playing 3-dimensional chess while everyone else is playing checkers” shtick. Lots of MAGA-folks love that stuff (especially when it’s presented by an articulate person with an academic background), but it almost always falls flat on its face, when Trump ends up doing or saying exactly the opposite of what those people insist he’s doing.

And when the happens, neither the commentator nor the audience ever seems to acknowledge it. They just casually move on to the next topic, and go through the same routine.

Since I view that type of analysis as highly flawed, and akin to fan service, I don’t offer or subscribe to it. Again, I’m a conservative, and I have no interest in romanticizing politicians, ignoring or avoiding hard facts, or entertaining thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories to connect with an audience.

Again, this may not be entirely fair to Hansen. What I’ve seen from him may not be representative of his broader analysis of Trump, but it’s consistent with what I have seen of him. Incidentally, I saw somewhere that Hansen is having health problems, so my best wishes go out to him.

John, I love this quote from John Cleese: “There are people just sitting there, who are deliberately waiting, for the thrill of being offended.” His quote points to how some actively look for reasons to feel outraged. Remind you of anyone(s)? — Sharon H.

It reminds me of a lot of people, Sharon. It’s a common part of our grievance culture, including our political-grievance culture.

As I read the questions sent to you, I am continually amazed at how the critics of Trump conveniently dismiss all the good he has done in favor of rudely attacking his personality. Even as you invoke his “malignant narcissistic “ methods, I read you saying deep down within yourself, “I wish that I was more like him”.

Also, democrats are bemoaning the fact that they do not have a leader has one percent the charisma and policies of Trump. They can only count on a leftist media to misguide an ignorant and apathetic populace into voting for more incompetence and anti American policies. — Craig S.

Well, there’s a lot to unpack here, Craig. I’ll take it one piece at a time.

First of all, I don’t understand your complaint that people who ask me questions “conveniently dismiss all the good Trump is done.” This is a weekly Q&A, mostly on political topics. It’s not a Donald Trump fan-appreciation page, and people don’t need to “conveniently” pretend otherwise.

Trump’s the president of the United States, and he regularly does things that are objectively worthy of criticism. When a subscriber asks me to comment on one of those things, do you expect them to begin their question with “Trump’s totally awesome, but…” or “Trump has done amazing things as president, but…”? Or do you just want them to ask me questions like, “John, Why is Trump so awesome?” If those are the types of questions YOU want to ask me, Craig, feel free to do so (I’ll respond to them). But other subscribers obviously have no obligation to, and it would be kind of weird if they did.

To your next point, you (and many other Trump loyalists) are insistent that every criticism of Trump comes down to people having a problem with his “personality.” I think that’s very wrong. Do a lot of people dislike Trump’s personality? Sure, and for good reason. But most criticisms of him are tied to tangible actions — things he’s actually done.

Now, to be clear, there’s often a connection between the two, and you brought up a good example that I’ll use: the description of him as a “malignant narcissist.” Trump is absolutely a narcissist, and not just some run-of-the-mill one (I think even you would agree with that). But if he were somehow able to separate that personality trait/disorder from his governance (aka presidential actions), it wouldn’t be nearly as big of a problem for people. Unfortunately, he’s shown that he has little capacity to do that.

Trump’s narcissism drove the “stop the steal” stuff, which ruined lives and careers, damaged people’s faith in our democracy, and led to the January 6 attack (that people are dead because of). A lot of his political retribution stuff stems from his narcissism, and his belief that he should be entitled to whatever he wants (regardless of the Constitution or rule of law). It’s behind his need to rid the Republican Party of anyone who doesn’t completely prostrate themself for him (which has driven many good people out of office). It was/is behind much of his terrible trade policy (which has made life much more expensive for Americans). And, as was brought up in last week’s Q&A, it’s behind all of these taxpayer-funded vanity projects (like putting his face on buildings, passports, park passes, $250 bills, etc), at a time when Americans’ cost of living is through the roof, and our national debt is racing toward $40 trillion.

Now to my favorite part of your comment, Craig: That “I wish that I was more like” Trump. I literally laughed out loud when I read that, in part because Bernie and I used to joke about the funny responses we’d get in the comment section, back in 2015/2016, about our criticisms of Trump being motivated by personal jealousy. And reliably, when I’d look up those specific commenters’ IP addresses (the old comment section allowed for that), they’d turn out to be foreign bots. Since I don’t think you’re a foreign bot, Craig, I’ll take the time to explain where I’m coming from on this…

I don’t envy people with poor character. I aspire to be more like people who have good character. Neither money nor power makes me want to be “more like” an individual, and there are plenty of rich and powerful people (along with non-rich and non-powerful people) who I admire a lot more than Donald Trump. You may aspire to be more like Trump, Craig, but I assure you that millions and millions of American absolutely do not.

To your last point, charisma is always a valuable asset for a politician. We saw it with Obama, and we’ve seen it with Trump. So, I’m not surprised the Dems want more charismatic leaders in their party.

John, I know you’re rooting for Susan Collins to beat Graham Platner in Maine, but what do you think are the chances that she will beat him? — Ben G.

Hi Ben. First, I think it’s worth reminding people that Platner hasn’t even won the Democratic primary yet. The primary election is next Tuesday. It’s easy to forget (since Platner’s been getting all the attention), but there are other Democratic candidates that primary voters can choose from. No one’s forcing Platner to be their nominee).

Anyway, unless Platner is pressured to drop out of the race at the last minute (due to the latest, horrific revelations), I think he’ll unfortunately win the primary. My general-election prediction is that, despite Trump’s unpopularity, Collins will win. I could end up being wrong about that, of course, but Platner’s been losing ground in the polls, and I suspect even more damning information than what we already know will come out about him between now and general-election day.

I watched your interview with Paul Miller, and I wonder if you agree with him that China will invade Taiwan in 2028. — Alex D.

Hi Alex. Miller is a highly credible foreign policy expert who worked for two presidential administrations. I am not. I do, however, listen very closely to experts like him, and I think he makes a lot of sense, including on the timing. I hope to God that doesn’t happen (and never will), but with Trump offering recent indicators that he wouldn’t have Taiwan’s back if China did invade them, it could very well happen as Miller predicted.

Sir John—This video depicts UK protesters angry over a young white man named Henry Nowak who was stabbed several times by an Indian immigrant who falsely accused Nowak of calling him racist slurs. As Nowak lay dying from his wounds, the British police handcuffed him and placed him under arrest because apparently in the UK, accusations of using racist language is a much more serious crime than stabbing somebody else over a dozen times because he said something offensive, which as it turned out, was a lie anyway. I know The UK doesn’t have free speech, but I would like your opinions on this case just the same, and do you fear that the American left would ever try and perhaps succeed in turning the USA into what the UK has become? —“Brittania Rues Its Politically Correct Bobbies” regards from The Emperor

Emperor, you left out some significant details, and misstated others.

First of all, the “Indian immigrant” was not an immigrant at all. He was a British-born man of Indian descent, named Vickrum Digwa, who was raised in the UK.

Second, Digwa didn’t simply lie about racist slurs. He also lied to police on the scene that Nowak had pursued him and physically assaulted him. Officers initially handcuffed Nowak because they thought he was an assailant (not because an accusation of racism is a more serious crime than murder). In other words, as bad as the UK is on free speech, and as valid as other criticism of the responding officers may be, this wasn’t a speech matter.

By the way, it took me about ten seconds to look up those details online, Emperor. I’m begging you to adopt a similar practice, rather than accepting what you see in short YouTube videos as the full or real story. Lots of that type of content is designed to generate clicks, not inform people of matters.

And in case anyone’s wondering what happened to Digwa, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s brand new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.

It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):

Reagan Caucus Action

Discussions about Reaganite policy and statesmanship, civic education, and American constitutionalism.

By John A. Daly

Now, let’s get to your questions…

What do you make of Jill Biden saying in a new book that she was worried that her husband, President Joe, was having a stroke during his horrible debate with Trump… and yet she strongly supported him continuing his presidential campaign??? - Alex D.

I typically don’t have strong feelings about any First Lady, Alex, but I find Jill Biden contemptible.

Let me say first that I simply don’t believe what she said in her book (which I’m sure she’s already made a lot of money from). I don’t believe that she sat in the audience that night and worried that her husband was having a stroke. I believe that the man she watched on stage was the exact same version of her husband she had seen, and been around, every day, in private, for months and months.

I think she, better than anyone, understood exactly how mentally and physically compromised her husband had become. And yet, she actively encouraged him not only to remain president, but run for a second term. It was self-serving and profoundly unpatriotic.

Any chance of Republicans winning again starts with forming a Chris Christie/Adam Kinzinger/Liz Cheney wing of the party. There are more moderate Republicans in this country than those I consider on the MAGA spectrum. Hope one of them runs. —ethan

Hi Ethan. I don’t think any of those three have a future in electoral politics, at least not in the Republican party. They’re pariahs in the GOP (for standing up to Trump), and will likely remain pariahs for some time after Trump’s gone from office. It’s a shame, because all are capable, patriotic individuals. And just to touch on something else you said: I don’t consider these three “more moderate” than MAGA (unless you mean temperamentally). Ideologically, they’re much more conservative than Trump, including Christie, who’s probably the most centrist.

At this point, I think the best that people like you and I can realistically hope for is someone like Marco Rubio, who I believe is still a Reaganite at heart, but has remained politically viable in the GOP by prostrating himself for Trump.

Greetings Sir John—- a kindergarten graduation ceremony at Queen Of Apostles Catholic School in Toledo Ohio turned into a violent brawl because a family began arguing over seating arrangements. Recent other incidents (like the Tim Horton’s brawl and another at an upscale Italian restaurant in Los Angeles) makes me ask you to speculate. WHY do you think that there are so many people making utter jackasses of themselves In public, especially since currently most people should be aware that their shameful dumb ass behavior is going to be recorded and pasted all over social media? —“STOMP & Circumvent” regards from The Emperor

You’re asking me why people make embarrassing spectacles of themselves in public, Emperor? Well, a lot of it has to do with a lack of emotional control, including a heightened sense of social grievance. Sometimes bigotry is a part of it. Other people make jackasses out of themselves for attention, but I don’t think that’s typically the case when it comes to physical altercations.

Between currency, coins, federal buildings, park passes, roads, passports, etc., are you worried that the federal government is going to run out of things to plaster President Trump’s name and face on, in celebration of his greatness (all while his supporters take deep offense to you describing him as a “malignant narcissist”)? — Ben G.

Lol. Yes, I’m a little worried about that, Ben. However, I’m still holding out hope for that Statue of Liberty’s tablet being replaced with “The Art of the Deal.”

Hi John-- Are we, America, politically becoming more like Russian politics and resembling a reckless hegemony Congress can't control, or even have a say? I agree some actions were necessary,and time was of the essence, but how far can this be carried? Creative rebuttals have so far been effective, but until when? — Sharon H.

What’s clear to me, Sharon, is that Congress is surrendering more and more of its power to the executive branch. This has been a trend for some time, but it’s worse now, with this Republican-led Congress, than I’ve seen it at any point in my lifetime. Trump is governing almost entirely through executive actions, and no matter how painful or damaging his policies are (tariffs are a great example), the GOP Congress just lets him do it.

Congress is the most powerful branch of the federal government, and they are completely out to lunch on some of the most consequential federal-governing decisions being made. It’s sad and pathetic.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Earlier this year, shortly after the fifth anniversary of the January 6 attack, I had the opportunity to interview Vice President Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short. Short was inside the Capitol that day, alongside Pence, as Secret Service agents scrambled to protect the vice president and his family from rioters who were storming the building.

During our discussion, I brought up the topic of the alternative reality that President Trump continues to promote (and millions of Americans still subscribe to), that he won the 2020 presidential election, and that it was stolen from him. I asked Short if he believes the myth will live on for years to come in our country as a type of folklore, accepted and passed on by true believers (and charlatans alike) as conventional wisdom.

The bluntness of Short’s answer surprised me.

“I think, in many cases, the president has won,” he said. “Not only was he reelected, but in many cases, he’s revised the history of that day.”

Short and many others understand that, politically speaking, there was a big advantage to maintaining the ruse through the 2024 election. Admitting defeat would have put Trump in the same camp as former Republican nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, who retired their presidential aspirations after their respective general-election losses.

That’s typically how it works, after all — even for incumbents (as we remember with George H.W. Bush). The sense, by both the nominee and their party, is that they had their chance, it didn’t work out, and it’s time to go in a different direction. And of course, Trump and MAGA had a much harsher view of McCain and Romney, casting their losses as proof that they were eternal “losers” whose paths should never be followed again.

And yet, Trump, even with the huge advantage of incumbency, lost to Joe Biden — a far less impressive opponent than the one McCain and Romney lost to. Per tradition (and Trump’s own standards), he should have ridden off into the sunset as well.

But he didn’t, and his excuse for why he didn’t was that he’d never lost, and was therefore owed a second term. It was a profoundly dishonest and unpatriotic position (that led to terrible violence in the final days of his first term), but it ultimately kept him politically viable.

What Short had a harder time reconciling was why Trump has continued drawing media attention to the “stolen election” and January 6 since re-winning the White House (as he’s been doing for the last year and a half).

“Despite a lot of the president’s attributes and reasons that people support him,” Short said, “I think January 6 is not one of them.”

He’s right about that, but I think there’s a pretty clear-cut explanation: Trump’s insistence that the election was “stolen” was never primarily about politics. It was about his ego, and it continues to be.

For a malignant narcissist, losing to someone as feeble as Joe Biden carries with it a tremendous amount of psychological trauma. And because Trump can’t literally erase that defeat from the history books (despite his best efforts), the best he can do, while continuing the ruse, is punish those who stood in his way… and valorize those who supported him.

It’s really that simple.

It’s the reason why Trump pardoned close to 1,600 January 6 criminals (he calls them “patriots”) on his first day back in office, including hundreds who brutally assaulted police officers. It’s why he pardoned several members of his “stolen election” legal team and related allies. It’s why his DOJ is currently working to clear the legal records of convicted January 6 seditionists, who Trump had previously granted commutations. It’s why nearly $5 million was paid to the family of Ashli Babbitt, who was justifiably shot and killed by a Capitol police officer as she was breaking through a barricaded hallway mere feet from fleeing members of Congress. It’s why hundreds of detailed January 6 criminal charges have been erased from the DOJ website. It’s why the GOP Congress, for years, held up the installation of a Capitol plaque commemorating the bravery and service of police officers who fought off insurrectionists that day. And it’s why many GOP leaders still deny what happened in the first place.

But as we discovered last week, even all those things weren’t enough. The Justice Department announced the establishment of an almost $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to pay restitution to people who feel they were political victims of “weaponization” or “lawfare” at the hands of the federal government.

The specific amount will be $1.776 billion — presumably because if you’re going to set up a slush fund for indefensibly advancing a personal agenda, and rewarding people who committed crimes in your name, you might as well add insult to injury by evoking the birth of our nation, and attempting to make it all sound patriotic.

To no one’s surprise, Congress won’t be involved in managing the fund, and won’t provide oversight. Who gets paid from it, and the amount they’ll be paid, will be decided by a five-person panel appointed by — wait for it — Trump’s former personal attorney, and acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche. Also unsurprisingly, Trump himself will have the power to fire panel members, and the federal government won’t be required to disclose which individuals receive money, and what amount they’ll receive.

What a deal!

The fund hasn’t been activated yet (it’s still being set up), but a whole bunch of shady folks are already announcing their intentions to apply for a piece of the pie. As expected, scores of pardoned January 6 criminals are among them, including the worst of the worst. Proud Boy leader, Enrique Tarrio, who Trump freed from a 22-year prison sentence for seditious conspiracy, plans to ask for millions. The same goes for Andrew Taake and Andrew Paul Johnson, whose criminal records include child sex crimes (Johnson’s currently serving life in prison for child molestation).

Other notable individuals preparing to fill out applications are Mark McCloskey (best known for pointing firearms at George Floyd protesters), George Santos, Rod Blagojevich, the soon-to-be released Tina Peters, and Mike Lindell (who’s looking to recoup $400 million that he says his pillow company lost as a result of his “stop the steal” stance). Even the One America News (OAN) network is considering getting in on the action, having faced costly legal trouble over its promotion of false election claims.

As a friend of mine said, “Toss a pile of money on the ground, and all the freaks come scrambling.”

If you happen to think the details of the Anti-Weaponization Fund sound glaringly corrupt and possibly even impeachable (the hypothetical equivalent of President Biden setting up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa and BLM rioters), just wait until you hear how the fund came to be…

Back in January, President Trump sued his own IRS, demanding they pay him $10 billion over his tax returns being leaked years earlier (by an IRS employee who plead guilty to the crime in 2023). IRS lawyers prepared a proper, compelling defense against the suit, but Trump’s DOJ never showed up in court to use the defense. In fact, the department put forth no legal argument whatsoever, despite, among other things, Trump filing the suit too late. The DOJ was essentially going to concede the case, and the $10 billion (compliments of U.S. taxpayers), to Donald Trump.

The judge presiding over the case was understandably very suspicious, and called on the DOJ and Trump’s attorneys to explain what in the heck was going on. It looked to her like the two sides were colluding rather than sitting on opposite sides of the complaint. The day before their explanation was due in court, Trump abruptly dropped his suit, and the DOJ immediately announced a “settlement” with the president that included him ending his money request, the DOJ apologizing to him, the IRS dropping any and all audits of Trump and his family, and — last but not least — the creation of the federal fund.

And because Trump’s attorneys dropped the case entirely, to be settled outside of court, there was no “settlement of record” for the judge to review. She’ll never receive her requested explanation for what had gone on between Trump’s legal team and the DOJ.

So, if you think the only recipients of big-dollar amounts from the clandestine Anti-Weaponization Fund will be January 6 criminals, disgraced former officials, and a hodgepodge of cartoon villains and cable-news flunkies, you may want to put a little more thought into that.

And if none of this bothers you as an American, why doesn’t it? Even if you’re someone who believes that President Trump is God’s gift to our nation, and that he has never lost an election, do you think that he, his family, and his allies should have license to loot the U.S. Treasury in this way?

If you do, I’d love to hear why.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John- With socialists, communists, and progressives winning elections for various positions in our country, do you perceive more violence and upheaval against THESE folks by the more conservative and traditional? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I’m not sure which “communists” you’re referring to (maybe I missed something). As for “socialists,” I’d argue that elements of both of today’s major parties are embracing tenets of socialism. Regardless, I get the gist of your question.

As I’ve stated before, I worry about political violence from both sides of the political spectrum (and in between), but the stuff we’ve seen from the Right over the past decade feels less tied to ideology than what we’ve seen from the Left. For example, the January 6 violence wasn’t aimed at socialists, communists, or progressives. It was a product of the “stolen election” hoax, and was aimed at the U.S. Congress (including Republicans members) and Vice President Mike Pence. Other, more isolated incidents have been motivated by bigotry.

So, I guess I’m not so much worried about political violence on the Right arising from lefties winning elections, as I am in reaction to conspiratorial B.S. and ethnic intolerance. That said, any political violence is of deep concern.

Editor’s note: The following question was submitted prior to Thomas Massie’s GOP primary loss.

So I have recently noticed a similar split forming in the Trump - critical conservative pundit space over Thomas Massie, as the one over Graham Platner. (He’s gotten at least one Strange New Respect piece from left leaning media too.) Curious where you stand.

Some, like Gregg Nunziata, advocate supporting him against a Trumpy primary challenger, as a rare Republican willing to publicly break with Trump at times. Others, like Kimberly Ross, advocate shunning him as an anti-Semite. (And yes, I did specifically pick these examples because they have both been on your podcast and probably agree about a lot, but not this.)

Also, do you think Massie even is anti-Semitic. The Dispatch recently published a Drucker piece on the primary that IMO glossed over the charge as Massie just being an isolationist opposed to maintaining ties to Israel, yet not only does he often ally with the Squad on anti- Israel bills, he also pals around with the likes of MTG and recently went on Tucker, both of whom I certainly see as anti - Semites who shouldn’t actually be embraced just because they’re now critical of Trump. Do you see Massie in the same camp, or not? — Alyene W.

Hi Aylene. I consider both Gregg and Kimberly friends. Like you said, they agree with each other often, and I agree with the two of them often. I’ll address each part of your question.

I think Graham Platner is a non-starter. The case Democrats and some Bulwark-types have been trying to make for him carries no weight with me, and it’s not just because it requires overlooking lots of things about Platner that should absolutely not be overlooked (some of which Bernie recently wrote about). It’s also predicated on the notion that Platner is somehow the “lesser of two evils.” He’s not, and here’s why: The Republican he’ll be running against (after he presumably wins the Democratic primary) is Susan Collins. And Susan Collins isn’t evil! Heck, she’s not even Trumpian. People may recall that she’s one of the few Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on his impeachment. Of course, for the Dems, this is all about winning the seat (at all costs), an not the quality or fitness of the person who holds that seat.

I didn’t read Gregg’s case for Massie, but I wouldn’t have voted for Massie (nor his MAGA opponents) in the GOP primary, and I don’t share that “strange new respect” for Massie (and MTG, Tucker, etc.) that some on the left have suddenly discovered. Massie is a longtime conspiracy freak who, among other things, whitewashed Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his provocation of the Jan. 6 attack (as MTG and Tucker also did). I’m not going to suddenly find any of them admirable just because they opposed Trump on the Iran War or his handling of the Epstein files. And that’s before we even get to the antisemitic charges.

As for whether Massie is authentically an antisemite, I can’t read his mind, but the nature of his attacks evoking Israel (like claiming his primary opponents were in the pocket of the pro-Israel lobby), and — as you said — his associations with people who are more transparently antisemitic, certainly make him look like one.

Is Trump setting up a $1.8 billion taxpayer-paid slush fund to supposedly pay large sums of money to January 6 criminals a natural progression of the unchecked corruption we’ve seen over the last year and a half? — Ben G.

Yeah, pretty much, and it goes back further than that. I keep calling this the YOLO presidency, and the president’s going to keep upping the ante on what he thinks he can get away with, until he can no longer get away with it. I’m probably going to write a column about this next week, Ben, but this extraordinary abuse of power (that Republicans would rightly be screaming bloody murder over if it were Obama or Biden), has likely risen to the top of the Democrats’ impeachment list for after the midterms.

John, I am not great at math, so maybe you can help. How much of your soul do you have to sell to become a politician? Is there a fixed percentage, or does the price increase as you rise on the political ladder? — Benn H.

In today’s environment, that number is very high. And yes, the percentage does increase as you rise up the latter and become more powerful and consequential. It’s especially challenging right now for House and Senate Republicans to demonstrate any semblance of dignity, due the intense demands for servility from the party’s leader and his loyalists.

If you’re a high-ranking GOP leader, unless you’re willing to completely prostrate yourself for the president, you run a very risk of being driven out of politics and public service forever.

John: Bernie commented this week about Trump's increasing disconnect with the American voter. But what about Republican primary voters' disconnect with the rest of the country and even their own party? They continue to roll over and acquiesce to Trump's every whim and endorsement, which you outlined yourself this week with the ending of Sen. Bill Cassidy's career. Just yesterday in my home state of Texas, Trump endorsed for senate Ken Paxton, a despicable politician who has a great chance of losing in the general election. This despite John Cornyn being a 99% reliable Trump backer and senator with the respect, authority and support of his fellow Republican senators. Cornyn still has a decent chance at winning in this runoff, but the odds just got steeper. I usually stay away from blaming voters - specifically the Trump voters that get vilified by the left - for the country's problems, but I'm solidly in that space right now. — Steve R.

With very few exceptions, the vast majority of GOP primary voters still vote for whoever Trump tells them to vote for. It doesn’t matter how much the candidate sucks, or even what the candidate believes in (as long as they reliably kiss Trump’s butt). Ken Paxton is a perfect example. The guy is corrupt to the core (morally, ethically, legally, you name it). Because of that, he’s less likely to win the general election than John Cornyn (though he could certainly pull it off, being that Texas is a red state).

Like you, Steve, I find it extremely frustrating. Our nation faces serious challenges. We desperately need competent, responsible, quality people in positions of public leadership. But that’s not a priority for the modern Republican Party, and it often isn’t for the Democratic Party either. Like you, I place blame on primary voters (in addition to party leadership). If they wanted serious, qualified candidates, that’s who they would nominate.

Sir John: according to some liberal memes, Mayor Mamdani of New York has he actually fixed the economy and everything is just fine despite the Naysayers on the right. I’m skeptical because snippets and sound bites often omit facts. What’s say you? —“Mamdani Saves New York” Regards from The Emperor

Emperor, I came up with my own political meme a few years back:

Hope that helps!

Seriously though, there’s absolutely no reason to take any meme at face value. And they’re easily fact-checked with today’s AI tools (which I can’t recommend highly enough to you, Emperor). Something going viral online doesn’t make it factually correct.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

On February 13, 2021, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) was one of just seven Republican senators who voted to convict former President Trump on his impeachment for inciting the January 6 attack on our nation’s Capitol.

“I voted to convict Trump because he is guilty,” Cassidy boldly stated at the time, surprising many political observers who’d predicted he’d side with the president.

It was the correct decision — a patriotic one that required defying the North Star principle that had defined his political party over the previous four years: unconditional loyalty to Donald J. Trump.

Still, Cassidy probably figured his vote would be less politically problematic for him than for other impeachment-supporting Republicans. He had just been reelected for another six-year term. While GOP primary voters were sure to punish pro-impeachment members of the House (like Liz Cheney) a year and a half later, Cassidy would be afforded over half a decade for his deep-red Louisiana constituents to snap free of the MAGA spell, and heal from the bitterness of Trump’s defeat.

But Republicans, by and large, weren’t ready to move on. In service to Trump, the GOP effectively codified the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen (or at minimum, “rigged”). Many Trump supporters even let themselves be duped (by the Tucker Carlson wing of the Right) into believing that January 6 was a false flag operation, or perhaps something no more serious than “peaceful grandmothers” taking a “self-guided tour” of the Capitol. In which case, Trump couldn’t possibly be blamed for his actions during that time, and was naturally deserving of another shot at the White House.

Trump won the 2024 primary race in a landslide, and when a Biden-weary electorate handed him his second general-election win a few months later, Cassidy knew the situation wouldn’t bode well for his 2026 reelection hopes.

After all, the senator had seen what had happened to his Republican colleagues who’d likewise supported Trump’s impeachment. Only two of the ten House members remained in office, and Lisa Murkowski, the only pro-impeachment GOP senator who’d won reelection since then (despite Trump’s best efforts), did so through a complicated ranked-choice voting system.

Suffice to say, Cassidy had a tough political decision to make. If he was determined to follow through with his reelection plans, he would have to go down one of two avenues:

1. Continue to responsibly serve in the Senate with honor and distinction, run on that record, and hope for the best.

2. Grovel at Trump’s feet for the next year and a half, and pray that — unlike in every other circumstance — he would receive forgiveness for his impeachment vote, and not face political retribution.

Neither strategy was going to spare Cassidy’s political career, but at least with the first one, the senator would have been able to leave office with his head held high, knowing he had done right by his country (and his conscience), and ended his tenure with a political legacy to be proud of.

He instead chose the second, convincing himself that he could somehow get back in the president’s good graces by becoming a born again Trump sycophant, similar to how JD Vance, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and other former Trump critics and rivals had managed to.

But it wasn’t enough for Cassidy to simply engage in the same cringe-worthy, over-the-top flattery that his Republican colleagues were all too comfortable with. He felt he needed to also surrender his better judgment on the most consequential decision he would make in Trump’s second term: the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee.

As I detailed back in January:

Cassidy, a highly-respected physician, had expressed deep-seated concerns over [RFK Jr.]. What Cassidy especially found troubling was Kennedy’s long history of nutty vaccine-skepticism (which Kennedy had a financial stake in), and his favoring of wild speculation and rhetorical anecdotes over proven health science. It was quite obvious during the confirmation hearings that Cassidy knew Kennedy was not only grossly unfit for the job, but could even be dangerous with that level of public power.

Cassidy had a moral, ethical, and patriotic responsibility to vote no on RFK Jr. Doing so would have only meant that Trump would have to nominate someone else (like he did after the Matt Gaetz debacle). But that would have embarrassed the president, and been seen as another act of defiance. Cassidy, I’m sure uncomfortably so, prioritized his reelection hopes. He caved to pressure from the White House, and became the deciding vote to confirm Kennedy.

It was a dereliction of duty, plain and simple. The same is true of every other senator that supported Kennedy’s nomination, but Cassidy, more than anyone else (because of his background), knew better.

Cassidy tried to rationalize his controversial decision, saying that Kennedy had offered him assurances that he would never dismantle our country’s vaccine safety systems or remove government guidance for vaccines. But the senator seemed unconvinced by his own words… and with good reason. Within mere months, Kennedy had done both, and he’s spent the last year falsely diagnosing various health conditions with witch-doctor quackery, and defunding promising mRNA research.

Oh, and as expected, Trump urged an election-denying primary opponent into Cassidy’s race, and quickly endorsed her. As GOP primary voters were heading to the polls last Sunday, Trump even got in some extra shots at Cassidy, calling him a “disloyal disaster,” a “sleazebag,” and a “terrible guy.”

When all was said and done, Cassidy got less than 25% of the primary vote. He finished in third place — a two-term incumbent senator who’d won both of his previous statewide elections by double digits.

It’s hard to imagine how Cassidy could have foreseen any other ending. Maybe he figured that if people who’d publicly compared Trump to Hitler could wind up as high-raking members of the Trump administration (as JD Vance and RFK Jr. both did), there was, as Jim Carrey’s character in Dumb and Dumber might have said, “a chance.” But in the president’s mind, even the most disparaging rhetoric is a far lighter infraction than someone using their constitutional authority to hold him accountable for his actions, or even just to prevent him from doing something he really, really, really wants to do.

Following his loss, Cassidy has said he doesn’t regret his impeachment vote — a position he’d been less candid about in recent years. “I had the privilege of voting to uphold the Constitution, isn’t that a great thing?” he told reporters the other day.

What he hasn’t said, despite offering several criticisms of RFK Jr., is whether he regrets voting to confirm him as our HHS Secretary. I’m not sure he has to say anything about it — at least not for my benefit. I’ve seen the answer written across his face every time he’s been asked about the issue, or has faced Kennedy, in the time since.

I suspect this political era will end with many regrets, hallmarked by the blinding allure of political longevity. I think that’s already shown to be the case.

Anyway, Cassidy has another eight months left in office. I suspect he’ll probably use that time the same way that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has since announcing his retirement last year: taking principled positions, pursuing conservative policies, and speaking his mind (regardless of what Trump and his supporters think about it). And in doing so, Cassidy may even manage to clear some of his conscience, and salvage a bit of his reputation.

But it won’t repair the damage caused by his unwillingness to once again do what was right when it really mattered.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings Sir John: Apparently many residents of a Chicago suburb are angry & upset because Walgreens is closing a store in the high crime area of Chatham due to the high cost of theft AND its employees being assaulted by criminal thugs. Well when LIBERAL DEMOCRATS refuse to adequately punish criminals while simultaneously punishing honest citizens who fight back to protect life & property, what else would the citizens who continue to vote Blue (including likely many of these Walgreens staff & management) EXPECT that corporation to do when it is constantly being robbed and its employees are constantly in danger of being assaulted !? WHY don’t the citizens & local politicians blame the ones committing the crimes instead of corporate management? What are your thoughts on this story? —“Take Two Red Pills & Call Me In The Morning” Regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. Chicago citizens obviously shouldn’t be upset at Walgreens for closing that location. They should be upset at the criminals who forced the location out of business and the local government for being ineffectual at dealing with the crime problem there.

As for why citizens continue to vote for a status-quo environment known for its high crime-rate, I suppose some of it has to do with voter priorities, like social programs and government-created jobs. I think a lot of it also has to do with the Democratic political machine in Chicago. It’s been around for many decades, has an airtight relationship with major community and interest groups, and has the capacity to politically overwhelm any outsider (or Republican) candidate offering a stark contrast.

I should add that I am by no means an expert on Chicago politics, so there are probably additional explanations.

Which progressive “intellectual” most annoys you? — Ben G.

Lol. Probably Robert Reich, and mainly for two reasons:

1. My progressive friends keep sharing his stupid videos on Facebook.

2. The points he makes in those videos are rarely intelligent, and often aren’t factual. He just articulates emotions-based progressive ideology (rich people suck, poor people shouldn’t have to pay for stuff, etc.), in a way that makes other progressives think he’s making intellectual, realistic arguments (which he isn’t).

Annoying is the right word, Ben.

Hi John, I was a bit surprised that you and Mr. G. both said you would vote for Mitt Romney for president (not that you believe he will run, but if he did). My reasoning is that, while he seems like a genuinely good, decent, and honorable human being, he was not exactly for small government. Romney-care is one example, but I always saw him as more of a Herbert Hoover type -- well-meaning, an excellent businessman, a person who considers himself a problem-solver, but not a huge believer in free-markets. Am I wrong? — Bob B.

Hi Bob. I was lukewarm on Romney in 2012 (I voted for Newt in the primary), in part because I did indeed question his conservative credentials. Romneycare (in blue-state Massachusetts) was one reason, though I think his later explanation actually made sense: the state’s Democratic legislature had written it, had a veto-proof majority, and was hell-bent on making it law with or without his support. So, as governor, he stepped in and tried to make it better, and in doing so basically took political ownership of it (an effort to take a lemon and make lemonade out of it). Regardless, I felt a lot better once Paul Ryan joined the ticket, and the campaign’s focus was on economic/fiscal issues.

I became much more impressed with Romney in 2016, when he opposed Trump on principle, and publicly said what many Republicans knew was right, but were too cowardly to say so. When he became a U.S. Senator two years later, he served as a principled conservative (much more conservative and pro-free-market than Trump), and again showed a lot of moral courage, this time in standing up to Trump’s abuses of power.

So yeah, at this point in history, I have a pretty high opinion of Romney. I hope he’s enjoying retirement. Thanks for listening!

I don’t think Mr. Romney distanced himself from Romneycare until his POTUS run. And what about in 1994 when he ran for Sen. Kennedy’s seat and tried to out-liberal Sen. Kennedy? Personally, Mr. Romney appears very decent. But when he’s politicking he can be chameleon. — Bob H.

Bob, I don’t recall for sure exactly when Mitt Romney began offering the kind of nuance on Romneycare that I described in my previous answer (to the other Bob), but it probably was when he ran for president in 2008. Regardless, I’ve looked into his explanation, and it does appear to be accurate. And you’re right about early is his political career, when he did try to appeal to Massachusetts voters’ liberal leanings in his race against Ted Kennedy. When Romney first entered the national political scene, I would have been comfortable calling him a chameleon too (and I may have even actually done that).

But as I’ve written before, I can’t think of a Republican politician who’s been more intellectually and ideologically consistent than Mitt Romney over the last 15 years. And like I told the other Bob, he’s far more conservative than today’s GOP and its leader.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Trump is considering pardoning 250 people on his birthday, in commemoration of our nation’s 250th birthday. Do you think he’ll go through with it? — Alex D.

Probably. I mean, why wouldn’t he? He’s already pardoned thousands of individuals, including hundreds of violent criminals (some were war criminals), major drug traffickers, and corrupt CEOs. By the time he leaves office, he’ll likely issue sweeping pardons to much of his administration, numerous associates, and of course himself. A mere 250 at this point, insultingly framed as an act of patriotism, feels entirely realistic. I guess we’ll see.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

A recent YouGov poll revealed something troubling that a number of other polls (along with a fair amount of anecdotal evidence online) have suggested for some time: a significant portion of Democrats believe that the assassination attempts on President Trump’s life were “staged.”

26% believe it of the incident at Trump’s golf course. 34% attribute it to what went down last month at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. And a whopping 42% believe that the shooting at Butler Farm Show Grounds in 2024, during which Trump was shot in the ear and a spectator was killed, was phony-baloney.

In other words, the more dramatic the incident, the more likely it was staged.

Many on the political right have been touting these findings as proof that the Democratic Party has a serious conspiracy-theory problem on their hands.

Pro-Trump columnist Byron York called the situation a “Democratic fantasy world,” and I’m inclined to agree with him. I think it’s delusional to buy into these occurrences being staged, absent of proof, and based primarily (if not entirely) on the notion that being targeted for (and escaping) political violence elevates Trump’s stature… and perceptually broad-strokes those who strongly oppose him as being aligned with violent lunatics.

Sure, some would argue that Trump’s lack of character, and his long history of gaslighting the American people, should not afford him the benefit of the doubt. They would say it warrants at least considering the idea that he and his team orchestrated these incidents — especially the Butler one. After all, the imagery of Trump rising from under his podium with blood streaming down his face, clenching a fist in the air and encouraging his supporters to “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, felt like something straight out of a Hollywood production.

But that’s the same deeply flawed logic used by 9/11 Truthers, and those who’ve long insisted that the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage. It’s built on the premise that something so visually dynamic and conducive to a preferred narrative can’t possibly be on the up and up. This is a mindset that values emotional interpretation over factual evaluation, and it can lead to the latter being disregarded entirely.

Suffice to say, that’s not a healthy thing for society. Sometimes it’s even outright dangerous, which is why rational and reasonable people of good faith ought to call it out whenever they see it.

But that’s not quite what’s happening with much of the push-back I’m observing against the “staged assassination” stuff. Far too many of those appropriately denouncing it are doing so from the bottom of the same conspiratorial nesting box.

To this day, national polls show that 60-70% of Republicans still believe that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. Five and a half years later, despite the ongoing theatrics (including from our current president), the facts are no more on those people’s side than they are on the side of those who believe in the “staged assassination” nonsense. Those willing to call out one of those groups, but not the other, are part of the problem.

Case in point, if you read Byron York’s columns, or follow him on social media, you know that he’s barely been critical at all of the widespread Republican belief that Joe Biden didn’t legitimately win the 2020 election. In fact, York has been pretty understanding of (and even sympathetic to) the view, developing arguments over the years that minimize, trivialize, and otherwise downplay its significance. In typical York fashion, he’s put far more focus on what he sees as Democratic “overreaction” to the falsity.

But when it comes to the belief that attempts on Donald Trump’s life were staged, York laments “a political atmosphere in which some people will believe anything about their hated opponent.”

Go figure.

On a side note, it seems that there are some folks who actually believe both of these major conspiracy theories. 7% of Republicans in the YouGov poll think that the Butler assassination-attempt was staged, and, for some reason, twice as many think that the one at the correspondents’ dinner was staged. The numbers for independents are in the low 20s for each. Comparably, about 9% of Democrats think Trump won the 2020 election, and around 20% of independents believe that. This overlap would at least suggest that some bipartisanship and intellectual consistency still exists in this country… though not in a positive way.

The sad reality is that large portions of both major parties believe in thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories, some of which have been harmful to our democratic foundations. What’s needed to combat the problem is a strengthening of our shared sense of reality, and a serious commitment to weeding out misinformation.

Unfortunately, in these deeply polarized times — in which partisan division is both a political resource and a very lucrative business model — that’s a very tall order.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

How was President Obama needlessly divisive? I asked you this once before but you didn’t answer.

Granted, one instance was when he said the Cambridge police responding to a possible break-in “acted stupidly.” That remark was stupid, and he stepped on the message of his press conference (I have no idea what it was). But he apparently learned from it. He had that “beer summit,” which was better than nothing. In the polarized aftermath of the Trevon Martin case he obliquely emphasized with those outraged by the acquittal but ended up by saying something to effect that we must respect the system. He hit the right cord. Once, in his 2008 campaign he made an off-hand reference to racial prejudice against him. Other that those two isolated instances I don’t know how he was NEEDLESSLY divisive. Many of his supporters were divisive, but that’s a different matter. — Bob H.

Hi Bob. I think you’re illustrating what Jessica Riedl was describing, in that most Obama supporters simply didn’t see it (though, as a longtime reader, I’m guessing you read at least some of my several writings on the topic years ago). I think it’s even more difficult for those people to see it in retrospect, now that we’ve been in the Trump-era of American politics for over a decade. Trump, like I stated in my original point, has been far worse, and more blatant about it (including borrowing techniques from Obama, and injecting them with steroids).

Anyway, if you want some examples of how I described Obama, here you go…

Obama liked to present himself as our country’s moral conscience. If you agreed with him, you were doing right by America. If you opposed him, you were a petty, uncaring person who was doing harm to our country and its citizens. Case in point, Obama and members of his administration liked to refer to their opposition as people who were “betting against America” and “on the wrong side of history.” Obama also made a habit of beginning sentences with, “There are those who say…” or “There are Republicans who say…,” and then finishing those sentences with a straw-man argument that no Republican (or anyone else) was making. His supporters would nod along, while righties understandably resented having false, demeaning positions assigned to them, from which Obama reliably declared the moral high-ground over.

This was a large part of his Obamacare campaign. He portrayed Republicans as cruel and callous for opposing his legislation, despite that legislation being opposed by most Americans, and premised on multiple false selling-points (including Politfact’s “Lie of the Year”). As someone who personally lost both his affordable insurance plan and his doctor as a result of Obamacare, I can’t tell you how frustrating it was to be told that my (and millions of others’) objection to it meant that I lacked compassion and wanted others to suffer.

On fiscal policy, you may recall that Obama, at one point, called a truce of sorts, inviting Republicans to present serious debt-reduction and entitlement-reform plans to him for a good-faith discussion. When Paul Ryan answered the call, Obama invited Ryan for a front-row seat to his speech on the topic. Obama then proclaimed from the stage (and to the world) that Ryan’s budget would essentially lead to the destruction of America, including letting bridges collapse and forcing autistic and disabled kids to fend for themselves. It was an epic double-cross, and a shameful display of hyper-partisan demagoguery. (By the way, recent studies have shown that Ryan’s rather modest reforms would have put our country on a much better trajectory — both with our national debt and entitlements). Glad we dodged that bullet!

As Bob Woodward described quite thoroughly in his book, The Price of Politics, Obama never made any serious attempt to work with Republicans, yet insisted at every opportunity that he was bending over backwards to accommodate them. It was pure gaslighting.

Obama spent the first two years of his presidency blaming every negative metric there was on the Bush administration. With the economy still struggling by 2012 (along with Obama’s poll numbers), Obama built his reelection campaign on a class warfare theme. He created corporate scapegoats and stoked jealousy among the electorate. Wealthy people were portrayed as villains who weren’t paying their “fair share,” and the middle class was told it was wealthy people (not failed public policy preventing a solid recovery) who were causing their fiscal woes. Obama even refused to denounce his super PAC for falsely accusing his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, of somehow killing a cancer victim with his greediness.

The Obama administration went after conservative media figures like Rush Limbaugh, making them the face of their opposition. They declared that Fox News was not a legitimate news organization, warned other news outlets not to follow Fox’s lead, and even went as far as to trying to eliminate FNC's presence in the White House press pool (which other media organizations loudly denounced, and pressured an end to). The administration referred to the Tea Party as “teabaggers” (a sexually derogatory term), portrayed the movement as inherently racist, and called them “hostage takers” and “terrorists.”

And don’t even get me started on the “War on Women.”

I could go on and on, Bob, but I’m hoping at least some of these examples jog your memory. Unfortunately, a lot of Obama supporters still dismiss them (and many others) out of hand, and claim that Obama was only divisive to racists.

Others (as you did in a separate comment) like to evoke non-controversies like the “tan suit” stuff, in order to dismiss Republicans as being comically opposed to anything having to do with Obama. In reality, I can count how many people gave a s*** about Obama’s tan suit on one hand. As someone who watched way too many hours of Fox News back then, I hadn’t even heard of the supposed “scandal” until The Daily Show spliced together a handful of clips, and presented it as some big blow-up on the Right (which, again, it wasn’t). When lefties bring up the “tan suit” to dismiss criticism of Obama, it’s not much different to me than when MAGA folks dismiss criticism of Trump as people just objecting to his “mean tweets.” It’s a nonsense narrative.

Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough on this topic. You got your money’s worth this week, Bob. 😉

What do you think about political candidates running AI video-ads depicting their opponents saying and going things they’ve never done? I’m seeing more of that. — Ben G.

I don’t like it, Ben. AI has gotten so good in this arena (among others) that it’s almost impossible these days to the tell the difference between the real deal and a fabrication. I think that’s potentially dangerous, and not just in the realm of politics. Our country’s citizens already have a serious problem with unhesitatingly buying into propaganda and bias-confirming falsities. This type of thing makes it even worse.

I get the impression there was recently yet another round in the Dispatch vs. Bulwark wars, with some NR aligned people also getting in the scrum, apparently set off by Bill Kristol endorsing Court packing, which I find really confusing. I mean, I certainly think that Court packing is a stupid idea, to say the least. But I am a bit confused about why that specific comment inspired another round of fighting over Who Has The More Principled Approach To The Trump Era.

Personally, I think Bulwarkism is commendable in being anti- Trump, but lately they’re starting to forget *why* they’re anti- Trump, by playing footsie with illiberal ideas (like Court Packing) and elements on the Left (like Hasan Piker). And that although many individuals at NR have stuck to their principles, unfortunately the publication as a whole is, if not quite pro-Trump, anti- anti- Trump by focusing on and being way more outraged by examples of Leftist excesses than Trumpian ones.

I think TD is doing the best at balancing various principles, but even they aren’t perfect. I mean, this week they platformed Jeremiah Johnson, who wrote eloquently against Democrats embracing Hasan Piker ... Yet also recently encouraged people to vote for Graham Platner, because “control of the Senate is too important to risk”. I didn’t even realize until that post that Johnson is apparently a Democrat, but at least that is a defense against the charge that TD is engaging in the kind of performative anti- leftism that I certainly think NR does at times. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. There was indeed a big Bulwark/Dispatch online hullabaloo, though I didn’t see much Dispatch involvement in it. As you said, it began with Bill Kristol’s nod to court-packing, which drew criticism from National Review’s Charles Cooke, which led to Real Clear Politics’ Sean Trende making the below observation:

There really wasn’t a reason to drag The Dispatch into the conversation for a Bulwark comparison, other than that MAGA and anti-anti-Trumpers hate both of them for being critical of Trump, and like to pretend they’re basically the same (which is very much false).

Anyway, very broadly speaking, I think Sean was right (his post went viral). And people at The Bulwark actually agreed with him:

I also mostly agree with your assessments, Aylene, of the three publications mentioned. I’ll just add a couple of things:

• I like (and am friendly with) some of the people at The Bulwark, but a number of their commentators sound like Democratic hacks in their reflexive opposition of Trump. If one has to change their position on an issue, just to get on the opposite side of it as Trump, their argument lacks principle and credibility. A lot of people may not care about those things, but I do.

• Regarding Jeremiah Johnson (who’s been a Dispatch contributor for some time), he’s indeed a centrist Democrat whose focus is on restoring sanity to his party — including calling out its extremists. He’s kind of an independent outlier, which I think attracted The Dispatch to him in the first place. Thus, his position on Piker doesn’t surprise me at all. I hadn’t heard about his position on Platner, which I’m confident no one else writing for The Dispatch shares.

As I’ve stated many times, from a conservative point of view, I think The Dispatch does the best job of the three media organizations.

Sir John — Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson’s policies seem to be what spurred on the Starbucks Empire exodus from Progressive Leftist Seattle to Conservative Nashville Tennessee. I don’t know how many Starbucks bigwigs and employees voted for Katie Wilson, but for those that did, what the hell did they expect would happen after she gained power? For that matter, what the hell did Mayor Katie Wilson expect that Starbucks and other businesses would do because of her policies? For the record, I’m not a fan of Starbucks OR progressive politicians, but I can’t help relishing the schadenfreude when I see progressive leftists reaping the curses of their own short-sighted foolishness. Your thoughts? — “Starbucks Liberal Latte Tears” regards from The Emperor

Like you, Emperor, I don’t care much about Pacific Northwest politics or Starbucks coffee. If a business environment becomes too difficult in a particular region or municipality, I’m all for private businesses moving to friendlier ones. My hope, whenever something like this happens, is for governing bodies to learn a lesson from it and change public policy. And if they don’t, my hope is for constituents to vote them out of office and elect leaders who will. Unfortunately, in these big-city strongholds, that rarely happens. Some of the most hardened ideologies are disconnected from considerations of success and failure. It’s very weird, but it’s sadly the reality. Decline is often a choice.

In regard to your Rubio column and your question about whether the MAGA base would support him in 2028, I’m seeing many of them online say they would. I know that’s not concrete evidence of anything, and don’t know if they’d still feel that way two years from now. Something funny though: When I ask these people what was wrong with Rubio in 2016, they say “he wasn’t ready yet.” And Donald Trump was??? — Alex D.

Alex, I’ve been running into that exact same thing online. It’s as if they’re all reading from the same script, and you’re right to be amused by it. Rubio was by no means perfect in 2016. He tripped up a few times in his campaigning. But good grief, he’d been a U.S. Senator for five years, served on multiple important committees, and may have had the strongest grasp of issues and policies of anyone who ran that year. Trump, on the other hand, knew nothing about governance or public policy, and often spoke nonsensically (albeit defiantly) about both. He won the nomination largely on insults, attitude, and his celebrity persona. The notion that Rubio was a novice in comparison is absurd.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

I thought the Marco Rubio of the pre-Trump era was pretty great.

A young, passionate Reaganite with an inspiring immigrant-family story and a strong grasp of important issues, Rubio was widely believed to be the future of the GOP. He rose up quickly through the ranks of Republican politics, earning a Florida House seat at the age of 28. Six years later, he became Florida House Speaker. He became a favorite of the Tea Party movement during President Obama’s first term, and by his 40th birthday, he was already a U.S. Senator.

In the spring of 2015, having built an impressive national profile, and having established himself as a leading voice on numerous issues, he announced that he was running for president.

As talented and popular as Rubio was at the time, capturing the 2016 nomination was always going to be a tall order, especially with 16 other Republican hopefuls to contend with, including governors, fellow senators, and a pop-culture icon whose outrageous theatrics sucked all the oxygen out of the room. In the end, a plurality of Republican voters (roughly one-third) chose the latter, apparently believing that a celebrity-businessman, serial adulterer, and lifelong Democrat (with his own reality-show, no less) was the best available choice to represent the party.

To Rubio’s credit, he was one of the last men standing in the race (though the contest was never really close). He suspended his campaign in mid-March of 2016, before yours truly had a chance to cast his intended vote for him.

It’s a shame. I think the Rubio of 2016 was exactly what the GOP — and more importantly the country — needed at that point in history. If he had won the nomination, I think he would have destroyed the immensely unlikable Hillary Clinton in the general election, and ushered in a conservative era of governance that would have put our nation on a far better trajectory than what we’ve seen over the last decade. I think he not only would have delivered the same conservative wins as Trump did in his first term with Republican congressional majorities (notably on judges and tax reform), but also many, many more — including desperately needed fiscal reforms to address our skyrocketing national debt. And I’m confident it would have happened without the daily chaos, needless levels of societal polarization, and breathtaking abuses of power.

But again, that’s not the path that America took. And as the GOP dropped farther down the rabbit-hole of personality-cultism and big-government populism, Rubio — albeit awkwardly at times — just kind of went along with it.

When tasked with having to choose between what was morally and institutionally right, and maintaining his political viability, he talked a good game but reliably chose the latter. He made extraordinary capitulations to stay within his party’s good graces (including letting President Trump off the hook for Jan. 6), and as many have joked over the years, the purgatory-like expressions on his face often told the story of his despair.

But a decade into this era of a Trump-servile GOP, Rubio’s stock is on the rise again.

As Secretary of State, he has performed well beyond expectations, and established himself as the most competent (and comically overworked) member of Trump’s cabinet. In contrast with other party leaders, he speaks glowingly rather than pessimistically of America. His statesmanship and command of important issues have even impressed his ideological foes. And recent Republican polling of 2028 presidential preferences shows that Rubio is quickly catching up to Vice President JD Vance, who many on the right had all but coronated as the heir apparent to MAGA.

Of course, some of that shift is likely attributable to Vance’s political weaknesses. Truth be told, Vance has never been a particularly effective nor likeable politician. In fact, he was well on his way to losing his Senate primary in Ohio in 2022 when Trump came to his rescue in the eleventh hour. Vance went on to win that year’s general election, but by a significantly smaller margin than every other Republican on the same red-state ballot.

Vance’s most memorable moments since becoming vice president have been of him causing the Volodymyr Zelenskyy dust-up in the Oval Office, campaigning for disgraced former Hungarian president Viktor Orbán, and presumably being behind the Iran-War leaks coming out of the White House. Vance’s trademark smugness and condescending tone certainly haven’t helped.

Still, once can’t take away the positive recognition Rubio has earned for himself. Even people like me, who’d given up hope on him long ago, are starting to come around on the idea of him being a reasonable off-ramp — in a couple years — from the Trump GOP.

Is he my ideal choice? No. I’d much prefer someone who didn’t sell off parts of their soul, and call into question their commitment to the Constitution, all for political job-security. But I’m also enough of a realist to understand that those who honorably stood up to Trump, when it mattered the most, have no future in the modern Republican Party. (Trump has personally seen to that).

The rise of Rubio also raises some questions. Does he even want to run for president again? (His social-media team seems to think so). And if he does choose to run, would he do it in 2028? President Trump is immensely unpopular at the moment, and two years from now the Republican brand may be so diminished that serious GOP contenders may want to sit out the presidential cycle, and bide their time until 2032.

Personally, I hope that isn’t the case. Most politicians who make that calculation seem to miss their moment, and voters move on from them. Plus, with the Democrats still a mess, and seemingly not having learned much from their painful 2024 loss, I’m not convinced a Republican can’t win in 2028. If that door is indeed open, it would be a farce to cede the nomination to JD Vance, some know-nothing podcaster, or Kid Rock.

One also has to wonder if a sufficient number of MAGA faithfuls would support Rubio. Trump-critical conservatives like me have our own trepidation about him, but as part of the pre-Trump GOP establishment, Rubio is suspicious to them too — perhaps even more so (and they make up a larger portion of the Republican base).

There’s also Trump himself to consider. The president has a history of putting his most loyal government servants in the unenviable position of having to choose between what he personally wants, and upholding the rule of law. And if they choose the latter, he quickly throws them under the bus. If you don’t believe me, ask Mike Pence, Bill Barr, and Jeff Sessions. Heck, even Pam Bondi all but surrendering the DOJ to Trump’s bottomless appetite for retribution couldn’t save her job.

In that respect, a Rubio candidacy could be over before it starts.

Given the alternatives, I hope that’s not the case. I’m a longtime proponent of both parties putting forth their best and most qualified representatives to serve in the White House. And my gut tells me that underneath it all, Rubio still believes in the same things he believed in, and campaigned on, ten years ago. If so, that would be a major upgrade for both the party and the country.

Then again, my gut could easily be wrong. It’s happened before.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

I was reading a lot of the deranged responses to your Obama post. It’s insane how many people still think it’s a racist to criticize him. — Ben G.

Ben, as usual, I’m now going to have to explain to people what you’re talking about. Lol. (It’s okay, I don’t mind).

I posted this the other day on X, and yeah, it go a lot of attention:

I’ve made the point a few times over the years, and seemingly whenever I do, a ton of Obama fans fly into my mentions out of nowhere to prove me right. I understand lefties not agreeing with my conservative critiques of Obama, but the inability of so many of them to even understand how needlessly divisive he was, in how he went about his politicking, is a true testament to the power of partisanship. Many of them truly believe Obama was a good-faith politician, who was nothing but unifying in his approach to his opposition, but had his hand repeatedly slapped away by Republicans.

Conservative economist, Jessica Riedl, agreed with me, and summarized the issue quite well:

This naturally led to a whole bunch of Obama fans calling the two of racists, because, in their minds, Obama transcended politics. He was, as Charles Krauthammer used to say, “always on the side of the angels.”

So far, the simplest explanation seems to be the case; the [WHCD] shooter was a loon whose rants about the Trump Administration and the complicity of anyone even allowing Trump to breathe same air, could come straight out of Bluesky, where he actually may have had an account, but turned out to actually be serious. He saw Trump the same way Mangione likely saw Thompson, that he was morally, even if not legally, culpable for people suffering and dying, and so deserved capital punishment.

I suppose though that it’s a good sign that most Bluesky Libs aren’t endorsing what to me is the obvious logical conclusion of the “Trump is an Evil Pedophilic Dictator and anyone who doesn’t actively oppose literally everything he does, they are Complicit” rhetoric. Instead, they are going with a “It Was Obviously Staged By Trump To Court Sympathy And Boost His Poll Numbers” conspiracy theory. (Team Trump, to be fair, has certainly fed into that by using the incident to shill for Trump’s ballroom project.)

But what also disturbs me, is that compared to the earlier Trump assassination attempt in 2024, or even the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year, there really hasn’t been any loud calls to rethink where we’re going or for all sides to eschew political violence. The vibe is instead, “This is what we are now, a country in which political violence is just something that happens, and we just have to live with it. Might as well just take advantage of these events and use them as ammunition against our political enemies.” Or maybe I am being too cynical? — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I’ll take this one point at a time…

First, I think it’s kind of weird that Bluesky is often singled out as a bastion of far-left extremism. From my perspective (I have an account there, though I don’t use it much), it’s no more wing-nutty and vitriolic than any other social-media platform. That’s not a defense of it, or anything; it’s just an acknowledgement that political extremism is represented on all of these major platforms. In fact, I’ve seen every bit the level of evil and insanity (and more of it) on X.

Anyway, your broader observations are largely the same as mine. Lots of people on both sides of the political divide reflexively go into conspiracy mode whenever some calamitous, high-profile event makes their political team look bad, and their political opposition look good. They’re so firm in their belief that they are the good guys, and their opponents are the bad guys, that they can’t bring themselves to accept the event as being authentic. The denial is basically a defense mechanism. That’s how a lot of lefties have convinced themselves that the assassination attempts on Trump were fake, and how a lot of righties have convinced themselves that Trump won the 2020 election, and that January 6 was some kind of false-flag operation.

To your last point, I agree that it does appear as though political violence is now tolerable or even excusable to a growing number of Americans. I think that’s a very worrisome cultural development. As I told Bernie on this week’s No BS Zone, I think both sides (especially their leadership) need to lower the temperature, stand firmly and vocally against political violence, and support strong legal punishment for those who commit political violence.

John: My brain wants to draw parallels between the Mike Vrabel – Dianna Russini story and SPLC’s federal indictment. Besides the gossipy story of two public people canoodling in a private resort (Vrabel and Russini are each married to others), the more important aspect is journalistic credibility. How can we trust a reporter who is literally in bed with one of her sources and subjects? Similarly, the SPLC’s credibility will be shot if they were truly encouraging (and paying for) the very racist behavior they were supposedly fighting. Will these stories and themes have legs beyond the current news cycle? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. This is not going to be a satisfying answer, but I haven’t had a chance to familiarize myself much with either of the stories you mentioned. But speaking in broad terms, a journalist sleeping with his or her source obviously goes against basic journalistic ethics. And yes, it absolutely violates the public’s trust. We’ll get a much better picture on the SPLC stuff as the case moves forward, but it feels pretty damning, and we might not even know the extent of the corruption at this point. I wish I had enough faith in the Trump DOJ to feel confident they’ve got the goods, but their track record thus far has been abysmal. We’ll see.

As for whether these stories/themes will have legs beyond the current news-cycle, it’s hard to say. It seems like every day, there’s some big, new, national story that wipes the previous day’s from the public conscience. Of course, partisan-media outlets will keep any such stories front and center, if it’s helpful to. So, there’s that.

Greetings Sir John — according to recent reports, that liberal bastion of anti-white supremacy and hatred has been donating large amounts of money to — wait for it —wait for it — RACIST HATE GROUPS! They allegedly have been funding the KKK and the Aryan Nation to name only two, and the virtuous LEFTIST LIBERAL SPLC also allegedly secretly funded the Unite The Right March in CHARLOTTESVILLE! Why, we ask? Well apparently that old Boogeyman of white supremacy just isn’t as prevalent or powerful as it once was, so in order to continue to push the narrative that white supremacy IS “the biggest threat to democracy today,” as Joe Biden himself noted, well it became necessary for the SPLC to give huge sums of money to those racist organizations to keep up and running so that the SPLC could continue to support the FALSE narrative that THEY THEMSELVES actually benefit from! As Claude Rains once said…”I’m SHOCKED! Absolutely SHOCKED!” (Sarcasm ON! I’m not shocked at all). What are your thoughts on these allegations? — “White Sheets WHITEWASH The SPLC” regards from The Emperor

This, of course, overlaps with Steve’s question this week. But yeah, if the allegations are indeed true, I think it’s absolutely terrible. I want to see what all comes out as the case moves forward. I think it’s a scandal either way, but the depth of it, I’m guessing, has yet to be seen.

Under Bernie’s Monday’s column one of the commenters claimed that Trump’s “Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” line from January 6 is what his critics claimed “sparked the violence” that day. Talk about a made-up accusation! I’m curious why didn’t comment it (you often do with that type of thing). — Alex D.

Hi Alex. I didn’t actually see that comment (or at least all of it) until I saw your question, and then I went back and checked it out. Yeah, it’s absolute nonsense, I can’t take people seriously when they play the “he said ‘peacefully’” card to dismiss Trump’s role in January 6. It’s always been a bogus excuse.

I offered my extended thoughts on this topic a while back:

In MAGA-world, that single canned utterance (written not by Trump but his speech-writer), read by the president as portions of the large crowd were already peeling off toward the Capitol, somehow discredits even the notion that Trump provoked the violence that followed. The argument is essentially that the word (which Trump consciously avoided in the buildup to that day) not only nullified every incendiary remark Trump made in that very same speech (including 20 mostly ad-libbed instances of the word “fight”), but also every inflammatory lie he had told in the weeks beforehand (about the election being stolen, our system of democracy being destroyed, and January 6 at the Capitol being the last opportunity to save the country from ruin).

Again, what was said in the previous two months (not just that day) was why thousands of angry Trump supporters ended up at the Capitol. The idea that eight weeks of provocation are rendered meaninglessness the moment the word “peaceful” is casually tossed out in the eleventh hour is absurd.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John: Alan Dershowitz has a column this week in the Wall Street Journal where he reveals that he has joined the Republican Party and will actively contribute and campaign for Republican candidates. The main reason for this change is the Democratic Party's radical anti-Israel shift. Dershowitz's quote: "The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history." You and Bernie have been very public about your becoming independent as neither a registered Republican nor Democrat. Was Dershowitz's political conversion surprising to you? — Steve R.

No, I wasn’t surprised. I actually half-thought he had already joined the Republican Party (like Tulsi Gabbard and other high-profile lefties). I knew he had left the Democratic Party a while back (apparently multiple times). It’s certainly possible that he joined the GOP precisely for the reason he stated, even with corridors of the Right going through its own anti-Israel binge (though not so much in Republican leadership, which is an important difference).

Personally, in this political era, I find neither of our major political parties appealing. I can, however, think of two entirely logical reasons for wanting to be in one: 1) If your state requires a party-affiliation to vote in the primaries (mine doesn’t); 2) If you plan on running for office (I don’t).

Sir John — apparently Air Force Major-General William Neil McCasland has mysteriously disappeared after leaving his New Mexico home and taking his gun with him. This silver alert could easily be a simple tragedy, except that several other scientists who either worked under him or had some other type of connection to his work (which included UFO research) have also either vanished or died mysteriously, one of which was murdered. Barack Obama AND Donald Trump have both made some tantalizing remarks recently about otherworldly aliens as well. Alien Abductions!? Foreign enemy assassins!? A secret cabal!? The Men In Black!? In all seriousness, I know you think I indulge in conspiracies too much, but one has to admit that there sure are some odd coincidences occurring recently. (Speaking of which, You live in Colorado; what secrets are hidden beneath that airport,, and have you ever seen that spooky cursed statue of the horse known as “Bluecifer” in your travels? What’s going on here, Sir John? Enquiring Minds Want To Know —“Area 51” Regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story closely enough to offer much insight on it, Emperor. In fact, if not for my wife mentioning it to me last week (she learned about these mysterious disappearances and deaths from her newsfeed), today would have been the first time I’d even heard about any of them. From what little I know, it’s certainly unusual, but I have no theories or conclusions to present you with.

As for Blucifer, yes, I see him often — every time I go to Denver International Airport. He’s large, in charge, and displayed prominently out front (on the drive in).

Blucifer has been a fun topic and cultural landmark for us Coloradans for several years now. He was an interesting art choice (for the very art-centric DIA), but what makes him even more notable is that he actually killed his sculptor before he was completed (by falling on him).

Blucifer is a hit with tourists (though you can’t really get your picture with him), and my wife and I got a kick out of him making an appearance on this season’s “Paradise.”

Represent!

I'm all in on a 10% tariff all around. Congress should approve this and dedicate it to the elephant in the room which is our national debt. I would also like to see an overall spending cut of 10% with the only exception to defense. I would like to see an annual decrease in spending of 5% to NATO with a five-year sunset clause. Minnesota fraud continues to be uncovered by independent reporters and covered up by mainstream reporters. The left has found a way to redistribute our federal tax dollars. Simple fiscal policies could rid our debt in 20 years. Unfortunately, it will never happen and to our grandchildren I ask forgiveness for the crash that will occur in their lifetime. — Tim H.

Tim, I certainly agree with you on that very last part. What we’ve done to our grandchildren, by letting our national debt explode well beyond our control, is unforgivable. Both parties have chased the fiscally-literate leaders out of office, and largely replaced them with grifters and clowns who are awesome at parroting talking points and sharing internet memes, but couldn’t care less about the most serious challenge we face as a nation.

I disagree with a mandatory 10% tariff. As we’ve learned, tariffs are a very inefficient, costly, and regressive way of raising tax revenue. Plus, they wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt. At this point, unfortunately, higher taxes will have to play a role in dealing with the issue, but tariffs aren’t the answer. There are far less damaging forms of taxation.

Of course, the major drivers of our national debt remain our major entitlement programs. They’re in desperate-desperate-desperate need of reform (and have been for many years). We can’t get anywhere at all on this issue without making serious changes to them.

On other spending, I would absolutely welcome a 10% federal cut across the board. Sun-setting NATO would be a terrible decision (for reasons I’ll probably get into in a future column). Fraud should be aggressively targeted and eliminated (and the fraudsters prosecuted). Unfortunately, even if you eliminate all government fraud, that wouldn’t put a dent in our debt either.

Ukraine’s going to win this thing, isn’t it? — Alex D.

Alex, I’m more confident of that now than I’ve ever been. Their home-grown drone technology (along with the Ukrainians’ amazing courage and resilience) has been an absolute game-changer for them. They’re steadily taking back territory, depleting the Russian forces, and securing new alliances and funding. It is to our country’s deep shame that we largely abandoned them, and have kept trying to tip the scales in favor of Putin, while they were (and still are) on the front line of defending the free world.

I wish the Ukrainians continued success, and eventual triumph.

Ok I know you have replied to an earlier question about Trump vs. Pope Leo, so this is more about the possible political ramifications. Do you actually think there will be any? Or is this just another “mean Tweet” that will be forgotten by next month.

BTW although many pundits have described this as a “tiff” or even a “fight” between them, seems so far it’s Trump who is swinging most of the online punches.

Most of the Pope’s public comments on the folly of war, the evils of politicians weaponizing religion, etc., are just what modern Popes tend to say, and really don’t come across as aimed at Trump personally, although I am sure they weren’t excluding him, either.

Anyway, at first I didn’t think this would affect Trump’s popularity at all. But I did see a recent poll indicating a drop in his support among Catholics, and even some non Catholic Christians, say that Trump’s recent blasphemous posts are the last straw, etc.

But Trump isn’t running again (and no I don’t agree with people already assuming he will figure out a way to run again in 2028). And when it comes to the midterms, I doubt this will matter much, unless Iran goes totally pear-shaped (like, Trump orders a mass ground invasion, and hundreds of American soldiers die, or get captured and set up Iran Hostage Crisis Part 2), but that would be much more about the Iran issue itself, than what the Pope said about it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I do not believe there will be any Pope-related political ramifications for Trump. The president’s Christian supporters have long exempted him from their moral standards (on everything from philandering to autographing Bibles for $1,000 a pop). Thus, I don’t expect that to suddenly change based on this. You’re right in that this dust-up (or whatever it is) has been one-sided (well, kind of). The Pope has been weighing in on policies and cultural issues (some are related to Trump), while Trump’s been going at The Pope individually for doing so. I think Trump’s worsening poll numbers (among all groups at this point) are more related to other things, like Iran, the economy, ICE, and general Trump-fatigue.

How much online hatred did you get from posting that picture of you and David French? — Ben G.

Ha! Surprisingly little, Ben. If David had retweeted it, I’m sure I would have received all kinds of unhinged responses, as I have in the past (since a lot of people hate-follow him).

I’ve interviewed David a number of times, and saw him speak at an event a year or so ago, but this was the first time I’d met him in-person. Nice guy. He and his Advisory Opinions podcast co-host, Sarah Isgur, were doing a live event at the University of Denver. So, I figured I’d drive down and say hi. I’m glad I did.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Back in February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s nearly year-long “emergency” tariffs were, in fact, unconstitutional. The ruling didn’t come as a surprise to many legal experts and constitutional scholars, who long recognized that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was being abused. There was, however, a good amount of speculation over how the approximately $166 billion (plus interest) illegally collected from the tariffs would be refunded to the American companies who paid them… or if that would even happen.

As the New York Times recently reported, we’re beginning to get answers on that:

By Monday morning, those companies could begin submitting documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs. In a sign of the expected demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, had already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds before the application website launched, with some cases filed even predating the Supreme Court’s ruling.

But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump’s policies — including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought — are not able to apply for direct relief.

Assuming this all goes through (it’s possible the administration could put up roadblocks), it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the federal government won’t be paying consumers a dime back of the artificially high, tariff-induced price-hikes they’ve had to endure over the last year. It was U.S. importers, not other countries (as the president has long contended), who directly paid the tariffs — aka taxes. So, any attempts by consumers to get reimbursed would have to go through a distribution chain of companies, perhaps in the form of class action lawsuit (that likely wouldn’t get far). Some companies may feel charitable enough to pass some of their federal repayment down to customers, but that’s entirely up to each company.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, consumers will just need to live with their losses.

To make matters worse, the $166 billion collected from the tariffs (the largest tax hike in over 30 years) has already been spent on other federal initiatives. That means the reimbursement amount, plus hundreds of millions of dollars more in interest, will be added directly to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $40 trillion).

In the meantime, while the aftereffects of these tariffs continue to work their way through the global economy (along with Trump’s ongoing non-emergency tariffs and continued efforts to impose new tariffs under different statutes), it’s becoming clearer and clearer just how damaging this entire, unilaterally-imposed experiment has been.

Free-trade conservatives and economists had long predicted the turmoil caused by Trump’s tariffs (lessened only by the president pulling back on some of his most crippling ones), and U.S. manufactures (who were supposed to be their biggest beneficiaries) — have long opposed them. But Trump thought (and still believes) that tariffs are cool, so we got a whole bunch of them.

At least the president got some ego-gratification and flashy gifts out of it. The rest of our country mostly came away with unnecessary burdens and hardship.

“In the history of the worst self-inflicted policy debacles, the administration’s tariff policies should be on the short list,” remarked Kim Holmes, former Assistant Secretary of State, and former Executive Vice President at The Heritage Foundation.

Holmes elaborated:

They were wasteful of government time and money.

They harmed the economy and US companies and did nothing to restore US manufacturing.

They fleeced consumers who will not get the money back that was paid in higher prices.

Since the administration is now reimbursing US companies, it’s admitting by its actions (if not its words) that that the tariff critics were right all along and that Trump was obviously wrong. That is the very definition of failure.

They set a terrible legal precedent that thankfully the Supreme Court corrected, but which along with other instances of bending the law, generally undermine the rule of law.

Any other money collected from tariffs that still remain in the US Treasury were still taken out of the US private economy and thus is still not available for investment, hiring new employees, paying wages and other things that American companies need to do.

They represented a blatant abdication of Congress’s constitutional role in our system of government.

And that doesn’t even include all of the trade relationships the U.S. has needlessly strained or destroyed by waging this trade war, in addition to finding other ways to drive away allies.

Now, there is actually a silver lining in all of this (as long as the administration holds true to its reimbursement plan). Injecting over $166 billion back into the U.S. private sector, to its rightful owners, will amount to some good economic stimulus. Affected companies that have long been holding off on reinvesting, bringing on new employees, and increasing salaries, will suddenly be in a better position to do those things.

It would seem a no-brainer, then, that every company that paid Trump’s illegal tariffs would apply to get reimbursed. That, however, is not certain. President Trump has already stated that he’ll “remember” the companies who choose not to apply for a refund, suggesting that he may give them some type of preferential treatment in the future. A different read is that he’ll find a way to punish those who do apply. Either way, it’s a wildly inappropriate gesture, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of these companies are done playing Trump’s games.

Regardless, prices should go down on a number of items, and some of our trade relationships should start to normalize (unfortunately, others may be irreparable). Even with our continuing challenges (including the high cost of oil, and Trump’s other tariffs), the added means and certainty will assuredly have a positive economic effect on our country.

It’s just a shame that the U.S. Congress let the administration go down this very painful path for almost a year before the judiciary — our last functional branch of the federal government — finally addressed the situation.

Share

Hi everyone.

I hope you all had a good weekend. Mine was pretty busy, but I finally had a few spare minutes this evening, and figured I’d write about a couple things that are on my mind.

Good Riddance to Eric Swalwell

People who’ve read my work for a while know that I’ve been making fun of Eric Swalwell for quite some time. From his portrayal of himself as a bad-ass for not buying coffee at Trump Tower, to his argument that the U.S. government could nuke its own country to put down a domestic uprising over proposed gun-confiscation, to his hyper-feminized presidential run, to his possible affair with a suspected Chinese intelligence operative, I’d long pegged Swalwell as a hopelessly unself-aware clown.

But as it turns out, he’s also a very creepy one — a sexual predator, if you believe the credible allegations that have recently come out against him (including the rape of a former staffer). Swalwell denies at least some of the claims, but there’s enough corroborating evidence backing them up that he ended his California gubernatorial campaign and resigned from the House of Representatives. The DOJ has appropriately launched an investigation into the allegations, as have state officials.

Since the controversy began, it’s been disturbing to hear a number of D.C. insiders describe rumors of Swalwell’s infidelities and womanizing as being well-known for some time. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) even said, “Every member in Congress knows not to let any young staffer get around Swalwell or Matt Gaetz. It’s not a secret there.”

If that was indeed true (and I believe it, based on how many people have now said as much), how did this not become an issue much earlier? Granted, there’s a difference between being a cad and sexual assault, but Swalwell, who’s married with children, ran successfully for Congress seven times. He even ran for President of the United States. One would think that his conduct with women would have set off career-damaging alarms a long time ago. Unfortunately for his apparent victims, it didn’t.

The good news is that, like Matt Gaetz and recently Tony Gonzales, he’s no longer in public service. That’s a start. I hope justice is served through our legal system.

An Unholy Troll

Last week, conservative New York Times columnist David French appeared on the “Relatable” podcast with host Allie Beth Stuckey. French and Stuckey are both Christians, and their commentary often delves into matters of faith and politics. The two have a number of disagreements, including whether Donald Trump, and the political-era he’s shaped, have been a net-positive or net-negative for the Christian church in America. Stuckey seems to believe the former. French believes the latter.

It was a decent enough conversation, with both individuals making good points. But in accordance with the online hatred that is routinely directed at David French by the MAGA-right (seemingly whenever he pens a column or opens his mouth to speak), the disparagement came hard and fast.

One social-media post that caught my eye pretty early in the feeding frenzy was by a guy named J. Chase Davis. It wasn’t directed at anything French said, but rather something Davis noticed, and felt inclined to publicly speculate on.

“No wedding ring,” Davis noted on X, posting a screen-capture from the episode showing French’s bare left hand. Davis also included a screen-capture of French’s profile-page, along with that of his wife Nancy, drawing attention to a discrepancy he found interesting. “Two different locations,” Davis wrote. “I can’t be the only one that has some questions.”

The clear suggestion was that David and Nancy were having marital problems, and were separated. The reality, as anyone familiar with the couple (or bothered to do a quick Google search) knows, is that the two split their time between Franklin, TN and Chicago, IL in order to live closer to their grandchildren. And as a number of people replying to Davis soon pointed out, lots of happily married individuals choose not to wear a wedding ring (mine comes off whenever I lose some weight, because I’m afraid it’s going to fall off my finger).

Of course, such garbage as Davis’s is pretty common online. Lots of trolls hound public figures across social-media platforms with gross accusations and demonstrably false statements.

But J. Chase Davis isn’t just some troll. He’s an evangelical pastor — a real one… at The Well Church in Boulder, CO.

The “core beliefs” of The Well Church, according to its website, are “based on the foundational truths taught in the bible. All of our teaching and ministry is rooted in and flows out of these biblical doctrines.”

Apparently, Davis’s copy of the Bible is missing the part about bearing false witness (which is fairly important, being that it’s the Ninth Commandment).

Davis later acknowledged that he now understands the nature of David and Nancy French’s living situation, but, as of the time I’m writing this, he has yet to delete his original post. He’s also dismissed the criticism he’s taken over it as “leftist discourse.”

Ironically, Davis is currently promoting his new book titled, “Offensive Christianity.”

No, I’m not joking. And its subtitle, “Restoring the Strength of Men in a Feminized Age,” would also seem ironic considering Davis’s gossip girl tendencies.

For the hat trick, if you Google Davis’s recent past, and browse through his other posts, it would seem he’s been finding ways to actually bolster French’s beliefs about the Trump Effect on the Christian church in America — unwittingly so, of course.

The good news for Davis is that his post has now been viewed by over a quarter of a million people, which can only help his book sales.

Let’s hope it was worth it for him, because it definitely didn’t do the Christian faith any good.

That’s all for now. Have a great week, everyone.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don’t exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn’t happen.

But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump? Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there. But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.

I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs “cautiously optimistic” and TDs “cautiously pessimistic” takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.

Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don’t think it’s all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with [Mike] Nelson and [Mike] Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it. — Aylene W.

Hi Aylene. I think you’ve illustrated just how complicated of an issue the Iran War is. I also think your position is totally reasonable.

As for political pundits aligning their war analysis with their personal views of Trump, I think that’s largely true. There are exceptions, of course, and I’m one of them. I’m not at all a Trump fan, but I do support much of his Iran policy and the military action we’ve taken there. I would love to see the Iranian regime toppled; it would be great for the Iranian people and much of the world. That said, I think the administration has handled a number of things poorly, including in communicating the policy to the American people (there has been a lot of mixed messaging), and sidestepping Congress. Also, Trump himself seems to be quite confused at times about what the goals, strategy, and latest developments are (I have much more confidence in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and CENTCOM).

I very much disagree with those, including some of the aforementioned Bulwarkers, who are insistent that Iran is winning. Iran is absolutely not winning (and no American should be giddy if they were). At minimum, we’ve destroyed so much of the regime’s leadership and military capacity (not to mention their nuclear program, months earlier) that it will take them years to recover. But again, at this point, I’d like to see us keep going and put an end to the regime.

Lastly, thanks for watching/listening to the Reagan Caucus podcast episodes with Mike Nelson and Mike Coté. They both know their stuff. I’m a bit more aligned with Mike Nelson on the issue that I am Mike Coté, though both certainly want the Iran regime gone.

Sir John, I keep hearing from the left that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein Files. I keep hearing from the right that the Dems could have released the files during the Biden Administraton but chose not to. The left responds by saying that a court order prevented them from doing that. So what IS the truth? Do you think Trump truly doesn’t want the files made public because they may be incriminating or at least embarrassing to him and his friends? Were the Dems truly unable to release the Epstein Files during the Biden Administration? Or is that a convenient excuse they use to cover their own concern about prominent Democrats that may be on the list? —“Epstein’s Ghost Still Hanging Around” regards from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. I do not believe that Trump attacked Iran to distract from the Epstein files. As for the Democrats, from what I understand, they could have released the files under Biden (albeit it with significant limitations), but they didn’t.

Regardless, I think you and many others may be missing an important point here. The “Epstein Files” controversy of the past couple years was created by MAGA, not the Democrats. I don’t think the Democrats had any interest in using the Jeffrey Epstein as a political weapon against Trump (at least not in any meaningful way), until MAGA gift-wrapped it, and dropped it right in their lap.

Trump surrogates (including current FBI Director Kash Patel) made this a huge issue in the 2024 election cycle, insisting that President Biden was protecting pedophiles, and therefore Trump was needed back in office to publicly expose those people (with the assumption that many of those mentioned in the files were Democratic party bigwigs and/or donors). When Trump won, MAGA demanded the promised results. But Trump didn’t want that, because, as a former friend and associate of Epstein’s (not to mention a Democrat and big Democratic donor at the time), he was mentioned several times in the files (along with some embarrassing, if not damning, revelations). This put people like Patel and AG Pam Bondi in the unenviable position of having to very awkwardly manage the situation, and do their best not to embarrass their boss (or otherwise get him in trouble).

The Democrats, observing all of this, smelled political blood in the water. They went all-in on calling for the release of the files (apparently having calculated that any embarrassing revelations about people still on their political team would be offset by what might come out about Trump). Even if there’s nothing more about Trump that hasn’t already been released (which is doubtful), it’s a political advantage for the Dems to keep hammering the issue (even if, in reality, they couldn’t care less about it).

It’s that classic tale about being careful what you wish for.

Literally a day after you published this, the corruption got worse with the DOJ now deciding to vacate charges against the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for the Jan 6th insurrection. It’s clear ‘justice’ is not being served by the department that bears its name, and trust in this institution is at an all time low (like Trump’s poll numbers) that will take years to rebuild. Well done on being ahead of the curve on this one. — FDM

Thanks, but the corruption is sadly front and center for all to see. I might write about this latest development next week, but it really is egregious (though sadly not surprising) that the DOJ is working on totally clearing people found guilty of seditious conspiracy, of all things.

What are your thoughts about Lauren Boebert (is she your representative?) slamming a bunch of reporters, who were asking about sexual misconduct scandals (that she had been weighing in on), as being “horny.” — Ben G.

My first reaction was to laugh, because — while it’s possible I missed some important context — my understanding is that she was being asked relevant questions about an issue she’s been very vocally weighing in on. The bizarre leap to calling the reporters “horny” reminded me of a recurring joke on Arrested Development:

Oh, and no, she is not my representative. I used to live in, and volunteer for, that district (when Ken Buck held the seat), but recent redistricting put me in a different one. Now, a Republican named Gabe Evans is my rep. He’s pretty much just a Trump toadie, but a fairly low-profile one.

Are we ever going to know the real reason why Trump and Vance were so desperate to keep Victor Orban in office? — Alex D.

That’s an interesting question, Alex. Up until the election, I had assumed that Trump’s weird affection for Orban came entirely from his well-documented admiration for strongman leaders. With Vance, it was more ideological; Orban represents the postliberal, autocratic ideology that Vance largely subscribes to. But Trump and Vance went so far over-the-top in their campaigning for Orban (Vance outright lied on behalf of Orban numerous times) that I’m inclined to believe there was indeed something more. We did find out, after Orban was defeated, that he’d been directing Hungarian tax dollars to American right-wing organizations like CPAC. I now wonder what other American enterprises he was investing in. It’s possible, through the new Hungarian government, that we’ll find out.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Show Notes:

• Mark’s memoir, A Cup of Tea on the Commode

• Mark’s website

• John’s newsletter on watching 1980’s action flicks

Share

A few weeks ago, when Pam Bondi was still our attorney general and trying desperately to keep her job, she directed the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into one of her boss’s old political foes: Cassidy Hutchinson.

On January 6, 2021, Hutchinson worked for Trump’s then chief of staff, Mark Meadows. A year and a half later, she provided damning testimony to the January 6 Committee, including the implication that Trump was aware, prior to the attack at the U.S. Capitol, of his supporters potentially causing violence that day.

Cassidy publicly recalled the president, after being told that some of the protesters outside his infamous “Stop the Steal” speech were armed, saying words to the effect of, “I don't f****** care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me.”

Others have disputed Hutchinson’s summation, which was the expressed basis for the DOJ pursuing the notion that she lied under oath in front of Congress.

A number of Justice Department officials have reportedly been skeptical all along that there’s a viable case to be made against Hutchinson. Nonetheless, the department has been moving forward with the former AG’s last sacrificial offering to the president. And they’re doing so in a highly unusual way.

The investigation has been assigned to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — a specialized unit that typically handles cases involving systemic issues like police misconduct, voting rights, and racial discrimination. It’s currently headed by Harmeet Dhillon, a Trump appointee and staunch Trump loyalist with a penchant for going after the president’s critics.

Normally such a case would be led by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, headed by former Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro (another Trump loyalist). But Pirro has been handed so many judicial defeats in recent months, while trying to advance criminal cases against Trump’s political adversaries, that there are apparently higher hopes for Dhillon.

None of this should be surprising, of course. As The Dispatch’s Kevin Williamson recently pointed out, the Trump DOJ has launched “a series of pretextual criminal investigations and prosecutions targeting the president’s political enemies, even when there was not the hint of an actual legal case to be made against them.”

Williamson provided a useful list of the DOJ’s political targets so far:

Gov. Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, all of Minnesota; Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey; St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her; Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell; Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook; Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan; Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado; Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Reps. Chrissy Houlahan and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania; Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona; Sen. Adam Schiff of California; former FBI Director James Comey; former CIA Director John Brennan; Attorney General Letitia James of New York. (The prosecution of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, no less political and pretextual where Bondi was concerned, is more complicated in that it is not solely the work of the Trump administration.)

And this doesn’t even include all of the DOJ personnel, FBI officers, and Secret Service agents who were fired for simply being assigned to investigate occurrences that Trump didn’t want investigated (like January 6, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, his mishandling of classified documents, and his obstruction of the retrieval of those documents). In other words, their career-derailing sin was just showing up to work. Some of these individuals filed federal lawsuits last month, claiming they were unlawfully fired as part of a “retribution campaign.” It’s not clear whether such terminations are in fact illegal, but I suppose we’ll find out.

Regardless, Hutchinson is just the latest political target of this DOJ, but she assuredly won’t be the last. Trump fired Bondi, after all, because he didn’t feel she was aggressive enough in using the legal system to punish his opponents. And with Trump recently promising mass pardons for his staff before he leaves office (similar to what he did for almost 1,600 January 6 criminals on the first day of his second term), it’s entirely possible that Bondi’s replacement will indeed dare to go where no modern AG has gone before. What would he or she have to lose?

Whether that person is Todd Blanche or someone else, however, I suspect Trump will continue to be disappointed for one simple reason: It’s not a lack of internal willingness or desire to appease the president that keeps derailing these cases. It’s the frivolousness of them. In instance after instance, they have lacked compelling evidence of a crime having been committed. And judges and juries have been unwilling to make the same capitulations as the DOJ.

While it’s disheartening that the judiciary is arguably the only branch of our federal government that’s still functioning as it should, one is certainly better than none. These cases (including Hutchinson’s) will likely continue to fall apart regardless of who heads the DOJ, but that’s not to say that those who’ve been politically targeted will walk away unscathed. A legal defense-team costs a lot of money, and not everyone in this administration’s crosshairs is wealthy. There’s also the reputational and professional damage that can come from such an ordeal, even if one is legally vindicated.

What’s especially troubling to me is how normalized this has become. Congress is largely asleep at the wheel, and the general public doesn’t care much about it either, probably having priced such abuses into the baseline chaos and vindictiveness they’ve come to expect from a Trump presidency. Their biggest problem with Trump has been cost-of-living issues (now including the price of gasoline, due to the Iran War). Much of the rest is just noise.

Lots of Trump loyalists, on the other hand, are very much enjoying what the DOJ is doing. Like the president, their only gripe is that it hasn’t been brutal enough. They believe the department is righteous and justified in exacting their boss’s revenge, because of how Trump was treated by prosecutors and investigators when he was out of office. They’ve been assured over the years by the president, his surrogates, and the right-wing media that Trump wasn’t deserving of any of the criminal investigations, indictments, and prosecutions he had to contend with.

I certainly agree with them on the New York cases (as I’ve written many times). The federal ones were a different story. But that shouldn’t matter — not for the question of whether it’s acceptable for the DOJ (whose primary function is to enforce laws impartially and independent of political influence) to openly serve as an instrument for satisfying a president’s bottomless desire for political vengeance.

Regardless of how one feels about Trump, that is indeed what’s happening right now. And the country should care more about it.

Share

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

John, Pam Bondi's firing was long overdue in my opinion- January first would had been the time to do so. She leaves a bad taste and much confusion with the Epstein files and her initial verbiage and handling of it all; an earlier firing would had helped the Republicans going into the mid-terms as folks would had long forgotten her face by now. Same goes for Kristi Noem. Better late than never. These two women hurt Pres. Trump's ratings much more than he realizes. My question to you is do you believe these women were more controversial than if a man had held these positions? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. I didn’t shed any tears for Pam Bondi, of course, but as I told one of the commenters on this website the other day, Bondi wasn’t fired for being incompetent (which she was) or being a terrible AG (which she also was). Trump fired her for not being terrible ENOUGH. His beef was that she wasn’t aggressive enough in perverting our legal system to punish his perceived political opponents, and protect his from the Epstein political fallout (which he can thank MAGA influencers for — including his current FBI Director Kash Patel). In other words, despite Bondi completely discrediting the office and herself for Trump, it wasn’t (as Bernie discussed in this week’s “Off the Cuff”) enough for him. He wanted her to be more corrupt. She wasn’t (or couldn’t be), so he fired her.

As for the midterms, I don’t think Bondi and Noem will make (or would have made) a difference. And I don’t think their gender played a role in them being controversial.

John: It’s the beginning of April, so that means tax season. Again this year, my wife and I are going through the herculean task of gathering all documents, receipts, etc. to submit to the tax preparer. Even though we don’t do our own taxes, I still consider this an autopsy of my finances without the benefit of death. We hear a lot about raising taxes in blue states and lowering taxes in red states, but I think that misses half the point. I would actually be willing to pay slightly MORE taxes if this whole process were greatly simplified for time and clarity. The older I get, the more I value time equal to or greater than money. Have you seen any proposals lately to simplify the tax code, and do you agree that this would go a long way towards clarity of the whole exercise of taxation? — Steve R.

I feel your pain, Steve. The work I do for this website/membership is just one several contracted jobs I have (in addition to author royalties/expenses, freelance writing, etc). My accountant probably hates me due to the complex nature of my tax situation, but I suppose that’s my cross to bear for being (as Bernie calls me) The Renascence Man of the Rocky Mountains.

I’m all for a simplified tax code, and I’ve heard lots of proposals over the years for making it happen, but they unfortunately never come to fruition, in large part due to political interests. In other words, Steve, I think this will continue to be a pain in the butt.

Sir John — what are your thoughts on Pope Leo’s homily about Jesus ignoring the prayers of those who wage war? On the one hand, it appears that he’s speaking about Trump. That’s fine. But I would take him more seriously if he had the guts to criticize the Islamic regime and what they did when they slaughtered their own citizens protesting in the streets, and then afterwards they executed a star wrestler simply for dissension. Okay so the Mullahs and IRGC aren’t Christians, nor do I believe that Jesus is pro war. But I can’t help wondering if the Pontiff would have made the same homily in 1941. —“All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance…While The Iranian Citizens Are Being Slaughtered By Their Rulers” regard from The Emperor

Hi Emperor. This may sound weird, but I’ve never put much personal stock in what Popes say about the morality of war (unless it’s specifically about war crimes), because of how complicated and individualized of an issue it is (geopolitically and beyond). Like you, I don’t believe that Jesus is pro-war, but many times throughout history it has been war that has ultimately saved scores of people from genocide, or liberated them from terrible suffering. Though I do think Pope Leo was addressing Trump’s threats to commit war crimes, he also got more broadly into the morality of war (which again, is complicated).

If I recall, Pope Leo did comment on the mass-murder of Iranian protests, but did in so in broad terms (emphasizing peace, dialogue, and an end to the suffering of civilians) without specifically naming the Iranian regime. Was it a cop-out not to name them? Maybe/probably. But for what it’s worth, I don’t think he specifically named Trump either. Regardless, like I said, I don’t hang on a Pope’s words when it comes to this issue.

You’re exactly right about Vance with Orban. What a disgrace. In regard to the flaming hypocrisy of his “election interference” comments, he’s STILL out there doing it. He told a Hungarian interviewer: “You should never have a foreign head of state threatening the head of government of an allied nation. It's preposterous, it's unacceptable.” TRUMP HAS DONE THIS TIME AFTER TIME. Does Vance honestly not understand how ridiculous he sounds? — Ben G.

I think Vance is smart enough understand exactly how hypocritical and shameless these comments are, Ben. He just doesn’t care. As we’ve seen time after time (including specifically with Vance), there’s no penalty for double-standards and breathtaking hypocrisy in today’s U.S. politics (let alone lies). Thus, there’s nothing keeping those things from getting worse — except for personal shame (which Vance, and many other politicians on both sides of the aisle, no longer have).

What are your thoughts on Thomas Massie? Did you ever expect him to become a Trump opponent in the GOP? — Alex D.

I don’t like Massie. Like a broken clock, he gets a couple of things right, but I mostly view him as a conspiracy-nut provocateur who — up until recently — was overly servile to the guy he’s now become of an “opponent” of. Am I surprised that he (and others like MTG) have taken on this new role? Maybe a little, but they were perfectly fine (and eager) to go along with some of Trump’s worst instincts (at times when it mattered more).

Hi John, has Trump lost his mind completely?

“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

What are your thoughts on the US committing war crimes by attacking civilian infrastructure such as water desalination plants, bridges and power plants? Will Trump Join Putin and Netanyahu on the ICC’s most wanted list?” Fun video explainer.

Can acting AG Todd Blanche’s slobbering love affair with Donald Trump get any more sickening and cringeworthy? Blanche publicly prostrated himself in front of the entire media, affirming his “love” and subservience to the President. I have never seen a more spineless display of toadying in my life, and that’s saying a lot with this current administration. — FDM

Lots to answer there, FDM. Lol. I’ll address one question at time.

Longtime readers know that I’ve long believed Trump to be psychologically/emotionally/temperamentally unfit to be president, and I do think it’s getting worse as he gets older. (And before newer readers throw “What about Biden???” at me, I argued, while Biden was in office, that he was so mentally unfit that he should have resigned rather than try to run for a second term). I’ve always believed that a U.S. president’s words matter, and while one could argue that a president presenting oneself as insane could effectively scare our enemies into compliance, what I’ve seen with recent developments surrounding the Strait of Hormuz (and the broader Iran situation) isn’t exactly compliance.

To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t committed any war crimes (though he spoke of possibly doing such, which was bad in itself, but not an international crime).

As for Blanche: Yes, it can absolutely get worse, but it’s hyper-embarrassing at its current level. As I’m often reminded, there is no bottom.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

Not all that long ago, it was considered wholly improper for an elected representative of the United States to campaign for a foreign leader — especially on their home turf. But earlier this week, Vice President JD Vance did exactly that. Making it especially gross was who that leader was: an unapologetic supporter of Vladimir Putin and outspoken opponent of Western civilization, policies, and governance.

I’m talking, of course, about Viktor Orbán, the prime minister of Hungary. He’s currently running for a fifth consecutive term, and polls suggest it’s a very tight race. Orbán’s erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law, along with economic stagnation in his country, have voters considering a new direction. In a move of desperation, Orbán presumably called upon his buddy, President Trump, for a helping hand. Vance was apparently tasked to publicly extend it.

Critics of the move have pointed out that beyond Trump’s personal affection for the strongman leader, the United States and its allies would gain nothing from Orbán winning reelection. In fact, Orbán has been deepening Hungary’s ties with China, and obstructing the Trump administration’s preferred Ukraine policy of letting Europe take the lead role in supporting Ukraine against its Russian invaders. He’s also been delaying sanctions packages against Russia.

Russia certainly has a vested interest in Orbán staying in power; the United States does not.

But it’s even worse than that…

In Vance’s Budapest campaign speech, the vice president went as far as parroting Kremlin propaganda that Ukraine has been interfering in foreign elections, including those of Hungary… and the United States.

“This is just what they do,” Vance told reporters. “This is part of the cost of doing business within some elements of their system. I try to remind myself that Ukraine, like the United States, is a very complicated place. There are good people and there are bad people. There are people that try to interfere in others’ elections. And there are people who actually just say, you know what, we believe in sovereignty for everybody. And that’s what we support. For example, there were people in the Ukrainian system who were campaigning with Democrats literally in the weeks before the presidential election where Donald Trump won very comfortably in November of 2024.”

Of course, that didn’t happen. That is, unless one wants to argue that President Zelenskyy touring a Pennsylvania ammunition factory alongside local Democratic leaders was a campaign event. For Zelenskyy, it was an opportunity to thank American workers (who were producing shells for Ukraine) for helping defend is country against its Russian invaders.

As shameful as Vance’s comments were, one could simply add them to our vice president’s long history of expressed, inexplicable, personal animosity toward Ukraine and Zelenskyy. But what stood out in this instance was the glaring irony of Vance’s claim.

Vance, that very day in Budapest, was openly doing exactly what he accused Ukrainians of doing: campaigning for a foreign leader. In his speech, Vance even specifically called on Hungarians to “go to the polls” and “stand with Viktor Orbán.” He also voice-conferenced President Trump into the event, who told attendees (and Hungarians watching at home): “I’m a big fan of Viktor. I’m with him all the way. The United States is with him all the way.”

By Vance’s own framing, that is election interference. Thus, doesn’t that make him and Trump two of the “bad people” he spoke of?

“It’s like a Prohibitionist pastor railing against that ol’ demon rum between shots of whiskey,” remarked The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg.

Sadly, expecting our political leaders to be mindful of their own hypocrisy is a pointless, bipartisan exercise in today’s politics. But shouldn’t we still expect our leaders to prioritize America’s interests over those of Russia?

It doesn’t feel like a lot to ask for.

Share

Are you into mystery/thriller fiction?

“John Daly has a magical writing style, and his books keep you up late at night turning pages.” — Dana Perino, The Five

For a limited time, my novel “From a Dead Sleep” (book one in the Sean Coleman Thriller series) is just $1.99 on Amazon Kindle!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to your questions…

Greetings, sir, John: what do you think of the No Kings protestors? For that matter, is it true that many of these protestors were being paid by very wealthy Communists? The types of people that want to take everything from the rich, but stay wealthy themselves? —“April Fools March For No Kings” regards from The Emperor

To be honest, Emperor, I paid even less attention to the most recent No Kings protests than I did the ones the preceded them. But my general assessment of “the movement” is that, like similar ones, it’s a hodgepodge of normal people, weirdos, and radicals. Were some protestors paid by “very wealthy communists”? Maybe. I’m assuming there are stories indicating as much (which is why you asked)? What I do know is that a number of people I know personally have gone to these things, and I can assure you that no one has been paying them to.

John: Politics and the courts are often downstream from culture, so I am curious about your thoughts regarding two legal decisions recently, one in your home state. The Supreme Court ruled this week against Colorado's "conversion therapy" ban. Also, a California jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the mental health issues of a woman who became addicted to the dopamine hits that social media companies program into their algorithm. Do you think these decisions will have legs and far-reaching consequences? What about the moral and legal issues that serve as undercurrents? — Steve R.

Hi Steve. I think politics are certainly more downstream from culture than our courts, but I can certainly think of examples of what you’re talking about.

Anyway, regardless of what one thinks about “conversion therapy,” I think it’s pretty clear that Colorado’s ban violated the First Amendment. The SCOTUS ruling was a victory for free speech.

I don’t know much about the California case, but the ruling, as you describe it, seems pretty ludicrous on its face. I have all kinds of criticism for social-media and its algorithms, but finding these companies liable of damages related to screen-addiction feels like a very slippery legal slope. I can picture lots others now trying to get in on the action.

Why is Vice President Vance going to Hungary next week to campaign for Viktor Orban? — Alex D.

The White House is trying to portray the planned joint-remarks as something other than that, Alex, but you’re right: It’s a campaign endorsement. And it’s both inappropriate and pretty gross (considering who Orban is).

Unfortunately, both Trump and the Postliberal Right (of which Vance is part of) have a crush on Orban. With Trump, I’m sure part of the appeal is their mutual affection for Vladimir Putin, but a lot of it has to do with Orban’s autocratic tendencies. Trump and Vance want him to stay in power for reasons that just aren’t in America’s interest.

Did I see you dissing Chuck Norris on X the other day, John? You do know he once roundhouse kicked someone so hard that his foot broke the speed of light, right? RIP

Lol! Chuck was an American icon (and by all accounts, a very nice guy). RIP. But yeah, his acting was always pretty rough.

Share

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.