Ka$h Patel is tonight's grifter

Grifter to focus on this post?  Ka$h Patel.  The FBI director who loves to waste tax dollars on his personal travel.  If you missed it, Ka$h went to Italy on Sunday.  John Bowden (INDEPENDENT) reports: 

FBI Director Kash Patel is once again under fire for his use of official FBI resources for travel as he appeared in widely shared video chugging beer and partying alongside gold medal-winning members of Team USA hockey on Sunday at the Olympics in Milano Cortina.

The FBI chief has was previously accused of using federal government resources to take “extravagant” trips with his girlfriend, allegedly earning him the derisive nickname “Make-a-Wish Director” behind closed doors.

But on Sunday he posted photos of himself grinning alongside members of the men’s hockey team mere hours after a spokesperson for his agency blasted the mere suggestion that Patel had used government resources for a personal vacation.

He was also captured celebrating in the locker room on team member Dylan Larkin’s Instagram Live. Other footage obtained appears to show Patel chugging a bottle of beer and screaming in celebration as player put a gold medal around his neck.

It’s an awkward look for the director, whose agency is already battling perceptions that he is unqualified for the job and unserious with his management of the agency and use of its resources.

[. . .]

Last year, Patel was accused of using a government Gulfstream jet for personal use to fly around and see his girlfriend, country music singer Alexis Wilkins

Just two years earlier, Patel — then a podcaster and right-wing influencer — had complained that FBI Director Chris Wray was benefitting from "private jet travel that he pays for with taxpayer dollars to hop around the country.”

Now it’s Patel facing that same accusation and claiming that he uses the plane less than his predecessors, while defending their usage for personal trips. Among the reported excursions, Patel has used the jet for a golfing trip in Scotland as well as to go hunting in Texas, along with “date nights” with Wilkins.

So he's a grifter and he's a hypocrite -- the latter because he's called out others for the exact behavior he now exhibits.  

This is C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Monday, February 23, 2026.  Chump's buddy Musk is polluting, Chump's raging at the Supreme Court, Ka$h Patel goes to the Olympics on the tax payers' dime, and much more.

Starting with Sunday's LAST WEEK TONIGHT WITH JOHN OLIVER.

John notes Alien Musk in the video above and some of the problems Musk has created.  One problem not noted is Musk's pollution.  Samantha Hindman (THE COOL DOWN) notes:

According to KRIS 6 News, Tesla holds a state-issued permit allowing it to discharge up to 231,000 gallons of treated wastewater per day into an unnamed ditch that eventually flows into Petronila Creek.

But drainage district officials said they were never notified that a pipeline had been installed across their easement. When workers encountered the discharge, they were alarmed by what they saw.

"It was very dark and murky," drainage district consultant Steve Ray said. "I would say it was actually black. We're used to seeing good running water, and so we didn't know exactly what it was."

The lithium refinery, which began operations in December 2024, produces battery-grade lithium for electric vehicle batteries. 

While Tesla's permit from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality allows wastewater discharge, it specifically notes that it does not grant the right to use private or public property for conveyance.

Petronila Creek flows into Baffin Bay, a sensitive coastal ecosystem that supports tourism and local livelihoods. 

If large volumes of water — even treated water — were to overwhelm the ditch or carry unexpected pollutants downstream, it could threaten water quality and wildlife.

Musk is a threat as is his former buddy Donald Chump.  This morning, Mattathias Schwartz, Zach Montague and Ernesto Londoño (NEW YORK TIMES) notes:

The judge was angry. She had ordered a detained immigrant to be released in Minnesota, but instead he was let go in El Paso, where he had to spend the night in a shelter. All his property was supposed to have been returned, but the government was still holding his identity papers.

“Why should I not hold you in contempt?” the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer at a hearing last week. Instead of answers, she got excuses.

“I don’t think there was ever any intention to defy the court orders,” said the lawyer, Matthew Isihara, a military judge advocate on temporary assignment to the Justice Department. “We were doing our best and things, unfortunately, slipped — slipped through the cracks.”

That explanation was not enough for Judge Laura M. Provinzino of the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. Last Wednesday, she found Mr. Isihara in civil contempt of court.

Legal experts said her ruling marked the first time during President Trump’s second term that a judge had attempted to assert authority by issuing a civil contempt ruling, which enforces a judicial order by imposing a penalty until the offending party complies. In this case, Judge Provinzino ordered Mr. Ishiara to pay $500 a day until the identity documents were returned.

But the anger Judge Provinzino flashed at Mr. Isihara has been repeated in courtrooms across the country amid Mr. Trump’s drive to deport large numbers of immigrants. A New York Times review of federal dockets found at least 35 instances since August in which federal district court or magistrate judges issued an order requiring the government to explain why it should not be similarly punished for violating court orders, essentially giving officials one last chance to explain themselves.

Moving up to the Supreme Court, for any who missed it, the Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday clarifying that only Congress has the power over tariffs -- like the Constitution says. Josh Marshall (TPM) points out, "We say the Court 'struck down' these tariffs. But that wording is inadequate and misleading. These tariffs were always transparently illegal. Saying the actions were 'struck down' suggests at least a notional logic which the Court disagreed with, or perhaps one form of standing practice and constitutional understanding away from which the Court decided to chart another course. Neither is remotely the case. There's no ambiguity in the law in question. Trump assumed a unilateral power to 'find' a national emergency and then used this (transparently fraudulent) national emergency to exercise powers the law in question doesn’t even delegate."  Matthew Chapman (RAW STORY) notes, "President Donald Trump was dealt a huge blow by the Supreme Court on Friday as they eliminated his ability to impose tariffs under economic emergency powers — but he almost at once declared he will continue to charge global tariffs, using a number of alternative statutes. During his rant, he claimed under the ruling, he can't charge tariffs to foreign countries but can 'destroy the country' by cutting off all trade to it instead."  

What does this mean?

In the immediate term, Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes Chump's empty promises are revealed and exposed as empty, "Promises to fund sweeping tax cuts, bridge payments to farmers, deficit reduction, and phony $2,000 rebate checks all went up in smoke—because they weren’t his promises to make." In the long term?  Greg Sargent (TNR) points out, "The loss before the high court is also another sign that the pillars of Trump’s right-wing nationalist agenda are crumbling in a much broader and deeper sense—so much so that it’s posing a serious threat to the long-term durability of the ideology known as Trumpism."  At THE NEW YORK TIMES, Ana Swanson also covers Chump:

 

The Supreme Court may have ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s use of an international emergency law to impose tariffs. But Mr. Trump seems intent on continuing the experiment he has run with the U.S. economy over the past year, in which he has raised tariffs to levels not seen since the 1930s.

In a news conference at the White House on Friday, Mr. Trump made a series of false claims about the economic impact of tariffs and he promised to replace, or even increase, them using laws other than the one the court rejected.

“It’s ridiculous but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.”

“We broke every record in the book, and we are continuing to do so,” the president said about his tariffs.

By the end of Friday, he said he would impose a new set of levies, including a 10 percent across-the-board tariff. Then on Saturday, Mr. Trump suddenly raised the tariffs to 15 percent, the limit allowed by the new legal provision he was using. “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” he said in a post on Truth Social.

To the president, tariffs are the antidote to globalization, a way to force more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce America’s reliance on foreign products and lower the trade deficit. But the economic evidence so far has not been in his favor. Instead of shifting manufacturing back into the United States, Mr. Trump’s tariffs mostly appear to have reshuffled trade, at great cost to U.S. companies.

Just the day before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the government reported annual trade data for last year, including several metrics that controverted Mr. Trump’s claims. The data showed that the trade deficit — the gap between what America imports from other countries and what it exports — continued to widen in December, and that the annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high.  

The verdict was a huge defeat for Chump.  How the justices got there?  Matt Ford (THE NEW REPUBLIC) observes:

The Supreme Court delivered a crushing blow to President Donald Trump’s policy agenda on Friday, ruling that a Cold War–era law for economic emergencies does not give the executive branch a blank check to impose trillions of dollars in tariffs without congressional approval.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for himself and five other justices, held that Trump had exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, also known as IEEPA. “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope,” Roberts concluded. “In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”

The six-justice majority brought together the court’s three liberal members and three of their conservative colleagues: Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. But while they agreed on the outcome, they differed widely on the reasoning that led them there.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberals, argued that Trump’s invocation of IEEPA failed under the “ordinary rules of statutory interpretation.”

“Usual text-in-context interpretation dooms the tariffs the President has imposed,” she explained. “The crucial provision of IEEPA, when viewed in light of the broader statutory scheme and with a practical awareness of how Congress delegates tariff authority, does not give the President the power he wants.”

Roberts, on the other hand, argued alongside the other two conservatives that the tariffs were invalid under the “major questions doctrine.” Under that doctrine, the executive branch cannot invoke congressionally delegated powers in novel ways on matters of “vast economic and political significance” unless the courts decide that Congress has “spoken clearly” enough to authorize it.

Robert Kuttner offers his take at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT:

The ruling is a sharp rejection of one of the president’s primary policy tools, but it was telegraphed enough that the administration has some possible contingencies in place. Under a different authority, tariffs of 15 percent can be imposed to deal with trade deficits for 150 days. In that time, the administration can impose Section 301 and Section 232 investigations to extend tariffs on select goods or against select countries further. But Trump would have to justify these with data. And the days of unilaterally announcing tariffs that take immediate effect are dead and buried.

The president does have somewhat more open-ended general authority to impose tariffs against countries that discriminate against U.S. exports, but to invoke that now would be a poke in the eye of the Supreme Court and would invite more litigation.

The bigger problem for Trump is the thousands of companies that will ask for refunds from the tariffs imposed under IEEPA. That will be a huge mess, and the Supreme Court offered no guidance on how to proceed with it.

With the unilateral tariff regime over, we can assess its value, and there really wasn’t any. Yesterday, the latest U.S. trade deficit numbers came in well above expectations. The merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion in 2025, according to Thursday’s Commerce Department report.

Basically, imports of Chinese goods fell by nearly 30 percent, but imports from other nations more than made up the difference. The deficit in manufacturing was especially severe, as U.S. production jobs fell by 88,000 in 2025.

So despite constant pronouncements of tariffs allegedly designed to boost domestic production, create jobs, and lower the trade deficit, the entire effort amounted to nothing.

Some questions remain.  Some are wondering about companies that paid tariffs -- will they be able to seek refunds?  Josh Marshall (TALKING POINTS MEMO) notes:

Almost every article on today’s tariff decision includes, somewhere two or three paragraphs down, a note which explains that it’s unclear how or whether the federal government will issue refunds for illegally collected tariffs. The Court’s decision doesn’t address this. I’m not sure why it would really need to address this. The tariffs were illegal. The government had no legal authority to collect them. So it should be a simple matter for importers to go to court and compel the government to refund their money. But set all that aside. Is it really so uncertain? I’ll bet the White House is going to find a way to issue those refunds. Why? Because Trump insiders, especially the family of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have reportedly made huge, huge bets on the tariffs being tossed. They and their clients now, per a July report that prompted a Senate investigation, stand to make tens or even hundreds of billions on those refunds. Given that Lutnick is a primary player in White House tariff policy, I’m pretty confident that they’re going to find a way to issue those refunds.

How does this work? I discussed this in a post from Sept. 1 of last year. The gist is this: When he became commerce secretary, Lutnick gifted his sons his Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. (In the link above I explained how they structured this handoff — which as a bonus allowed Lutnick to pay zero capital gains on the entire transaction.) Twenty-something failson Brandon Lutnick is now chairman of the firm. Brother Kyle, apparently another business prodigy from the same family, is vice chairman. Soon after Trump’s tariffs were announced last fall, Brandon Lutnick — no doubt in a totally, totally arms-length way — started buying up the rights to tariff refunds at about 25% of their sticker value.

I base this on reports of these trades from last summer; Wired broke the story in July. A day after the original publication of that article, Wired updated the story with a less-than-denial denial from Cantor Fitzgerald. Erica Chase, a spokesperson for Cantor, said: “Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk or taking views in litigation claims including tariffs.”

Of course, the true tax paid was paid by the American people.  At The Tax Foundation, Erica York and  Alex Durante offer:

• President Trump has imposed International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs on US trading partners, including China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU. In addition, he has threatened and imposed Section 232 tariffs on autos, heavy trucks, steel, aluminum, lumber, furniture, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and copper, among others.
• On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selections v. United States that “IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”  
• The Trump tariffs amounted to an average tax increase per US household of $1,000 in 2025. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the President’s remaining new tariffs under Section 232 amount to average tax increase per US household of $400 in 2026.
• The average effective tariff rate in 2025 was 7.7 percent, this highest rate since 1947. We estimate with the IEEPA tariffs being ruled illegal, the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 increase the weighted average applied tariff rate on all imports to 6.7 percent in 2026, and the average effective tariff rate, reflecting behavioral responses, rises to 4.5 percent—the highest since 1973.
• With the IEEPA being ruled illegal, we estimate that the remaining Section 232 tariffs imposed in 2025 will raise $635 billion in revenue from 2026-2035 on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.2 percent, all before foreign retaliation. Accounting for negative economic effects, the revenue raised by the tariffs falls to $490 billion over the next decade. We estimate that the Section 232 tariffs raised $36 billion in net tax revenue in 2025.
• The tariffs have not meaningfully altered the trade balance. The total trade deficit fell by only $2.1 billion in 2025, driven by an increase in the trade surplus of services.
• Historical evidence and recent studies show that tariffs are taxes that raise prices and reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, resulting in lower income, reduced employment, and lower economic output.

 A $1,000 increase per US household in 2025.  How is that going to be made right for the American people?   Sharon Zhang  (TRUTHOUT) notes:

Up until the ruling, Trump’s tariff policies generated an estimated $195 billion for the government. Researchers have estimated that 90 percent of the extra costs will fall on consumers, and Yale University researchers have said that previous tariff policies have led to 100 percent of costs to companies to be passed onto consumers.

Analyses show that the tariffs would have cost American households roughly $1,000 to $2,000 over the course of a year. This burden would have come on top of skyrocketing inequality, as landlords impose unaffordable rents, federal subsidies for health care disappear, and corporations cut tens of thousands of jobs (instead of CEO pay) in response to cost increases.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called on the Trump administration to “immediately issue refund checks — with interest” to Americans and businesses.

“Time to pay the piper, Donald. These tariffs were nothing more than an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families, so you could wreck longstanding alliances and extort them,” Newsom said in a statement. 

Senator Patty Murray's office issued the following yesterday:

Senator Murray has been outspoken about the harm Trump’s tariffs are causing in WA—one of the most trade-dependent states in the country; Murray has held numerous events in every corner of the state to hear from businesses, farmers, and border communities about effects of Trump’s trade war

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) issued the following statement in response to the 6-3 Supreme Court decision ruling against Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs.

“No doubt the President is somewhere throwing a tantrum over this Supreme Court Decision, but the law is clear and the law won. Small businesses across Washington state are breathing a sigh of relief thanks to this decision. Trump’s erratic tariff regime was nothing short of economic arson. On a whim, the President would upend entire industries and drastically drive up costs or block our small businesses from markets they depended on—it was sheer stupidity that cost us jobs and drove up prices for just about everyone.

“While this decision puts an important leash on an out-of-control White House, we have to recognize that so much damage has already been done. And all year, Republicans blocked Democrats from simply repealing Trump’s destructive tariffs out of pure cowardice and a slovenly deference to a President determined to set our economy on fire. Good riddance.

“Undoubtedly, Trump will look for new ways to impose tariffs and hurt American small businesses—he should just give it up and Republicans should work with us to make sure he does. In Congress, I’ll keep fighting back against Trump and Republicans’ anti-small business, anti-consumer policies—Democrats are fighting for commonsense policies that grow the economy for everyone, support the middle-class, and make life more affordable.”

Washington state has one of the most trade-dependent economies of any state in the country, with 40 percent of jobs in the state tied to international commerce. In 2024, Washington exported $57.8 billion of goods, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), making Washington state the 9^th-largest state exporter of goods last year. Washington state is also the top U.S. producer of apples, blueberries, hops, pears, spearmint oil, and sweet cherries—all of which risk losing vital export markets due to retaliatory tariffs from key trading partners including Canada.

###

Chump had a meltdown Friday when he heard the news of the Court's finding.  Chump attacked and cursed out the Court over the verdict.  Does that mean anything?  David McAfee (RAW STORY) offers:

Donald Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court smacking down his signature initiative upset "all nine" justices and will give the conservative high court "more freedom" to defy the president's wishes in upcoming cases, according to a Republican strategist.

Appearing on MS NOW's PoliticsNation this weekend, Republican strategist Susan del Percio, who has a history of working with Republican candidates and in Rudy Giuliani's administration, was asked if Trump's response to the Supreme Court would fly with the nation's highest jurists. Trump said he was ashamed and disappointed with Republicans who ruled against him, and said they lacked courage and loyalty.

Asked, "Will this pass with them?" the GOP insider replied, "I don't think so."

Today on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe noted Chump's personal attacks on the justices. 

The polls continue to note that the American people are tired of Donald Chump and his self-created drama. Kathryn Palmer (USA TODAY) reports:

Ahead of President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address of his second term, a new poll shows a majority of Americans disapprove of his job performance, especially on inflation, tariffs and foreign policy.

In a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll released on Sunday, Feb. 22 − just two days before Trump's highly anticipated address to Congress − six in ten Americans, 60%, said they disapprove of the way he is handling his role. Of that number, 47% indicated a strong disapproval. Another 39% said they approve of the president's performance.

His performance has been lackluster and threatening at the same time.  Currently, he's raging at NETFLIX to fire a member of the board (Susan Rice) and it's that sort of nonsense -- unethical and beyond the pale -- that really reveals him to be an immature cry baby incapable of stewarding the US economy.  His meltdown on Friday following the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs didn't win him any glowing reviews.

Chump continues to struggle as does FBI Director Ka$h Patel.  Alan Feuer, Glenn Thrush, Motoko Rich and Tariq Panja (NEW YORK TIMES) report:

 

The F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, criticized for blurring the lines between personal recreation and professional responsibility, spent Sunday celebrating the American hockey team’s Olympic victory in Milan as the bureau grappled with multiple, fast-developing crises at home.

A video of a euphoric Mr. Patel, a devoted hockey fan who plays the sport himself, was posted on social media, showing him giving a gleeful shaka sign — the thumb-and-pinky salute — in the gold-winning team’s locker room as he stood next to Dylan Larkin, the team’s center.

“Congratulations, Team USA!” Mr. Patel shouted while wearing a white jersey and craning his head to get into the frame of a cellphone video with Mr. Larkin, who flashed his gold medal at the camera.

Another video clip showed Mr. Patel chugging most of a beer and splashing the remnants into the air as the hockey players around him cheered. Then one of players, the video showed, draped a gold medal around his neck and he raised his arms in triumph.

Ka$h's presence came as a bit of a surprise due to a spokesperson disputing that Ka$h would be there.  Jennifer Bowers Bahney (MEDIAITE) notes:

FBI Spokesman Ben Williamson spent days trashing reports by MS NOW’s Ken Dilanian and others who reported Patel would be attending the event.

“Your rag outlet wrote that [Patel] went to hang out at the Olympics on the taxpayer dime – even when provided information that your theory was false. When you’re ready to correct that let me know. Won’t hold my breath,” Williamson wrote.

This morning, Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) noted Ka$h's trip was on the taxpayer dime. 

Let's wind down with this from Senator Mazie Hirono's office:

~Hirono has long championed the small businesses and working families who have been severely impacted by Trump’s illegal tariffs~

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), a senior member of the Senate Committees on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Judiciary, released the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s global tariffs.

“For the past year, Trump’s tariffs have wreaked havoc on small businesses and driven up costs for consumers, while doing nothing to help the U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs were never meant to help the American people. They were conceived as another lever for Trump to consolidate power and intimidate our global partners—including some of our closest allies. Today, the Supreme Court affirmed what we’ve known all along, these tariffs are not only reckless, they are illegal. Today’s ruling is an important step forward for American consumers and businesses, and also for the rule of law. Now that the Court has ruled, this regime needs to expeditiously reimburse the businesses who have borne the cost for Trump’s disastrous trade war and lay out a plan to actually address the affordability crisis facing millions of Americans. The President must not seek to reimpose these tariffs using the pretext of some other authority.”

As a member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, Senator Hirono has consistently fought to support the small businesses in Hawaii and throughout the country who have been impacted by the Trump Administration’s global tariffs. For the past year, she has fought for small businesses and families to get relief for the losses they have accrued as a result of the tariffs. In May, she introduced the Small Business Liberation Act, legislation that would exempt the more than 34 million U.S. small businesses from the overly broad, reckless global tariffs imposed by President Trump. In September, she also introduced the Small Business RELIEF Act, which would reimburse those businesses for costs incurred due to the tariffs. In addition to legislation, Hirono has stood with plaintiffs suing the Administration for losses they’ve accrued because of the tariffs and signed onto multiple amicus briefs advocating for relief.

###

Kat's "Kat's Korner: U2's DAYS OF ASH" went up yesterday and the following sites updated:

• 
  Paul Krugman

  Day 1461 of Putin’s Three-Day War

  1 hour ago
• 
  The New Republic

  The Staggering Costs of Trump’s War on Public Service

  2 hours ago
• 
  NPR Topics: Home Page Top Stories

  U.S. has a quarter fewer immigration judges than it did a year ago. Here's why

  2 hours ago
• 
  PBS NewsHour - The Latest

  Checks and balances aren't working under Trump, growing majority says

  3 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  U2, Nick Jonas, Adele

  9 hours ago
• 
  TPM – Talking Points Memo

  Yes, TPM is in the Epstein Files. But We Didn’t Do Anything Wrong! I Promise.

  19 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  Five great songs from Natalie Cole

  1 day ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  HOW TO MAKE A KILLING

  1 day ago
• 
  Music

  Remembering salsa legend Willie Colon

  1 day ago
• 
  The Official Jody Watley Website

  Jody Watley Independent Artist Success New Message To Fans

  1 day ago
• 
  Ann's Mega Dub

  Of course Donald Chump has no shame

  1 day ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  general hospital's send -off to luke spencer

  1 day ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  Caesar Chicken in the Kitchen

  2 days ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Idiot of the Week

  2 days ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  Chump's very bad day

  2 days ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Chump's continued decline

  2 days ago
• 
  Latino USA

  Born in Exile: Ana Tijoux on Music and Resistance

  3 days ago 

Of course Donald Chump has no shame

 Chump lost big on Friday.  Maybe that means an end to a notion the Convicted Felon and Eternal Grifter floated the day before?  On Thursday, Chump revealed how he wanted to give himself the Congressional Medal of Honor.  Reanna Smith (THE MIRROR) notes:

Donald Trump, who avoided the draft five times during the Vietnam war, has revealed he wants to give himself the Congressional Medal of Honor for being "extremely brave."

The 79-year-old president was making remarks about the economy in Rome, Georgia, on Thursday when he suddenly commended his own bravery for a December 2018 visit to US troops at Al Asad Air Force Base in Iraq's Anbar province.

"So I decided to go to Iraq. I flew to Iraq. I was extremely brave," Trump told the largely silent crowd. Trump went on to claim he suggested giving himself the Congressional Medal of Honor, the United States Armed Forces' highest military decoration, following his trip. It comes after Nicki Minaj refused to answer a creepy question from Trump in a toe-curling conversation.

"In fact, so brave I wanted to give myself the Congressional Medal of Honor. I said to my people, 'Am I allowed to give myself the Congressional Medal of Honor?'" the president recalled.

"I've given out so many to guys that are seriously brave, I mean they come in with their arms are missing their legs are missing, the stories are so unbelievable," Trump noted. He then admitted he perhaps doesn't deserve the award quite as much as they do. 

The Congressional Medal of Honor goes to service members -- US military service members -- who have distinguished themselves in combat.  And Chump wanted to give it to himself and still wants to?  He is disgusting. 

That is an insult not just to everyone who has been awarded that honor but to everyone who has served in the US military. 

This is C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"

Friday, February 20, 2026.  Chump has questions still to answer regarding The Epstein Files, his new 'Board of Peace' got off to an underwhelming start, and much more. 

Wednesday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee went to Ohio where they took a deposition from billionaire Les Wexner who funded pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.  

Henry J. Gomez (NBC NEWS) notes:

Wexner, 88, has said he met Epstein in the mid-1980s and eventually hired him to manage his money. He also has said he cut ties with Epstein in 2007, after Epstein was accused of sexually abusing minors in Florida. Around that time, Wexner wrote in a letter issued by his foundation in 2019, “we discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Wexner also has denied any knowledge of an allegation made by Epstein survivor Maria Farmer, who said in a 2020 lawsuit against the Epstein estate that she was assaulted in 1996 by Epstein at an Ohio property “owned and secured” by Wexner and his wife, Abigail Wexner.

“I was naïve, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein,” Wexner said in a statement submitted to the House Oversight Committee at his deposition Wednesday. “He was a con man. And while I was conned, I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar. And, let me be crystal clear: I never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity. I was never a participant nor coconspirator in any of Epstein’s illegal activities.”

Scrutiny of Wexner’s relationship with Epstein has intensified in the months since Congress required that the Justice Department release Epstein-related files. Wexner was called an Epstein co-conspirator in a 2019 FBI document released last week and mentioned as a possible co-conspirator in a previously released FBI email from that same year. A Wexner legal representative has said that Wexner had been informed in 2019 by an assistant U.S. attorney that he was “neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect.”

As new details have emerged, politicians across the state have been under pressure to rid their campaigns of the money Wexner gave them.

Last night on MS NOW's THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, US House Rep Robert Garcia spoke about the testimony Wexner offered. 

There are also questions about Donald Chump as a result of The Epstein Files.  Philip Wang (TIME MAGAZINE) notes:

Rep. Maxwell Frost told TIME that multiple witness statements in the files refute Trump’s claim that he expelled the convicted sex offender from the Palm Beach club in 2007. Frost said he plans to disclose further details in a speech on the House floor in the coming weeks, where members of Congress are shielded from defamation lawsuits under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

“I read many documents that completely refute what Donald Trump has said in terms of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein,” Frost said, adding that there was a “specific document” in the files containing multiple witness accounts that contradict the President’s version of events.

Trump said in 2025 that he banned Epstein after learning the financier had recruited young female spa workers away from Mar-a-Lago. But The New York Times previously reported that Trump told associates he removed Epstein for a different reason—that Epstein had behaved inappropriately toward the teenage daughter of a club member.

Frost also said he reviewed material he believes undermines statements made by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick about his relationship with Epstein.

“This is obviously the administration engaged in some sort of cover up, because we said we don't want any redactions unless it's victim names,” he said during a phone interview from Orlando, Florida. “That's it, victim names—not to protect friends of Donald Trump, not to protect billionaires and elites in this country, the names of victims.”

Still on Chump, Edith Olmsted (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes:

The Department of Justice spoke four separate times to a woman who credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a minor he met through Jeffrey Epstein—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government’s documents on the alleged sex trafficker.

A 21-page slideshow buried in the massive trove of Epstein-related documents included allegations that sometime between 1983 and 1985, Trump forced a woman to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens. When the woman bit down on Trump’s exposed penis, he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. That same woman told the DOJ that Epstein had introduced her to Trump in 1984.

Yet last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi insisted that there was “no evidence” that Trump had committed any crime—adding to the growing pile of denials from Trump officials that constitute a sweeping cover-up of the president’s alleged wrongdoing.

Department of Justice records indicate that the FBI spoke to this woman not once, but at least four separate times, according to independent journalist Roger Sollenberger. Now, those records appear to have been removed from public viewing—despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires all documents relating to the alleged sex trafficker to be made public.

 

Simon Marks (THE I PAPER) notes:

Fully understanding that Trump’s Department of Justice is completely in thrall to the President and will not be authorising any investigation of his conduct, top Democrats are urging the American media to look into unproven allegations contained within the Epstein files.

Referring to a series of tips provided by the public – many of them second-hand and some without any contact information for investigators to pursue – Congressman Ted Lieu of California suggested this month that the job must fall to the Fourth Estate to do some digging.

“Donald Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and thousands of times”, he told reporters on Capitol Hill. He described allegations in the files as “highly disturbing” and added: “So I encourage the press to go look at these allegations.”

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Lieu cited an unclassified FBI document containing claims from an anonymous man who alleged that, while working as a driver in 1995, he overheard Trump phoning someone called “Jeffrey” and discussed “abusing some girl”. The document said the man later met a young girl, who alleged she was raped by Trump and Epstein. The man claimed that authorities later found the girl dead with her head “blown off”.

Donald Chump has put together 'The Board of Peace.'  It's a vanity project in search of attention for the preening ego of all time.  Yesterday, 'The Board of Peace' met for the first time.

 

Before it started, protesters greeted Chump.  J.D. Wolf (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) reports:

President Donald Trump was confronted by protesters Thursday morning as his motorcade arrived at the recently renamed “Donald J Trump Institute for Peace“ building where he is convening the inaugural meeting of his newly formed “Board of Peace.”

According to the White House press pool, demonstrators gathered across the street as the motorcade pulled up shortly before 9 a.m., holding large signs and yelling, “Donald Trump go to hell,” reflecting deep skepticism about the president’s intentions.

Eric Malinowski (INDEPENDENT) notes that Chump made himself the focus of the meeting:

In his remarks, Trump repeated his claim that he had ended eight wars but acknowledged that ending the Russo–Ukrainian war continues to elude him.

He also complained about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last year. Speaking about European countries who are interested in joining the Board of Peace, Trump noted that Norway had agreed to host a future Board event and expressed disappointment that the country did not award him the prize.

When not lamenting all the things he has never accomplished, Chump just made weird remarks.  Gabe Whisnant (NEWSWEEK) notes:

President Donald Trump veered off script during Thursday’s Board of Peace remarks, and while welcoming Paraguayan President Santiago Peña, Trump offered an aside about Peña’s youth and appearance.

“It’s always nice to be young and handsome. It doesn’t mean we have to like you. I don’t like young, handsome men. Women — I like. Men, I don’t have any interest,” Trump says as chuckles can be heard among those gathered for the multi-national event in Washington D.C.

Santiago Pena turns 48 later this year.  That's not young.  And young people don't fall asleep at public meetings which, for the record, Chump did again in 'The Board of Peace' meeting.  See Marcia's "Chump's continued decline as he sleeps through another public meeting" for more on that. 

Sophia Cai and Eli Stokols (POLITICO) add, "President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he intends to name his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a special peace envoy, unveiling the decision at his 'Board of Peace' event, attended by more than a dozen world leaders."  This while Chump pretends the point is to help Gaza.  

For those who've forgotten, in March of 2024, Patrick Wintour (GUARDIAN) reported on how Jared saw Palestine:

Jared Kushner has praised the “very valuable” potential of Gaza’s “waterfront property” and suggested Israel should remove civilians while it “cleans up” the strip.

The former property dealer, married to Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka, made the comments in an interview at Harvard University on 15 February. The interview was posted on the YouTube channel of the Middle East Initiative, a program of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, earlier this month.

Kushner was a senior foreign policy adviser under Trump’s presidency and was tasked with preparing a peace plan for the Middle East. Critics of the plan, which involved Israel striking normalisation deals with Gulf states, said it bypassed questions about the future for Palestinians.

And this January,  Nick Duffy and Matt Bradley (NBC NEWS) noted:

President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner this week unveiled plans for a “New Gaza” filled with gleaming high-rise towers and tourist-packed beaches — an optimistic vision that stands in stark contrast to the reality of a territory in ruins after two years of war.

[. . .]

On the ground in Gaza, meanwhile, Kushner’s plan felt like another world. Israeli forces continue to occupy around half of the Palestinian enclave.

More than 71,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry, and hundreds of thousands of the enclave’s 2 million people have been driven from their homes and live in tents, where they are exposed to disease, storms and flooding.

It's what Jared's been pitching for years.  In 2018, Khalil E. Jahshan, Michael C. Hudson, Yousef Munayyer, Tamara Kharroub and Joe Macaron (DC's Arab Center) noted the many problems with Jared's 'concepts.'  Let's note Jahshan:

In his interview, Jared Kushner claims that he has done “a lot of listening,” having spent his precious time “focusing on the people and trying to determine what they actually want.” Apparently, Kushner does not know many Palestinians, or he failed to take good notes.

Most Palestinians I know are very determined, industrious, and hard-working. They would welcome “the new opportunities and better paying jobs” that Kushner is dangling before their eyes. However, Palestinians are well-educated and politically savvy enough to know that their problem is not purely economic—that first and foremost, it is political in nature. Of course, they want normalcy in their daily life and a thriving economy, but they realize, clearly better than Jared Kushner and Trump’s advisor, Jason Greenblatt, that meaningful change only comes with action on fundamental concerns: ending the Israeli military occupation of Palestine and attaining national self-determination, with the realization of the Palestinians’ inalienable and universally recognized political rights, including the right of return to millions of Palestinian refugees.

Kushner accuses Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of having harbored the same talking points for the past 25 years. In fact, Trump’s envoy must acknowledge these long-held aspirations of the Palestinian people if Washington is truly interested in listening to them, or in moving forward on peace. Go back to the drawing board Mr. Kushner; your biased ideas are neither an “ultimate” nor a coherent “plan”!

And we'll note Kharroub:

Kushner’s statements signal the extent to which the Trump Administration is out of touch with reality as well as the flawed premises on which it has based its new peace plan. What is remarkable is how Kushner’s deeply uninformed statements are unapologetically condescending toward the Palestinians. “Don’t allow your grandfathers’ conflict to determine your children’s future,” Kushner appealed to the Palestinian public, without any regard for or understanding of the daily struggles of Palestinians who continue to live under repressive Israeli military occupation. He flippantly dismissed Palestinian rights and international law as Abbas’s “talking points which have not changed in the last 25 years.” Additionally, Kushner’s only concrete reference to the “deal” is an economic development plan for Gaza, to be underwritten financially by Arab Gulf states (this is while the United States cuts funds to UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority). Reducing the conflict to a mere economic issue and placing sole responsibility for its non-resolution on President Abbas and not Israel, is a clear echo of Israeli right-wing falsehoods and an attempt to preemptively blame the Palestinian leadership for the eventual failure of the deal. Although the Palestinians are the weakest players in this game, no deal can be achieved without their unequivocal participation. A lasting peace cannot be imposed by the Trump Administration or Arab states without justice as its primary premise.

It's a blue print for ethnic cleansing.  It ignores the realities for Palestinians and, in fact, Jared wants to move them over to a desert. There's no factoring in the ongoing genocide.  If anything, it just 'helps' Jared's plan to clear the region of Palestinians.  

Let's wind down with this from Senator Elizabeth Warren's office:

Senators warn moving critical programs to agencies with no education policy experience could delay funding, increase administrative burden, raise program costs

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Vice Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies pushed the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to open an investigation into the Department of Education’s (ED) transfer of grant programs to agencies with no expertise in education policy, such as the Department of Labor (DOL)—a key step in the Trump administration’s efforts to illegally dismantle and eventually abolish ED.

“We are deeply concerned that the administration’s decisions to [transfer] grant programs in this manner delayed crucial funding that millions of students and schools rely on, created administrative inefficiencies, increased the cost of program administration, and compromised the quality of technical assistance provided to states and grantees,” wrote the senators.

In May 2025, the Trump administration formalized an interagency agreement (IAA) through which it moved the day-to-day management of career and technical education and adult education grant programs, including Perkins V and AEFLA, from ED to DOL. Perkins V grants annually provide over $1.4 billion in funding for career and technical education programs for about 11 million students around the country. AEFLA provides over $700 million in annual funding for adult education opportunities, most often for people without a high school degree or who are English language learners. In 2024, AEFLA served about 1.3 million adult students.

“[T]hese programs are a critical pathway to the middle class and can play a key role in reducing poverty and enabling employment,” wrote the lawmakers.

ED is reportedly paying DOL around $1 million to cover the cost of administering these programs during FY25 and FY26. Public reporting suggests that the transfer of these programs has been deeply flawed, leading to weeks-long delays in grant disbursements and harming students and schools.

“[T]he reports raise questions about whether the transfer has actually reduced alleged ‘duplication of effort,’ or just created inefficiency,” said the senators.

In November 2025, ED announced six additional IAAs, pointing to the May IAA as a template for their work to dismantle the Department. These IAAs transferred significant responsibilities for grant administration for dozens of programs for early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education out of ED.

The lawmakers asked GAO to investigate these IAAs — and any future IAAs — and the agreements’ impacts on program costs, timely access to funding, access to services, and quality of technical assistance for grantees.

Senator Warren has led the fight to make our higher education system more affordable, cancel student loan debt, and hold student loan servicers accountable for incompetence and malfeasance. She launched the Save Our Schools campaign in a coordinated effort to fight back against President Trump’s attempts to abolish the Department of Education.

• On February 19, 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) pushed Education Secretary Linda McMahon on concerns that the U.S. Department of Education is apparently obstructing Congressional efforts to hold federal student loan servicers accountable for underperformance.
• On February 2, 2026, Senator Warren released a new report revealing the findings of their investigation into how private student loan lenders will reap the benefits from cuts to federal student loan access enacted in Republicans’ Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBBA). The report is the first Congressional analysis of the impacts of the OBBBA’s student loan restrictions on the private lending market.
• On January 22, 2026, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) led their Senate colleagues in demanding answers from Trump Education Secretary Linda McMahon about the Trump Administration’s proposal to eliminate affordable student loan repayment options for millions of Americans.
• On December 8, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in writing to the federal student loan servicers to ensure they are providing borrowers with the customer service they deserve in the wake of the Trump administration’s student loan policy whiplash. The senators sent letters to MOHELA, Nelnet, EdFinancial, Maximus, and CRI.
• On December 1, 2025, Senator Warren published an op-ed in USA Today calling for Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to resign following the recent news that President Trump and Secretary McMahon plan to further dismantle the Department of Education (ED).
• On November 24, 2025, Senator Warren pushed for an expanded investigation into the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle ED and whether its recent decision to transfer many of ED’s responsibilities to four other agencies violates federal law.
• On November 17, 2025, Senator Warren led over 40 of her colleagues in a letter urging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to immediately end any plans to sell or transfer the federal student loan portfolio to the private market.
• On November 10, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in a letter urging the Trump administration to use the IRS’s existing legal authorities to stop the looming “tax bomb” facing borrowers who obtain income-driven repayment (IDR) discharges of their student loan debt.
• On October 15, 2025, Senator Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) led 70 members of Congress in a letter calling on the Trump administration to address the ongoing and unprecedented wave of student loan delinquencies and defaults, which threatens the financial stability of millions of people and could have disastrous effects on the American economy.
• On September 19, 2025, following a push by Senator Warren and nine other senators, the Acting Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education agreed to open an investigation into DOGE’s infiltration of internal systems, including the scope of its access to sensitive student loan borrower information and its impact on borrowers’ rights and privacy.
• On August 26, 2025, Senator Warren led colleagues in sending a follow-up letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon condemning the Department of Education for deliberately hiding the “Submit a Complaint” button on the Office of Federal Student Aid’s website, firing employees responsible for providing customer service to borrowers and families and misleading Congress about the scope of these firings.
• On August 7, 2025, Senator Warren publicly released Secretary of Education Linda McMahon’s response to the senator’s 60+ questions and pressed for additional information. Senator Warren announced that she would refer certain matters where the Department has proved uncooperative to the Government Accountability Office and the Education Department’s Inspector General.
• On August 4, 2025, Senator Warren led eight Senators in pressing major private student loan lenders on their plans to serve the incoming surge of borrowers who will be pushed to the industry because of Republicans’ recently passed “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
• On July 17, 2025, Senator Warren released a new 23-page report, “Education At Risk: Frontline Impacts of Trump’s War on Students,” highlighting warnings from 11 major national education and civil rights organizations on the impact of the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the Department of Education (ED), slashing support to millions of American students, primary and secondary school teachers, administrators, parents, and student loan borrowers.
• On July 15, 2025, Senators Warren and Sanders, along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, urging her to reverse the interest hike on student loan borrowers in the SAVE forbearance.
• On July 14, 2025, Senator Warren joined a letter to the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, and Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, demanding that the Department of Education stop blocking nearly $7 billion in funds for K-12 schools, including for afterschool programs.
• On July 3, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in submitting an amicus brief for NAACP v. US, arguing to the United States District Court District of Maryland that President Trump’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education violate separation of powers and lack constitutional authority.
• On June 10, 2025, Senator Warren met with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and delivered over 1,000 letters to McMahon that the senator had received from people in all 50 states who were worried about the Secretary’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
• On June 9, 2025, Senator Warren led her colleagues in pushing the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Education to open an investigation into new information obtained by her office, revealing that DOGE may have gained access to two FSA internal systems, in addition to sensitive borrower data.
• On May 20, 2025, Senator Warren and 27 other senators pushed for full funding for the Office of Federal Student Aid.
• On May 14, 2025, Senator Warren led a Senate forum entitled “Stealing the American Dream: How Trump and Republicans Are Raising Education Costs for Families,” highlighting the consequences of Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education and President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” for working- and middle-class students and borrowers.
• On May 13, 2025, Senator Warren agreed to meet with Education Secretary Linda McMahon and promised to bring questions and stories from Americans across the country to highlight how the Trump administration’s attacks on education are hurting American families.
• On May 6, 2025, Senator Elizabeth Warren highlighted the consequences of President Trump and Secretary Linda McMahon’s reckless dismantling of the Department of Education for American families in a Senate forum.
• On April 24, 2025, Senator Warren launched a new investigation into the harms of President Trump’s attacks on the Department of Education, seeking information on the impact of the Trump administration’s actions from the members of twelve leading organizations representing schools, parents, teachers, students, borrowers, and researchers.
• On April 10, 2025, following a request led by Senator Warren, the Department of Education’s Acting Inspector General agreed to open an investigation into the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the Department of Education.
• On April 2, 2025, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono, along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the Department of Government Efficiency’s proposed plan to replace the Department of Education’s federal student aid call centers with generative artificial intelligence chatbots.

###

The following sites updated:

• 
  NPR Topics: Home Page Top Stories

  What I learned watching every sport at the Winter Olympics

  1 hour ago
• 
  Latino USA

  Born in Exile: Ana Tijoux on Music and Resistance

  2 hours ago
• 
  The New Republic

  The Revolutionary Crappiness of Darren Aronofsky’s On This Day … 1776

  2 hours ago
• 
  Music

  FLO: Tiny Desk Concert

  3 hours ago
• 
  Mikey Likes It!

  Lindsey Graham wants war on Iran and a 'girlfriend' who loves him

  7 hours ago
• 
  Ruth's Report

  2020 is a crazed obsession for Chump

  7 hours ago
• 
  Thomas Friedman is a Great Man

  Chump destroys the party

  7 hours ago
• 
  SICKOFITRADLZ

  Chump's continued decline as he sleeps through another public meeting

  7 hours ago
• 
  Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)

  U2, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Diana Ross

  7 hours ago
• 
  Like Maria Said Paz

  Junior is Chump's love slave

  7 hours ago
• 
  Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude

  maga judge threatener goes on the run

  7 hours ago
• 
  Oh Boy It Never Ends

  Shirley MacLaine and MATLOCK

  7 hours ago
• 
  Ann's Mega Dub

  Grifter Sarah Ferguson

  7 hours ago
• 
  Trina's Kitchen

  SoCal Ceviche in the Kitchen

  7 hours ago
• 
  PBS NewsHour - The Latest

  WATCH: Les Wexner's full deposition to House Democrats on the Epstein files

  11 hours ago
• 
  TPM – Talking Points Memo

  A Ground Level Report on ICE’s Gulag Buildout

  12 hours ago
• 
  Paul Krugman

  A Pause to Refresh

  1 day ago