A recent Pew Research survey shows almost 60% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Israel. More Americans are sympathetic to the Palestinians. These are dramatic changes.

Netanyahu is viewed negatively by most Americans. A decisive majority in the New York Times-Siena survey opposed any additional military assistance to Israel. This opposition is more pronounced among younger voters.

Israel’s major political support arm, AIPAC, once respected or feared by most American politicians, has become a pariah to more and more Democrats.

New York’s 11th congressional district - lower Manhattan district stretching into Brooklyn -- by some calculations has the second highest percentage of Jewish voters. Yet in the Democratic primary challenger Brad Landler is attacking incumbent Dan Goldman for getting AIPAC support. Goldman vowed not to take any AIPAC money and stepped up criticism of Netanyahu.

(As an aside, their stances on Israel and most issues will either be the same or irrelevant in the next Congress. Goldman is an experienced and tough investigator and his loss would be a setback for Democrats.)

Although many politicians still accept AIPAC support, the organization sometimes tries to disguise its involvement. It is backing the staunchly pro-Israeli congresswoman Haley Stevens in a tight Michigan Senate primary. The Detroit News revealed last month that AIPAC had been directing donors to support Stevens in a way that doesn’t link the contribution to them.

More prominent Democrats are distancing themselves from AIPAC. These include presidential aspirants Governors Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, and Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, as well as prominent lawmakers like Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen and California Rep. Ro Khanna.

AIPAC spends a big chunk of money in Democratic primaries, understandable when trying to defeat an anti-Israel candidate like Cori Bush in Missouri.

But, infuriating Democrats, AIPAC spent more than $2 million to defeat Tom Malinowski in a New Jersey special congressional election. The former congressman was a supporter of Israel, but not of Netanyahu or many of his policies.

Rather than focusing on the candidate’s views on Israel, they attacked him for a vote when he was in Congress in 2019 that charged he was a supporter of ICE. In reality, that bore no resemblance to today’s ICE controversies. It was a supplemental appropriations measure supported by all but a handful of Democrats.

“That was a despicable and dishonest attack,” says Malinowski, a human rights advocate who immigrated to America as a child.

With these attacks a left wing anti-Israel candidate won by 889 votes. AIPAC privately rationalized to some critics that one vote wouldn’t matter much but Malinowski’s pro-Israel, anti-Netanyahu voice would be influential.

Israel is in trouble with its most important ally, the United States. Its powerful lobby AIPAC is making it worse, Malinowski says “damaging to maintaining any consensus for a partnership with Israel.”

----

Required reading for all senators before voting on the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States should be: “The Department of Revenge” by Devlin Barrett, a veteran prize winning Justice Department reporter, now with the New York Times.

This well documented account of what the Trump Administration has done to the Justice Department is tragic. It has lost many of its most experienced lawyers. Major departments, public integrity, civil rights, and national security have all been shredded. In the current Justice Department the only guiding principle, or priority, is what Donald Trump wants.

In reading the Department of Revenge, it’s clear no one is more culpable for the demise of an honest department than Todd Blanche, the acting Attorney General and formerly Trump’s criminal defense lawyer.

The Barrett book, with specificity and attributable sources enumerates Blanche’s central complicity in two big Trump-centric scandals, in recklessly -- and lawlessly -- going after Trump’s perceived “enemies,” and establishing partisan litmus tests for Justice and the FBI.

“Todd Blanche has become the symbol of Donald Trump and his corruption,” charges Michael Luttig, in calling for the Senate to reject his nomination. Luttig is a former Court of Appeals judge, conservative, and now a champion of trying to protect the rule of law.

The Department of Justice is in bad shape, Luttig notes and if Blanche is confirmed “it will effectively bring an end to this Department of Justice.”

Trump was determined that Justice would be subservient to his wishes. After winning in 2024, his first choice for Attorney General was former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz, who was facing imminent House Ethics committee charges of sexual trafficking and campaign finance fraud. That was too much and the nod instead went to Pam Bondi, former Florida Attorney General and Trump loyalist.

Bondi was a lightweight, however, and made embarrassing mistakes relating to the files of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein, a one time pal of Trump. Epstein procured young women for powerful men; Trump denied he was one of them but desperately wanted to bury the issue.

The Epstein account and most top department decisions were given to Blanche, the deputy Attorney General.

The New York Times last week revealed there was an unusual meeting in the White House situation room -- the security proof venue used for national security and intelligence matters -- to deal with Trump’s Epstein “crisis.” As well as the Vice President and top White House staff, Blanche was there and made two recommendations. The first was to request the Epstein grand jury testimony be released which he noted almost certainly would be rejected but then they could blame the judges.

The other was that he’d interview the imprisoned Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s accomplice who procured young women. Over two days Blanche threw a series of softball questions, with little follow-ups, as she exonerated Trump from bad behavior. A week later she was moved to a minimum security facility, supposed to be off limits for convicted sexual offenders, and given special favors. (A good betting pool would be to predict which day, after the midterms, Maxwell gets a pardon or commutation.)

Blanche also crafted the deal for a $1.8 billion slush fund for Trump supporting victims of “weaponization,” and barred any tax audits of Trump or his family for current or past tax returns.

This was so sordid that 35 former federal judges, of both parties, asked a judge to investigate the dubious deal.

This should be enough to disqualify Blanche. Barrett’s book outlines a pattern of politically motivated, even lawless, actions. At Trump’s insistence he forced indictments of former FBI director James Comey over the objections of experienced prosecutors who found the evidence insufficient.

The first was thrown out by a judge and the current charge is that a picture he took of a sea shell with the numbers “86 47” showed he wanted to harm the president. This one is a loser too.

Likewise, two Justice Department charges against New York Attorney General Letita James,, who had successfully sued private citizen Trump for financial fraud, were rejected by grand juries.,

Earlier, with his associate Emil Bove, Blanche forced the Manhattan U.S. Attorney to drop an indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, that actually was dependent on his cooperation with the Trump Administration.

The acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon, a conservative former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, charged this was an unethical “quid pro quo” in violation of Justice Department policies.

Blanche is delivering on Trump’s obsession to get revenge against Barack Obama’s CIA director John Brennan. When the head of the national security team in Miami told Justice there was no case, Blanche had her sidelined. He brought in a political hack, Joe diGenova, to help find a way to indict Brennan.

It’s supposed to be so easy that any prosecutor could get an indictment of a “ham sandwich.” Blanche better Deli-shop as numerous grand juries have rejected flimsy political charges brought by this Justice Department.

Blanche also has overseen the departures of thousands of employees, many horrified by the politicalization of Justice, and he brags about firing hundreds of officials for doing their job in investigating and prosecuting the violent January 6 criminals who tried to overturn an election.

Barrett writes: “A Justice Department and an FBI without rules, without good judgment and without a moral compass represent a massive danger not just to Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms but also to the nation’s stability and safety.”

That’s what a Todd Blanche-led Justice Department represents.

It’s unwieldy and unequal.

It also is better than five years ago. The marketplace now plays a role and is bridging a bit of the huge divide between young, disproportionately Black players and older predominately white coaches and administrators.

Still, some reforms are necessary. Both President Trump and a bipartisan bill authored by Texas Republican Ted Cruz and Washington state Democrat Maria Cantwell are pushing changes.

There are promising elements in these efforts but major shortcomings.

The NCAA, the band of colleges that governs these programs, caused many of the problems. Under the old system, coaches and colleges were raking in big bucks while players, apart from scholarships, were more like indentured servants.

The underlying fiction was this was all about amateurism and student-athletes.

The NCAA also had checkered enforcement especially against blue bloods. “The NCAA is so mad at Kentucky they gave Cleveland State two more years of probation,” cracked Jerry Tarkanian, the late University of Nevada at Las Vegas coach.

Under the table payments and skirting of rules was common. At a forum on college athletics years ago one coach suggested, “what we need is more prayer.” To which John Thompson, the great Georgetown coach, responded, “what we need is for you M***** F******’s to quit cheating.”

A 2021 unanimous Supreme Court decision upended this NCAA monopoly declaring that restrictions on education-related compensation violated antitrust laws. There wasn’t much clarity but it opened the doors.

The proposal in the Senate calls for an antitrust exemption and an expanded compensation cap on school payments to athletes. There would be new protections for benefits like health care and the ability to sue in federal courts for legitimate grievances. It would seek to narrow the disparities between the haves and have nots by proposing a media revenue shaaring pool with participants.

The legislation still tilts heavily to colleege administramtors and coaches, says Jay Bilas. He is a former Duke basketball star, with a law degree and now the top ESPN basketball analyst; few are as knowledgeable or thoughtful about college sports.

The bill, he says, falls short for the athletes: “they want to give an antitrust exemption which protects coaches and administrators but restricts players.”

What’s needed, Bilas argues, “is a pathway for a collective bargaining unit,” like professional football, basketball and baseball have. There are complexities --should this be done by individuals, schools, conferences or overall? What are the options if there’s an impasse; there is strong opposition to unionization.

There would still be the NIL’s -- Name, Image and Likeness -- which boosters use to monetize opportunies for players.

The odds of anything happening this year are low. There are two dominant conferences - the Big Ten with teams in the populous Midwest and the West Coast with large media markets, and the almost as powerful SEC, stretching in the South from Texas through Florida and Georgia. They have most of the cards and will resist reforms like media revenue sharing.

Blacks comprise a sizable number of basketball and football players, and some civil rights groups are objecting to these reform proposals.

At some stage the colleges, NCAA, will have to figure out a more player-friendly reform, building on some of the changes suggested by the Cruz-Cantwell measure.

In the meantime, I’m not going to worry about some talented young college quarterback or power forward making $10 million. I do worry how those substitutes or those in minor sports or women’s sports are treated.

I also don’t worry about exceptional coaches - Jon Scheyer of Duke and Connecticut’s Dan Hurley in basketball or Indiana’s Curt Cignetti and Ohio State’s Ryan Day in football - having big pay days. They deliver; that’s the marketplace.

Unacceptable are coaches who are fired - presumably for not being good enough - and walking away with unconscionable sums. That includes two football coaches, LSU’s Brian Kelly, out the door with $54 million, and $48.6 million was due for Penn State’s James Franklin. In basketball, fired Kansas State coach Jerome Tang is seeking $18.7 million. While in 2020, Wake Forest’s (my alma mater) Danny Manning got $14.7 million after he was terminated.

No caps or limits on player compensation should be acceptable without looking for any way to limit these payouts.

Overall, once you accept that this is not about amateur student-athletes, the current state of play, with its inequities, looks okay. Some schools in conferences like the Atlantic Coast (ACC) and the Big East (basketball) may have to move down to a less financially competitive league.

We’re not going back. “Those who say we want it to be like it used to be,” Bilas says, are out of touch with realities. “Players have to have a voice.”

The ghosts of Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome and Watergate must be asking: How in the hell is this guy getting away with far more than we ever dreamed.

On corruption, Washington-style, Donald Trump is in a league by himself. His net worth has almost tripled as he rakes in money from a crypto scam, peddles pardons for investor associates, and gives new meaning to insider trading.

Most of this is legal for the major reason he’s able to get away with it -- the 2024 Supreme Court decision that granted him broad immunity for any official act, which he interprets very generously.

“There is a zone of lawlessness around the Oval Office, erected by the Supreme Court when it granted current and former presidents effective immunity from prosecution if their crimes involved ‘official acts,’” Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice wrote last week. “Loot the taxpayers, misuse government power for graft and you’re off the hook.”

Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision gave the President absolute immunity performing constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for other “official” acts.. The partisan decision, all Republican justices, wasn’t issued until July 1 of the election year, ending even any limited prosecution of Trump for inciting the January 6 riot at the Capitol to try to overturn an honest election which Trump lost.

I doubt the timing was coincidental.

Michael Lutting, a former conservative federal judge, called the decision “abominable,” and in a dissent Justice Sotomayor said it makes Trump a “King, above the law.”

That’s the way an emboldened Trump sees it. With only rare exceptions, he acts like there are no guard rails to stop him.

The money grift is stunning, especially the crypto currency firm Trump established; he is shaking down investors and working to make sure the government doesn’t get in the way of the billions he’s hauling in.

Does this violate any legal restrictions? Not with his protective Supreme Court ruling.

Then there are his stock purchases, not infrequently tied to government actions. He bought Palantir stock, the big data firm and government contractor and right afterwards publicly praised the company, even giving its NASDAQ ticker number.

He bought Paramount and Netflix and Warner Brothers stock while the Justice Department was weighing a merger deal. This Justice Department has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Trump. He was buying Oracle stock while facilitating its purchase of Tik-Tok.

The president generally isn’t covered by insider trading restrictions. But post presidency there could have been an investigation into this shady activity. Not with John Roberts’ decision, however.

Likewise, some of the unprecedented number of pardons he has issued raise serious questions. Some have been granted to criminals directly tied to his business interests, others for political benefit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the possibility that a broad grant of immunity might allow bribery. She voted for the decision anyway.

Trump, of course, would say these were tied to official acts.

This is a family racket. ProPublica disclosed that a White House official urged the Pentagon to approve and expedite an unusual loan for a start-up company. Predictably, the Pentagon obliged and gave a record loan to the company where Donald Trump, Jr. is a big investor.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law has been tapped as Middle East negotiator at the same time his investment firm is doing business with some of those countries.

In normal times, these would be unacceptable conflicts of interest. These are not normal times.

The latest is the sordid IRS-Justice debacle. First, Trump supposedly gave up his $10 billion suit against the IRS for a contractor leaking his tax returns. In return, Trump’s acting Attorney General barred the IRS from looking at any of the tax returns Trump or his immediate family have filed.

First, Trump’s lawsuit was flawed and he likely wouldn’t have gotten much more than an apology. The prohibition against auditing any of the current Trump returns is unprecedented.

To provide context, Trump has promised for ten years to release his tax returns and reneged. And a 1998 law specifically prohibits the president from interfering or any involvement with IRS actions.

Thanks to John Roberts, Trump will say this is official business, so let’s deep six that statute.

Then the President and his go along acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to falsely connect this to launching a $1.78 billion slush fund to be doled out to anyone supposedly “weaponized” by the previous Administration. This includes criminals who beat up the police on January 6.

Defenders of the slush fund, to be answerable to Trump, have drawn parallels to other funds, including the September 11 victims fund.

The September 11 fund was approved by Congress, administered with rules and hearings across the country by an eminent expert, Ken Feinberg. The recipients were deserving and enjoyed widespread public support. None of that is the case with this slush fund.

Still, Trump almost never backs down from a lie, he doubles down, another reason he gets away with it. In the style of his mentor Roy Cohn (or the Nazi and Soviet propagandists), he revels in big lies which strangely can be harder to knock down. Millions and millions of Americans today believe the certifiable lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Another factor, of course, is a Justice Department who sees its mandate to serve Trump who calls the shots. Congressional Republicans, fearful of incurring Trump’s wrath, have abdicated much of their responsibility.

Some of it is even in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom with separation of powers and guardrails, didn’t sufficiently appreciate the possibility of a president who had no regard for the rule of law.

Politically, it’s catching up. In recent polls, half or more of Americans say the president is corrupt. As well as the cost of living and an ill-considered war, corruption will be a winning issue for Democratic candidates this fall.

Over the longer run this is not easily correctable. Michael Waldman suggests a constitutional amendment to end the ability of an unchecked president to issue corrupt pardons. The 14th Amendment, he notes, was a powerful antidote to the Supreme Court’s racist Dred Scott decision.

But it took a Civil War in between.

Occasional escapes are supposed to be good for your emotional health, which seems essential if following the Trump Presidency.

This week I’ve only paid glancing attention to Trump’s obsequious cabinet meeting, ICE pepper-spraying and tear gassing a United States Senator, as the new Homeland Security Secretary tries to find a job for his wife in the agency, or the Justice Department going after E. Jean Carroll who had the temerity of successfully taking action against Donald Trump for sexually assaulting her.

Instead, I had a rare week of escapes.

MONDAY: I focused on the New York Knicks clinching a spot in the NBA finals with an eleven game win streak. Usually I cheer against New York teams. The Yankees because they are the Yankees. Others with sleazy proprietors, the New York Mets owned by Steve Cohen, the St. John’s college basketball team coached by Rick Pitino.

The Knicks, the owner notwithstanding, are an exception. Three of the stars went to Villanova, my childhood team. Former Knick and former U.S. Senator, Bill Bradley, is one of my few political heroes.

They are fun to watch. There are a couple teams with more talent but their passion and chemistry is unsurpassed. My favorite is Josh Hart, who is not the best scorer or shooter, or anywhere near the biggest. He just makes things happen, rebounds, assists, steals, shots at crucial moments. He also went to my kids’ high school.

TUESDAY: My wife, Judy Woodruff gave the Herblock speech, honoring the great Washington Post editorial cartoonist during the annual awards ceremony at the Library of Congress. It was a fabulous speech on the importance of a free press and threats we face today. If you think I’m biased -- I am -- read it on the Herb Block Foundation website when it goes up soon.

Herb Block, more commonly known as Herblock, died 25 years ago after more than a half century as the conscience of America; he afflicted the comfortable and comforted the afflicted. He skewered Joe McCarthy in the early stage of the Wisconsin Senator’s demagoguery and later captured where Watergate was heading only days after the break-in.

With a biting and brilliant pen he went after bullies, racists, big money special interests. And he championed civil rights, the dispossessed, the underdogs. The winner of this year’s Herblock award, Jack Ohman, editorial cartoonist of the San Francisco Chronicle, is very much in the Herblock tradition.

The only down moment was the thought of how much today the country and the Washington Post, needs a Herblock.

WEDNESDAY: Courtesy of my wife’s PBS NewsHour colleague, Ali Rogin, we went to the next to last stop on Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band’s Land of Hope and Dreams American tour, which began in ICE-ravaged Minneapolis.

At 76 the boss shows the extraordinary energy, and brilliance, that most younger athletes or entertainers would envy -- nonstop, almost three hours, paying little attention to rain. The adoring crowd was swinging and singing the lyrics the whole time.

He pulled no punches on Trump, calling him “’reckless, racist, incompetent and treasonous” to a roaring reception. He led the crowd in chants of “Get ICE out now.”

There were emotional moments. After he sang the song he wrote dedicated to the citizens of Minnesota, the jumbo screen flashed pictures of Renée Good and Alex Pretti who were killed by ICE agents. There were lots of tears.

THURSDAY: Politics WarRoom, a podcast I do with James Carville, aired today. The guest was someone you’ve probably never heard of, but should: Chaz Molder, a Democratic challenger in a heavily Republican gerrymandered middle Tennessee district.

The mayor of a small town, a Sunday school teacher, a hunter and one of the most impressive and articulate guests we’ve had on the program in seven years.

He’s running against Andy Ogles, a right wing Republican incumbent, an advocate of Christian nationalism who wants to deport all Muslims. He has been caught lying about his education and background. He faced a criminal investigation for campaign finance fraud; the Trump administration dropped the case against the Republican lawmaker.

A district Trump carried by more than 20 points should be out of reach for Democrats even with a corrupt incumbent. But Chaz Molder is a very special candidate.

Watch Tennessee’ fifth congressional district this fall.

FRIDAY: Still looking for escape, my son and I are going to the Washington Nationals game tomorrow. After winning the 2019 World Series, the team unloaded some of its best players, and since has had one of the worst records in major league baseball.

Surprisingly, with young players, they’re doing better. While I doubt Nats Park will rock like it did the other evening for Springsteen, there’s hope for the Nationals. Even with a mediocre team, it’s baseball.

SUNDAY: We’re going to the John F. Kennedy Library’s annual Profile in Courage dinner. As usual, the recipients are special.

The people of the twin cities of Minnesota will be recognized for their courage in resisting the brutality and lawlessness of ICE agents, including murder. These folks banded together and never stopped resisting.

Jay Powell, the recent chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, will be honored for his courage in standing up for the independence of the Fed in the face of the incessant bullying of the White House. Trump not only viciously attacked Powell but threatened criminal action. Powell wasn’t intimidated and publicly took on the attack.

It was a week of fun, great memories, inspiration and hope.

Monday back to the darkness.

The midterms are going to be a blue tide for Democrats -- it’s a done deal to win the House and there’s a serious shot for the Senate -- somewhere between a current and a wave.

The margins matter, the difference between a narrow 10 vote or 25 seat margin in the House, and between 49 or 52 Democratic Senators in 2027. Obviously they must win in some Republican leaning venues; pending primaries will help shape that.

With the threat of Trump’s lawlessness, in most every instance the premium should be on electability. The party’s left wing celebrated the Philadelphia congressional primary win of Chris Rabb in an overwhelmingly Democratic district.

This is the sort of seat the left can win. They rarely prevail in the more competitive seats that determine majorities.

Rather than focus on a largely irrelevant Democratic 2024 autopsy -- the main reasons they lost was Joe Biden didn’t get out a year earlier and Kamala Harris was a mediocre candidate -- Democrats should heed the counsel of Barney Frank, who passed away last week: don’t let the left wing drive policies that “go beyond what is politically acceptable to most voters.”

Here are some of the races with important primaries:

ARIZONA CD 1: The two leading candidates for an open seat are Amish Shah, a physician, and Marlene Galán-Woods, who was a longtime broadcaster and the widow of a Republican Attorney General. There are few policy differences between them in the July 21 primary.

Shah only lost to a Republican incumbent by four points last time so you’d think he’d be the preferred candidate. But the Democrats’ campaign committee, labor, Emily’s List and prominent Arizona politicians instead have rallied behind Galán-Woods.

There is an explanation: electability. She is Hispanic -- as is 16% of the district; she has strong favorability from her decades as a broadcaster, and with her family Republican ties, Democrats believe she has crossover appeal with non-MAGA Republicans.

“She is the only candidate that can flip this seat,” says Janet Napolitano, former Democratic Governor.

MICHIGAN SENATE: For the Democrats to capture the Senate, they probably have to hold their own seats. They are in trouble in Michigan.

The Republicans have a good candidate, former congressman Mike Rogers, who barely lost in 2024 to Elissa Slotkin, a first rate candidate, better than any her party is running this time on August 4.

The Democrats’ two mainstream progressive candidates, state legislator Mallory McMorrow, and congresswoman Haley Stevens are battling for many of the same voters.

That is providing an opening for Abdul El-Sayed, a physician with a left wing agenda: embracing a single payer health insurance system, abolishing ICE, and campaigning with an influencer who has made many inflammatory comments. Republicans are salivating over running against him.

There will be pressure on one of the other two to bow out before the August 4 primary. I think McMorrow would be the stronger candidate but Stevens is the choice of much of the establishment.

CALIFORNIA 22: In response to the Trump-ordered Texas gerrymandering, California’s new congressional map favors Democrats in places like this Republican-held Central Valley seat. The incumbent David Valadao is resourceful and shows the few streaks of independence that make him harder to beat.

However he may have made a big mistake in voting for the “Big Beautiful Bill” which includes huge cuts in Medicaid. This is the most Medicaid dependent district in the country.

Of the two Democratic contenders, reading clips and talking to a few people, Randy Villegas, a professor, appears more knowledgeable on issues. But he embraces a more left wing agenda including a single payer health care system. The political problems with that position would give Republicans a likely counter to Valadao’s support for the Medicaid cuts.

Jasmeet Bains, a member of the state Assembly and a physician, favors building on the Affordable Care Act and may be better positioned to capitalize on the explosive health care issue. The primary is next Tuesday.
MONTANA SENATE: In the last two Senate elections in this state, Democrats nominated heavyweights, three term incumbent Sen. Jon Tester and two term Governor Steve Bullock. Both lost decisively.

Even in a good year, a D next to a candidate’s name in Montana is toxic. That makes it impossible to take advantage of a flawed Republican candidate, former U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme, who got the nomination by duplicitous default; incumbent Sen. Steve Daines surprisingly dropped out minutes before the deadline sealing the nomination for his pal, Alme.

There is one candidate who would have a chance: Seth Bodnar, running as an independent; he was President of the University of Montana, a West Point graduate, Rhodes scholar, Green Beret commander and is married to a pediatrician, a fifth generation Montanan.

The key here is whether whoever wins the June 2 Democratic primary, with no chance in November, drops out instead of taking potential votes from Bodnar. That’s what happened in Nebraska this spring. All the Democratic aspirants say they won’t drop out; Republicans are expending resources to help the Democrat most likely not to drop out.

They don’t want to go mano a mano against Bodnar.

NEW YORK 10: Incumbent Dan Goldman faces a primary challenge from New York City controller Brad Lander. The June 23 primary also is a Democratic proxy war between Governor Kathy Hochul with Goldman and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani who encouraged the Lander challenge.

Lander charges Goldman is too cozy with Israel as he is supported by the increasingly conservative American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He actually is very critical of Benjamin Netanyahu and of the Iranian War.

The two would vote the same way in Congress but Godman would be a much more valuable member: He is an experienced investigator and interrogator -- an alum of New York’s U.S. Attorney’s office, southern district, and a lead counsel for a Trump impeachment in the House.
With Trump still in the White House, Democrats’ legislative initiatives will be limited. The premium will be on investigations of which there are limitless opportunities. There are few members of the House who possess the experience, discipline and rigor to do this well.
Goldman is one of them.

When Jay Powell was named chairman of the Federal Reserve Board by Donald Trump it was seen as an ok, cautious appointment, though he lacked the credentials of his four predecessors. Fifty years earlier when Richard Nixon appointed the eminent economist Arthur Burns to the Fed it was universally acclaimed.

Today, Burns’ legacy is tarnished for capitulating too much to short term political pressure, the 1972 election, at a longer term cost.

Powell, by contrast, is a hero who stood up to a bully -- Trump -- to maintain the independence and integrity of the Fed. At the end of the month he will be presented the Profile in Courage Award by the John F. Kennedy Library.

The Powell saga tells a larger story about the importance of the central bank, the desirable relationship with the Treasury and senior lawmakers, as well as being instructive on standing up to a bully.

The central bank’s independence is intended to encourage critical monetary decisions based on what is deemed to be best for the economy and not political considerations. The Fed sometimes has failed on monetary and regulatory policies, agitating some presidents, including George H.W. Bush.

But until Trump, no president viciously attacked the institution and its chairman, seeking to illicitly force him out, even starting a phony criminal investigation.

In January when the Trump team sent out the subpoena on criminal charges, they thought this would be the intimidation that forced a frightened chairman to quit. They badly misread Powell’s integrity and courage.

Instead he, aided by his chief of staff Michelle Smith who has guided the last four Fed chairs with extraordinary skill and political instincts, went public over Trump’s extortion.

Powell then dominated the high ground, legally and politically. This ugly saga revealed a lot about the character of some prominent figures.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent showed he’s a coward.

The relationship between the Treasury secretary and the independent Federal Reserve chair is important for coordination and to try to be on similar pages, to not rattle markets. In 1999 Time magazine ran a cover story on Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, his deputy Larry Summers and Fed chair Alan Greenspan entitled, “The Committee to Save the World.”

Bessent not only didn’t come to Powell’s defense, he piled on, pandering to the White House. He accused Powell of “fear-mongering” on tariffs, charged that Powell sought to “politicize” monetary policy while Trump was “committed to the independence of the Fed.”

When you tell lies like that it raises credibility issues on most everything else.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, of South Carolina, disingenuously suggested cost overruns at the Federal Reserve building expansion raised serious questions about Powell. A fellow cheap shot politician was Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno who accused Powell of “sabotaging working Americans.”

There were heroes, most prominently North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis who blocked the nomination of Powell’s successor until the Justice Department dropped its phony investigation. A few other Banking Committee Republicans, including Louisiana’s John Kennedy -- a pleasant surprise to me -- and South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds were more quietly supportive.

On monetary policy, there was criticism that Powell was too slow to react when inflation started to take off five years ago. It came both from Republicans and Democrats like Summers and Jason Furman, a top Obama Administration economist.

Furman says the criticism was correct but doubts it would have made much difference if Powell had moved faster. The economy survived COVID and other challenges without a recession. Inflation, even with Trump’s tariffs, was moving under control before the Iran war.

Furman, who is the new Summers, the establishment Democrats’ most influential economist, says Powell’s exceptionalism, his legacy, derives from standing up for the crucial independence of the Federal Reserve.

On May 31, Powell, along with the citizens of Minneapolis, will be recognized for his courage by the Kennedy Library.

Previous recipients included John Lewis, the great civil rights leader who never backed down in the face of brutal beatings by southern segregationists; President Gerald Ford for his politically costly, but correct, pardon of Richard Nixon, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has stood up to the Russian invasion for more than four years.

This is an inspiring collection of courageous leaders. Jay Powell belongs,

This midterm, like most, will be about the incumbent, principally the economy, corruption and the Iranian war.

There also are secondary controversies which can matter on the margins. They may only move or energize a handful of voters; that might matter in close contests.

In 2026, the Democrats have a plethora of such advantageous issues, including:

THE BILLION DOLLAR BALLROOM

Senate Republicans, as part of what’s euphemistically called “the East Wing Modernization Project,” propose $1 billion of taxpayer monies. That includes funds for underground security installations, but the catalyst is Trump’s gaudy new ballroom.

The President, without authorization, tore down the historic East Wing of the White House clearing the way for a ballroom which he vowed would be paid for by rich donors. He initially put the cost at $200 million, then it got to $400,000.

That $1 billion of taxpayer money instead could restore the Medicaid cuts in the “Big Beautiful Bill,” or build more than a dozen community hospitals in underserved rural areas.

Railing against the billion dollar ballroom, albeit exaggerated, in the context of Trump and his fellow billionaires getting richer due to government policies, will play anywhere from McAllen, TX to Maumee, OH.

THE POPE

Trump has attacked the first American Pontiff, who he says wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, “likes crime,” is “hurting the Catholic church,” and is an ingrate because he was only chosen to placate Trump.

All of that is untrue. What offends Trump is Pope Leo calling for peace.

A quick look at the politics shows Trump, in 2024, carried the Catholic vote by 53-46. Pope Leo is the most popular figure in U.S. public opinion polls. In one survey he has an 84% favorable rating with Catholics.

This fight is a loser for Trump.

SUPREME COURT

Democrats and Republicans have tried to make the High Court an election issue, usually with little success. But this patently political court might make it easier.

In opinions ranging from granting Trump, as president, extraordinary immunity from anything deemed an official act, even if illegal, to gutting voting rights, and then bending procedures to make sure it would take effect to help Republicans in this year’s elections.

Defenders of the Court point to the rejection of Trump’s tariff policy. True, but many Republicans and much of the business community agreed with the tariff decision. Rarely will you see the Republican majority on this court side against their party.

Look for candidates, with justification, calling for enlarging the Court and cracking down on ethical abuses.

ICE THUGS

Democrats can neutralize Republicans on immigration if they continue to strike distance from Biden’s permissive policies and focus on the brutal acts of ICE.

The murders in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti were horrendous. The made for TV ad is the picture of little five year old Liam Ramos, returning from pre-school in his snowsuit and Spider Man backpack, detained by ICE. He and his father were sent to a Texas deportation facility. A judge ordered them returned to Minneapolis.

The case is still pending but the picture of this little boy will remain a powerful indictment of the Trump policies.

KASH PATEL

We may be accustomed to an FBI director, experienced professional, with total integrity, a William Webster or Christopher Wray.

Patel is the polar opposite.

A devastating piece in the Atlantic outlined his drinking problems, missing in action at times, emotional outbursts and paranoia. There are reports of a mini staff revolt over improper demands the director is making, ordering them to investigate the reporter who wrote about him.

With politically inspired firings and with resignations, the nation’s top law enforcement agency, 38,000 once strong, has been decimated. Voters should be reminded of that.

The news that Barney Frank is in hospice care brought a rush of rich memories. More on those later.

In a book to be released this year Frank offers sage political and policy advice to Democrats.

He says the “left of the left “ among Democrats are pushing policies that “go beyond what is politically acceptable to most voters.” It was defund the police or open borders in previous elections, he notes, while today it’s abolish ICE or pushing for transgenders to play in women’s sports.

In a phone conversation, he elaborated on how this is an ill-considered effort “to restructure the country socially and culturally.” He added even when he agrees with general goals, Democrats “need to focus on what’s popular, pushing what’s unpopular is just dumb.”

Most Democrats agree, but that isn’t sufficient, he argues: “They have to explicitly repudiate” such policies. “ Failure to do so in the past led to the party’s brand being identified with these positions.

Few posses Barney Frank’s record and credibility in making these criticisms.

The co-author of the Dodd-Frank banking bill, he was one of the most influential members of Congress for three decades before retiring in 2012. He possesses a brilliant intellect, considerable legislative and political skills and a withering wit. He sees politics as a noble calling.

At age 86 he remains an unapologetic liberal, believing in a strong federal government role to protect the rights of minorities, civil rights and civil liberties, the poor, and a more progressive tax system to help finance programs. A self-proclaimed capitalist, he advocates strong regulation when necessary to tame excesses of the marketplace.

He could be brusque, even rude. But he commanded respect across the ideological divide. Nancy Pelosi, the liberal former Speaker who relied on him during the financial crisis called him “an exceptional legislator.” Alan Greenspan, the conservative former chairman of the Federal Reserve told me of all his congressional testimonies he prepared most diligently when facing Frank. There were policy differences, but Greenspan had enormous respect for the Massachusetts lawmaker.

His book will strike a familiar Frank theme: Democrats need to be progressive pragmatists who understand compromise is central to politics. He is dismissive of left wing ideologues and politically naive idealists

Just as small vocal group magnified the defund the police and open border views, the danger today is calls for abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. ICE is out of control, in desperate need of reform. But “it’s nuts” to suggest the country can function without an immigration agency.

In the campaign for gay rights, which he has supported for more than a half century, advocates were strategically incremental, addressing gay marriage only after building support for other protections first. This should be a lesson for transgenders today. “We should fight against discrimination and for giving kids medical care,” he says. “But don’t making playing in sports a litmus test.”

Unlike party critics like Democrat Mark Penn, who was Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, before he was fired, or those with vested interests, no one should question Frank’s progressive bona fides.

He wants an expansive, efficient federal government with fairer taxes.

Against open borders, he always supports legal immigration. He is down the line pro-choice on abortion, critical of conservative Republicans who “believe life begins at conception and ends at birth.”

He is Jewish, a Zionist supporter of the state of Israel, while harshly criticizing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who he feels has caused terrible damage to the country’s standing in the United States and around the world. It’s time, he says, “to give Netanyahu an ultimatum, no more arms shipments unless he changes policies.”

My Barney memories date back to 1968 as a rookie Wall Street Journal reporter in Boston while Barney, 28 years old, was running policy for the city of Boston under new Mayor Kevin White. At night walking home through an alley I’d see Barney sitting alone at a table at the famed Locke-Ober’s restaurant, with a big slab of beef working through scores of documents.

After eight years in the Massachusetts legislature, he was elected to Congress. In 1982 he was redistricted to face a Republican incumbent who started off favored, amid a whispering campaign that Frank was gay.

The weekend before the midterm I went to Massachusetts and discovered this policy guy was a damn good politician. He won 60-40.

Subsequently he said he realized he was gay in his teens but, like others, he hid it and dated women for years. In 1987 Frank came out and in 2012 married Jim Ready.

Karl Rove and the Republicans capitalized on opposing gay rights, especially gay marriage, in the 2004 presidential election. Two years later, during a long interview, Frank was optimistic as, “once people realize that gays don’t affect their livelihood, when a gay couple moves into the neighborhood property values don’t fall.” In ensuing years, America experienced a dramatic change in public opinion, accepting gay rights and gay marriage.

Going back to 1994, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich took over the House for the first time in 40 years. Democrats were despondent, lost. Not the gentleman from Massachusetts. He told me Gingrich was an asshole, would overreach and provide lots of opportunities Check, check, check.

He was a dominant figure in the financial crisis, collaborating with Republican Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a titan of Wall Street, who considered Barney “scary smart.”

The 2010 Dodd Frank was landmark banking legislation setting higher capital and liquidity requirements and financial stress tests for large institutions, more transparency and consumer protection. In more than a decade and a half with Republicans controlling Congress most of that time and two Trump Presidencies, the major elements of that legislation remain.

Frank’s sharp, caustic wit is legendary. A political opponent once challenged him to take an AIDS test and release it; he said he would if the other guy would take an IQ test and release it. When Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein told him all he wanted was “smart regulation,” Barney sarcastically shot back: “All I want is fucking dumb regulation.”

Congress, a dreary place these days, could use some of the Frank humor.

Substantively, he says Democrats are in a good place if they get their priorities right, as Trump is “imploding. His talent was to play on people’s disconent, exploit the anger. But he’s a one trick pony and it’s not working now.” (He told me in he book he cites three similar Democrats: Boston Mayor James Michael Curley, Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell and Louisiana Gov. Huey Long)

Resting at home, Barney says he’s stabilized with his congenital heart condition and seems comfortable facing the inevitable.

His fervent hope is Democrats “will take advantage” of his message.

Despite Donald Trump’s unprecedented takeover of the Republican party, there are a few who have put principle above power.

They include several elected officials, former lawmakers like Liz Cheney and Jeff Flake; legal giants like former Federal Judge --and runner-up for a Supreme Court nomination -- Michael Luttig and Peter Keisler, founder of the Federalist Society, and policy and media heavyweights like Bill Kristol and the gang of GOP alums over at the Bulwark and columnists like Max Boot.

The knee-jerk loyalty of most Republican politicians is a mixture of true believers, party faithful and fear. For others it’s about money from lucrative lobbying -- there never has been an Administration more welcoming to influence peddling -- to the media limelight.

There’s also a small band of formerly respected moderate conservatives, now in full MAGA mode, who are shameful opportunists. They include:

JOE DIGENOVA

He’s back, charged with prosecuting Trump’s revenge demands from the 2016 campaign, starting with former CIA director John Brennan.

DiGenova was a top aide to Maryland’s liberal Republican U.S. Senator Charles Mathias. Then he was a successful U.S. Attorney prosecuting political corruption and convicting Jonathan Pollard, an American spying for Israel.

He became a critic of President Clinton, getting him and his wife / law partner, Victoria Toensing, lots of media attention which they lapped up. He became one of those spotlight seeking partisan lawyers.

He was made for Trump world.

He called special counsel Bob Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s effort to help Trump in the 2016 election “legal terrorists.” He represented a Putin-allied Ukrainian to get this bandit to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. He accused liberal philanthropist George Soros of controlling foreign service and FBI agents.

He said that Trump’s cybersecurity expert, Chris Krebs, who declared the 2020 election as the most secure ever, should be “shot.” Under the threat of a defamation suit, diGenova apologized.

In the effort to overturn that honest election, diGenova was an on-again, off-again Trump lawyer; stories suggested he wasn’t much respected by the president. A 162 page internal Fox News document accused diGenova of “spreading disinformation” and non-disclosure of financial motives.

An experienced prosecutor was removed by this Administration after she concluded there was insufficient evidence against Brennan. Similarly an investigation ordered by the first Trump Administration, reached the same conclusion about Brennan. That won’t phase diGenova.

DEVIN NUNES

The former California congressman started off as a conventional conservative, his mentors were two former House Speakers, John Boehner and Paul Ryan, the antithesis of Trump. He once called the House right wingers, now the Trump core, “lemmings with suicide vests.”

Campaigning with Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign, he was politically smitten. Previously, in his first two years as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he maintained the panel’s traditional bipartisanship.

After Trump was elected he became a raging partisan, determined to prove the Russian effort to help Trump in 2016 was a hoax. He struck paydirt with the illicit surveillance of Trump supporter, Carter Page.

It was downhill from there.

He saw conspiracies everywhere and was caught secretly working with the White House on intelligence issues. When revealed, he had to temporarily recuse himself as committee chair.

Nunes, taking a leaf from his new hero, went on a defamation suit orgy, filing almost a dozen actions, everything from CNN to local California outlets . He hasn’t won anything, most were just thrown out.

In 2021, a discredited Congressman Nunes quit and became CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group, which was to be a social media leader. It was a total bust, with the stock price plummeting after it went public in 2024. After losing more than $700 million last year with only $3.7 million in revenues, Nunes was dumped.

He’s now chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board. The president pays no attention to his intelligence director, so it’s doubtful he’ll pay any attention to Nunes.

A dozen years ago the California congressman was seen as a possible chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, even Speaker of the House. He has made more money with his Trump association at the price of respect.

ELISE STEFANIK

Elected to the House in 2014, as the chamber’s youngest member, the upstate New Yorker had future written all over her. The head of the moderate Republican caucus, she was young, smart and politically savvy.

She opposed Trump in the 2016 Republican Presidential primary. Within a couple years she did, if not a 180 turn, a 179. She saw MAGA as the future, jumped on the Trump bandwagon, fiercely defended him during the first impeachment and even attended a COVID super-spreader Trump Rally in Oklahoma. (Former GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain caught the virus there and died.)

Stefanik became the champion Trump cheerleader. She was a 2020 election denier, said the criminals convicted of the January 6th violent assault on the Capitol were being held “hostage” and blamed Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi for that Trump-inspired insurrection.

Caroline Mason, one of Stefanik’s early mentors, an officiant at her 2017 wedding, told Time magazine: “She basically abandoned her own core values for a man who had no core values.”

She stormed back into the headlines two years ago conducting a hearing on antisemitism at universities. She devastated a couple ill-prepared Ivy League presidents who had to resign. She just published a book on the issue, “Poisoned Ivies,” which reviews suggest rehashed her old attacks.

But the political future she calculated collapsed. Trump passed her over to be his running mate in 2024. She is retiring from Congress and was running for Governor. When Trump didn’t endorse her, and as she was 19 points behind the incumbent Governor, she quit the race and politics.

Like most who hitch their political star to Trump, diGenova, Nunes and Stefanik may get a temporary high. It never endures and they pay a real reputational price.

Saturday night is the annual White House Correspondents dinner, supposedly a celebration of Freedom of the Pess,

It has become more like clown show with 2600 of your most intimate friends.

First a short look back.

Years ago, when I was a young reporter for the Wall Street Journal, this dinner consisted almost exclusively of reporters and editors and their guests, usually leading politicians or government officials. It could be interesting and informative.

One year I took Larry Woodworth, director of the Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation, the most important staffer on Capitol Hill. Boring you think. Actually he was a really good, smart guy. I was covering the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees; that evening enriched my reporting. Another year I took California’s Jerry Brown; never a dull moment.

Decades ago it began to change; pressure mounted to get high profile entertainers and separately advertisers. Now I don’t object to dinners featuring the glitterati; I can star gaze too. And advertisers helped send my kids through college.

But combining those with a dinner that’s supposed to be about journalism and the First Amendment is out of sorts in these challenging times for the press.

Donald Trump is the featured speaker this year. Instead of a comedian the entertainment will be a mentalist.

Fine to have invited the President, as long as at the dinner honoring the First Amendment it’s noted that the featured speaker is a sworn enemy of a Free Press. So are couple other guests, Defense Secretary Hegseth who wants to dictate what reporters can cover the Pentagon and what they can cover; and FCC chairman Brendan Carr who shows contempt for a Free Press.

They may have to watch the recipients awarded for excellent journalism. How might Trump react with recognition to my favorite honoree, Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal who has reported on Trump’s abuse of power on pardons, or revenge against his enemies, most recently on his chaotic handling of the Iranian war ? Also honored will be two other Trump targets the Associated Press and CNN.

Will Trump, as customary, be on the dais to congratulate them ?

I’m just glad I no longer have to attend this spectacle.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

**** Trump is obsessed with the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates; it’s why he so viciously attacks Chairman Jay Powell. Yet his nominee to replace Powell, Kevin Warsh, told the Senate Trump never pressured or even asked him to cut rates. Fudging the truth is a bad start, Mr. Warsh,

**** Defense Secretary Hegseth ordered, in the name of freedom, flu vaccines no longer will be mandatory for the American military. At Valley Forge, in 1777, Gen. Washington mandated that all his troops be vaccinated against smallpox. Who do you think knew more about freedom, Hegseth or George Washington ?

**** Trump has declared English our official language. Yet he’s eliminating the federal office that provides support for teaching English to Spanish speaking kids.

Virginians will vote Tuesday on whether to facilitate a new gerrymandering of congressional districts that is deeply partisan, a bad idea.

I’d vote for it in a minute if I lived in Virginia.

The only reasons to vote against it are to help Donald Trump or if you believe in unilateral disarmament.

This is all about Donald Trump. In a desperate attempt to avoid losing the House majority this year he set out to try to manipulate the result. It began when, following his orders, Texas enacted a gerrymandered redistricting for 2026 to give the GOP control of 30 of 38 House seats, a gain of five.

Trump pressured states where Republicans controlled the process to do likewise. He ignored the normal practice, in most instances, where redistricting occurs every ten years after the census report on population.

What he didn’t fully anticipate was Democrats would fight back just as ruthlessly. It started in California where, unlike Texas, a referendum authorizing a redistricting change was put on the ballot and passed by more than three million votes. The aim was to check Texas and add five additional Democrats seats to the already massive 43 to 9 advantage.

Republicans succeeded in picking up a likely seat in both North Carolina and Missouri.

Trump set his sights on Indiana where he met resistance from prominent Republicans like former Governor Mitch Daniels and associates of his first presidency’s Vice President, Mike Pence. Thus it failed in the Republican-led state legislature and Trump now is trying to defeat seven GOP state Senators who stood up to him.

Maryland Democrats also decided not to change.

Separately, there are a couple court-related cases that should enable Democrats to pick up three seats in Utah, Alabama and Louisiana. If the Supreme Court soon were to gut voting rights, Louisiana Republicans may be poised to reverse that.

Florida Republicans, despite some legal hurdles, probably will approve a redistricting that should give them a couple more seats. This is a virtual certainty if the Virginia Democrats’ referendum passes tomorrow.

The stakes in Virginia are considerable. The new U.S. House map, drawn by the Democratic state legislators, is intended to give the party a 10 to 1 advantage up from the current 6-5. Some Democrats worried that it was too much of a reach.

Republicans are fighting back. They even trotted out the failed former Governor Glenn Youngkin to make a pitch against stealing votes.

The thrust of the GOP campaign was captured in an inane Washington Post editorial that charged sponsors of the referendum are deceiving voters by depicting it as “restoring fairness” in the upcoming elections and returning to regular order after the next census.

This is a partisan explanation but it’s exactly what is intended. Voters aren’t deceived. That’s why Democrats overwhelmingly support the referendum and Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed.

It’s instructive to look at Virginia and neighboring state North Carolina where Republicans, with the benefit of gerrymandering, are expected to win 11 of 14 House seats.

Looking at the top recent statewide elections, Virginia has voted Democratic in every one of the last five presidential elections, in three of the past five gubernatorial contests, and all six Senate elections. With fair redistricting, it’s not hard to see Democrats holding seven of the eleven House seats.

Republicans have won four of the past five Presidential elections in North Carolina, five of the last six Senate contests, while Democrats have won four of the five gubernatorial races. So all things being equal, the GOP could hold eight of the fourteen seats in the Tar Heel state.

That would mean Democrats have 13 in the two states and Republicans 12. If Virginia approves the referendum, that’s the anticipated outcome.

In Virginia, like California, the issue is being resolved by voters. In North Carolina it was politicians cutting backroom deals.

Both these changes are unfortunate. Voters should pick their representatives rather than politicians choosing their constituents. Gerrymandering not only makes for a more partisan outcome but makes governing harder.

Overall, there’s a better than even chance that Donald Trump’s effort to fix this year’s House elections will backfire. Democrats will be the net winners in this year’s gerrymandering wars.

--

Donald Trump is guilty of multiple impeachable charges: using his office to enrich himself, peddling presidential pardons, abuse of power by deploying the Justice Department and FBI as political weapons, arguably committing war crimes, among others.

It would be crazy, however, for Democrats to pursue or even threaten actions to remove him from office.

Any effort would lose even if Democrats win control of Congress in the midterms. It’s worse. Talk about impeachment is seized on by Trump as one of the few things that might energize the despondent Republican base. It also plays into the canard that his Justice Department is just making amends for what the Biden Administration did.

Yet already dozens of Democrats are raising the specter of impeachment or invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. That will be further fueled by the New York Times prized White House correspondent Peter Baker’s piece on how Trump’s actions and rhetoric -- threatening to end Iran’s civilization, blasting the Pope and putting out an AI generated picture of himself as Jesus tending the sick -- raise anew questions about his mental sstability.
I have no access to any of his doctors nor any medical expertise; just watching Trump am convinced he has real cognitive problems.

But the 25th Amendment requires the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to find the President unable to discharge his duties. JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Howard Lutnick & co. moving to dump Trump? Dream on.

The impeachment brigade predictably includes left wing members of Congress, like Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. It also includes more mainstream Democrats like Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

There’s an intense Senate primary in Massachusetts between incumbent Ed Markey and Congressman Seth Moulton. When one came out for impeachment the other had to. That plays well in a primary with liberal Bay State Democrats. It won’t in most red or purple state general elections.

These threats are a gift to Trump. “He’s saying ‘They want to impeach me,’” notes Bill Cohen. “Send me money and get prepared,” Cohen, later Secretary of Defense, was a key player as a freshman Republican Representative from Maine in the one accomplished impeachment proceeding in 1974.

Looking at this and the other three modern presidential impeachments should be instructive. In 1973 the table was set by a special Senate committee, headed by conservative Democrat Sam Ervin with bombshell testimony from former White House counsel John Dean and top Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield, who disclosed there was a taping system at the White House.

The next year the House Judiciary Committee, controlled by Democrats, took over methodically building the case guided by a great lawyer, John Doar, working with his Republican counterpart, Albert Jenner. By the summer a half dozen Republicans with key Democrats, working around the clock, perfected bills of impeachment.

The President, realizing his fate, resigned before any House or Senate votes were cast.

None of the next three impeachments came close to those standards. President Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with Republican political leaders forcing it upon a reluctant House Judiciary chairman.

There was merit in the case against Trump in his first term, as he tried to link aid to Ukraine to that country dishing out dirt against Joe Biden. The House Intelligence Committee did a good job laying out the case; the Judiciary Committee did not.

The move against Trump for inciting the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol to try to overturn the election was, out of necessity, quick and didn’t come up until after he had left office. Conviction fell short even with some Republican support.

Most of today’s Republicans are cowardly when it comes to Trump so any bipartisan action is not in the cards. The main effect of Democrats elevating impeachment then would be to distract from Trump’s governing failures.

The Justice Department is a wholly owned subsidiary of the President and the Supreme Court has basically given Trump carte blanche.

That doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.

When Democrats take the House, they will have the power of subpoena to investigate Trump’s abuses. They would need to set priorities: the enrichment of Trump and his family, the politicalization of the Justice Department, selling pardons.

And the statutes of limitations on most of these crimes, high or not, won’t expire until after 2029.

There will be a celebration Saturday of David Keene, a longtime conservative activist, who passed away last month. Two guarantees: it’ll be an eclectic crowd and there will be lots of terrific stories.

David was one of the reasons I feel fortunate to have covered politics all these years. Politically, we didn’t agree on much. He was a conservative; I was not.

But he was wonderful company, a great story teller, insightful, candid -- he could be just as harsh on some conservatives -- mixed in with humor and appreciation of irony.

The son of midwestern labor union officials, he was turned off by the left wing 60s and turned to conservatism.

He worked for Vice President Spiro T. Agnew and Sen. Jim Buckley before joining the Reagan ranks. Later, he was head of the American Conservative Union and the National Rifle Association. I’m passionately anti-gun; rather than argue we just teased each other.

A committed conservative, David was never a hater. That is in marked contrast to many of today’s conservative operatives.

He was principled, welcoming gays into he party when it wasn’t popular and opposing the post 9/11 Patriot Act on civil liberties grounds. He and the liberal Morton Halperin were honored together for their devotion to civil liberties and the constitution.

Unlike some of those other young conservatives of the 70s and 80s, David basically stuck to his principles. By contrast, others like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort made a lot of money and are convicted felons.

Keene was a great source, able to analyze with detachment. I can’t remember a conversation, no matter how serious the subject, where there wasn’t laughter. He was a happy warrior.

I got to know him well covering an exciting story. It was the 1976 Republican National Convention in Kansas City; Ronald Reagan challenged President Ford for the GOP nomination. When the primaries ended in early June they each had virtually the same number of delegates. The promise of a contested convention was in the air.

Then using the perquisites of the White House, Ford was picking off a delegate or two almost daily, headed to a certain victory in Kansas City. The right-wing Reagan diehards wanted to hit hard on ideology. John Sears, the brilliant Reagan campaign manager, realized that would be tilting at windmills; he focused on the rules instead.

Sears got Reagan to throw a “Hail Mary” three weeks before the convention. The conservative champion chose Richard Schweiker, a liberal GOP Pennsylvania Senator, as his running mate. Republicans were shocked but, as Sears foresaw, it “froze the linebackers,” or stopped any delegate movement as politicians assessed this new element.

Sears followed this with a rules proposal -- 16-C -- that would require a presidential candidate to announce a running mate before the nomination. This would be a ferocious fight to decide the nomination. If 16-C passed, whichever way Ford went was risky.

The Wall Street Journal assigned two reporters to follow the showdown. I tracked the Reagan team, specifically a top strategist, David Keene, for five days leading up to the make or break vote.

Keene gave me amazing access as he charmed, cajoled and pleaded with delegates. To moderates he stressed the big tent approach of the Reagan-Schweiker ticket, the message it sent about the Californian’s flexibility. To conservatives the message was who do you think would be a stronger candidate in the fall and would govern more conservatively? To more than a few, it was about personal or political interests.

For all his selective persuasion, I don’t think he said anything he didn’t basically believe. He also had to keep a check on Reagan zealots. One was New Hampshire’s right wing Governor, Meldrim Thomson, code-named “The Granite State Blockhead.” A junior staffer, code-named “The Leash,” was tasked to shadow the Governor everywhere. The Sunday before the convention opened, a slightly panicked Keene told headquarters, “The Leash has lost the Blockhead.”

He soon found him.

MY trailing him constantly got Keene in trouble once. We went into the Reagan command trailer, Sears spotted me and yelled, “Get him out of here.”

In those five days we talked not just about politics and delegates, but also about growing up experiences, why he became a conservative, admirable and not-so-admirable politicians. It always was in good humor. It was part political education, part just a good time.

On Tuesday night out of more than 2,200 delegates Ford won by 100, though it actually was a little closer.

That sealed the nomination in the last political convention where the outcome wasn’t pre-ordained.

Although we didn’t see each other as much in later years, in Kansas City I made a friend for life.

March Madness has not been compelling. There have been no huge upsets and only one great game the past two weeks, Connecticut’s final second victory over Duke.
All three games in the Women’s Final Four this weekend were one-sided.
Tonight, however, the UConn-Michigan championship contest may change those dynamics, producing a memorable game.
It features a great team against a great coach.
I’m a political hack journalist who loves basketball but hardly am an expert. But it hasn’t been a terrific tournament for the experts, so why not give it a shot.
I’ve seen both Michigan and UConn numerous times on television and in person for their games against Duke. Michigan is an awesome team, big, quick, deep, talented. On Saturday the Wolverines, with their best player injured for much of the game, manhandled Arizona, who many experts thoughts was the best team in the field.
UConn is really good basketball team with a mixture of seasoned veterans and a star freshman. They are disciplined and tenacious. But they aren’t as big or as powerful as Michigan.
The equalizer is the Huskies coach, Dan Hurley. This is his third trip to the championship game in the past four season Since the John Wooden-UCLA dominance ended a half century ago, the only other coach to achieve that is Duke’s legendary Mike Krzyzewski.
A word about Michigan coach, Dusty May. He took Florida Atlantic to the Final Four three years ago. A year later he was hied by Michigan who had won only eight games that season. He then led them to a Big Ten Championship and, in his second season, to the finals.
He may turn out to be a Hall of Fame coach.
For now Dan Hurley is sui generis, as entertaining as he is brilliant.
He comes from basketball royalty. His father, Bob Hurley, sr. arguably was the greatest high school basketball coach, winning over 1,000 games and 28 New Jersey state championships at a small Catholic school. His brother, Bob Hurley jr was an All-American player at Duke though a less successful coach.
One of my favorite stories out of Indianapolis was an ESPN piece by Ryan McGree who did nothing but track Hurley in the semi-final game. The coach, who head bumped a referee after they beat Duke, dropped a F-Bomb less than a minute into the game. During one “amazing stretch,” McGree wrote, “ Hurley managed to cram a real time on the clock two minutes with 96 steps, one mini-leap, six one-finger points, a pair of two handed calm downs, and a 30 second crouch next to his stool, during which he drank from two cups of water and took seven looks at the play sheet. When he finally stood up he did it with such force that he nearly launched himself backward off the floor into the sunken bench area.”
These antics sometimes overshadow his coaching brilliance, He successfully rebuilds rosters, the intensity of his practices are off the charts, no one is better at in-game adjustments, and he retains the loyalty of his players.
If you want a good taker on tonight check out my two favorite analysts, ESPN’s Jay Bilas or TNT Sports Charles Barkley.
From the amateur seats, at the risk of angering my friend Esther Newberg, a prediction: Michigan 77-UConn 74.

There’s no Slotkin among the Democrats’ three candidates. Bernie Sanders backed liberal activist Abdul El-Sayed is running. But the primary probably will come down to congresswoman Haley Stevens, the establishment choice backed by a number of colleagues and the increasingly conservative pro-Israeli AIPAC, versus Mallory McMorrow, a media savvy state Senator who has gotten support from some Senators, surprisingly Eizabeth Warren, and by J Street, the more liberal pro-Israeli group.

This primary could get ugly. The Democrats have to come out of the August 4 primary unified to hold the seat of retiring Sen. Gary Peters.

There were appealing personal stories about each of these Republicans. They could convey compassion, provide comfort during tragedy and didn’t make everything about themselves. While all were basically conservatives -- especially Reagan -- they weren’t haters.

Trump possess none of these qualities. So I guess like my partner, Carville, I’m afflicted with the syndrome too. Except it’s neither irrational nor deranged.

To capitalize on their midterm election advantages, Democrats, in a familiar refrain need to offer a positive agenda, not just opposition to Trump..

“This cycle isn’t just about what we’re up against,” says Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona. “We’ve got to present a real plan.”

Actually, history and politics today suggests that’s wrong. If the Democrats capture control of Congress -- probable -- they won’t be the governing party with Trump in the White House. A new agenda will be the mandate for the 2028 presidential aspirants.

With rare exceptions midterm elections are about the incumbent President. Trump and most of his policies are unpopular, creating a plethora of opportunities for the opposition.

Like most elections 2026 starts with the economy and affordability. Trump promised to end inflation “rapidly” to make America “affordable again.” The cost of living is down only marginally in 14 months; most voters think he hasn’t kept his promises.

The White House contends when big tax cuts kick in alongside sizable interest rate cuts with a new Federal Reserve chair the economic picture will look better this fall. Just as likely with the Iranian War and energy shocks it could look worse.

On specifics, the health care card is a gold mine for Democrats. Promising to try to restore the huge cuts in Medicaid and the Obamacare tax subsidies are powerful affordability arguments.

Another is raising the $7.25 minimum wage which hasn’t increased since 2009. Already more than 30 states have a higher state minimum wage with half over $15.00. Campaigning on raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour is an easy one.

Taxes, usually a GOP advantage, are not this year. The Republican’s Big Beautiful Bill passed tax cuts that favor wealthier taxpayers.

A simple campaign proposal for any Democrat is to return the top tax rate to 39.6% from 37% with a smaller surcharge on incomes over $1 million. More revenue can be raised from closing corporate loopholes, like carried interest, and real estate loopholes.

These then can be accompanied by tax cuts for those making less than $200,000. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Bernie Sanders propose an even more liberal measure.

Immigration is another place where Trump has blown a big advantage with a zealous and brutal crackdown on migrants and even murdering some U.S. citizens. This mayhem dominates the immigration discussion much more than the success of closing the border.

Most Democrats can embrace immigration measures that echo the Obama policies, a tighter border, deport illegals with criminal records while expanding legal immigration, including a rational pathway to those who’ve been here and been good citizens.

For credibility, candidates have to disown the failed Biden Administration immigration record.

On foreign policy with continued opposition to the Iran War and the glaring incompetence of the administration, Democrats can more than hold their own on national security as long as they don’t turn to left wing isolationism. Also, there is a strong case that the fate of Ukraine, which is being hurt by the Iranian adventure, should be a more important priority.

Israel is a sensitive issue for Democrats who enjoy solid support with Jewish voters and are courting young voters, many of whom have turned on Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Voicing support for Israel while opposing Netanyahu and going to war at his behest will draw fire from staunchly pro-Israeli forces including the powerful American Israeli Political Affairs Committee which has become more conservative and pro-Republican.

As Republicans lose most of their advantages they already are running to divisive social issues such as banning transgender people from playing in women’s sports. Trump’s current priority is a voter suppression bill which includes anti-transgender provisions. This is a bogus issue, should be left to schools and some athletic conferences, not politicians.

But in some districts it puts Democrats on the defensive and dominates more important issues. It’s worth noting that even some liberal activists like former tennis star Martina Navratilova oppose allowing transgender women to play in women’s sports.

Every Democrat should embrace tough ethics reforms, including banning stock trades for any top government official in the legislative and executive branch while in office.

Two phrases for Democrats to avoid: Impeachment and defund ICE. Even with control of Congress, impeachment is a non-starter, a distraction from the other matters. Reforming ICE should focus on getting rid of some thugs and instituting better training; abolishing the immigration and customs agency would be crazy and chaotic.

Ok this is overwhelmingly an anti-Trump agenda. That’s normal. Oft-cited is the 1994 Republicans’ Contract for America; that was a brilliant political ploy that galvanized GOP candidates that year, while leaving very little future mark.

The Democrats in the 2018 midterms and Republicans in 2022 both successfully took back the House. Both campaign strategies were dominated by opposition to Trump the first time and Biden the second.

That’s what midterms are about.