Trump and Hegseth's message to the military: You all suck!

Two of the most dangerous words in the English language are: "What if?" They can easily divorce you from reality and suck you into endless hours of pure speculation: What if James Comey hadn't released that last-minute report on Hillary Clinton's emails? What if Merrick Garland hadn't waited so long to file charges against Donald Trump? What if Joe Biden had only dropped out earlier?

But this week, watching video from the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, I couldn't resist: What if there were a thought bubble over the heads of more than 800 top-ranked generals and admirals forced to abandon their posts, fly around the globe and sit there like school kids to be lectured to by newbie "Secretary of War" Pete Hegseth?

No need for speculation here. We know what they - everyone of whom has more experience and knows vastly more about the military than Hegseth - were thinking. Even omitting obscenities, no doubt their reactions ranged from: "What does this Fox News pretty boy know about the military?" to "He's out of his f----g mind."

Their body language said it all. They didn't laugh, applaud or nod in approval. They just sat there silently, clearly not happy to hear this drivel. One year ago, Hegseth was a weekend talk show host on Fox News. This year, he's strutting across the stage like a peacock, telling our most-senior military leaders how to do their jobs. It was humiliating, embarrassing and insulting. And costly. God only knows how much it cost to fly them all there. Doesn't Hegseth know how to use email? Or Zoom?

Boiled down, Hegseth's message could be summed up as: "You all suck. You're too weak, too soft, too fat, and too many of you have your titles only because you're a woman, or gay or Black." The ideal soldier is male, straight and white.

The Pentagon must adopt a "warrior ethos," Hegseth told the generals. Which means returning to the "1990 test" - when women were barred from combat and LGBTQ Americans were banned from serving. To which he added several ultimatums. They all had to shave facial hair. "No more beardos." Lose weight. No more "fat generals in the halls of the Pentagon." Do a strenuous workout every day. And take a PT test twice a year.

The military's new rule is the "highest male standard," Hegseth declared. Then, dismissing the thousands of women who are now serving, and have served with distinction, in both support and combat roles in the military, Hegseth sniffed: "If women -- and weak men -- don't make the grade, so be it."

As part of his clean face, trim body campaign, Hegseth did not say whether Vice President J.D. Vance would have to shave his beard or if Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump would have to lose 60 pounds.

But as bad as Hegseth's Quantico performance was, Trump's was even worse. Hegseth came with a message. Trump came with a rambling, incomprehensible monologue in which he attacked Barack Obama and Joe Biden, insisted he alone deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and supported ICE officers' use of violence against protesters.

Then, in a stunning twist, Trump told generals their main focus should not be on fighting foreign enemies, but on the "enemy within," meaning fighting urban crime in cities like Washington, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland and Memphis - all cities with Democratic mayors. In fact, Trump said, "I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military."

Use American cities as training grounds for the military? Putin would be proud. At that point, Trump's lucky every general didn't stand up and walk out of the room. But we know what they were thinking: "What an idiot! We didn't join the military to fight our fellow Americans. And we know, even if he doesn't, that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 expressly bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when expressly authorized by law."

In truth, as disgusting as it was, what happened at Quantico was classic Trump. The assembled generals and admirals should have expected no less. After all, this is "President Bone-Spurs," the same man who went to the Pentagon on July 20, 2017 and told the military's top commanders: "I wouldn't go to war with you people. You're a bunch of dopes and babies."

Unlike most Americans when speaking about the military, in Donald Trump's vocabulary there are five words missing: "Thank you for your service."

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Kamala Harris says: Don't blame me!

The Democratic Party needs a lot of things right now: new leadership, a lot more backbone, a compelling message and a detailed, determined, aggressive, united campaign to take back the House and Senate in 2026.

The one thing the Democratic Party doesn't need is a pity party. But that's all we're getting from former Vice President Kamala Harris, whose book on the 2024 campaign, "107 Days," was published this week. In her book, from excerpts we've seen so far, Harris blames everybody for her 2024 loss to Donald Trump - except herself. She lost. We're the ones suffering. She wants us to feel sorry for her.

Harris' main beef, which she repeats often in the book and which the book's very title shouts out loud, is that she didn't have enough time. One hundred seven days wasn't enough time, she argues, for her to make the case against a man who'd been president for four years and who'd been running for re-election ever since.

No doubt, Harris and her most loyal supporters believe that, but reality suggests otherwise. By being handed the nomination after Biden's withdrawal from the race, Harris avoided a long and messy primary, won the endorsement of every major Democrat, emerged from a hugely positive convention with a united and enthusiastic Democratic party and led the national polls until the very end of the campaign.

Four years earlier, in her first presidential campaign, Harris withdrew from the race before one vote was cast in the Democratic primary - after campaigning for almost a year. Which does raise the question: How much time did she think she needed? Would one more week, or one more month, really have made any difference?

There were other factors. Like voter turn-out. In 2020, 81.2 million Americans voted for Joe Biden. In 2024, 75 million voted for Kamala Harris. Which means some 6 million voters who might have been expected to once again support Biden or the Democratic nominee against Trump simply did not turn out to vote. Why? Maybe because, which Harris never addresses in the book, she didn't make a strong enough case to get them off the couch.

Harris also dances around two other mistakes. First, her failure to speak up and suggest to Biden that he should consider not running for re-election, as he had once promised. It was total "recklessness," she writes, to leave that decision entirely up to the president and first lady. Yet she admits that, even though she knew he was experiencing physical and mental decline, she never raised the question because she felt it would appear "self-serving" to do so. The good of the country demanded otherwise.

Second, Harris never acknowledges another big shortcoming of the campaign: her failure, or unwillingness, to tell voters how she would differ from Joe Biden. She admits she wrestled with that question, but decided against it. Big mistake. You can't blame that on only having 107 days.

The biggest question about Harris' book is why she felt compelled to write it in the first place. It's not good for the Democratic Party. Democrats today should be talking about every lie Trump tells, every law he breaks, every American who's losing health care, every job lost under him - and why and how it's important to curtail his abuse of power with a Democratic-controlled Congress in 2026. Any more time spent agonizing over 2024 is a giant distraction.

If her goal was to unite the party, she doesn't do that. In fact, she goes out of her way to take cheap shots at possible presidential contenders. She decided against Josh Shapiro as her running mate, she notes, because he was too interested in himself. She says Pete Buttigieg was her first choice, but she rejected him because he was gay. Poor Tim Walz. Imagine, two years later, learning you were her second or third choice, only selected because you were an older, straight, white guy from the Midwest.

If her goal was to tease another run for president, she failed at that, too. And I say that as one who's always admired Kamala Harris. She did a great job as San Francisco district attorney, California attorney general, and U.S. senator. She was an historic and effective vice president. And she has years of public service ahead of her.

But, after this book, that future will not include a second shot as the Democratic nominee for president. Americans don't agree on everything. But one thing we do agree on: nobody likes a sore loser.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 

To be honest, I don't remember much from all my high-school Latin. But one phrase stuck with me: De mortuis, nil nisi bonum. Roughly translated: "Don't speak ill of the dead."

That's a good rule to live by. But, I would argue, so is this rule: Don't lie about the dead. Don't make them better dead than they were alive. Yet that's exactly what's going on today with the over-the-top lionization of Charlie Kirk.

Donald Trump's promised to give him the Medal of Freedom. Flags were flown half-staff in his memory (but not for Melissa Hortman, Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, assassinated on June 14). Several members of Congress propose planting a statue of Kirk in the U.S. Capitol. The only reason nobody's suggested adding Kirk to Mount Rushmore is they're saving that spot for Trump himself.

As if that's not enough, many Americans - including teachers, firefighters, journalists, nurses, a Secret Service employee, a junior strategist at Nasdaq, and a worker for the Carolina Panthers - have been fired for posts about Kirk's death that were deemed "insensitive." Also fired for critical comments were MSNBC commentator Matthew Dowd, Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Suddenly, it's "cancel culture" on steroids.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the Justice Department to track down anyone making critical comments about Kirk and prosecute them for "hate speech" - an ultimatum she's now trying to back away from. And should. Surely, if the First Amendment means anything, it means being able to say negative things about Charlie Kirk or anybody else in the public arena - a statement I believe even Kirk would agree with.

Charlie Kirk's assassination was an abomination: the heartless, senseless murder of a talented, young, political activist for no apparent reason other than exercising his own First Amendment rights. We grieve for his family. We strongly condemn this latest act of political violence, just as we condemn attacks against Gabby Gifford, Paul Pelosi, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Melissa and Mark Hortman, and President Trump.

At the same time, it's important to remember who Charlie Kirk was and what he stood for. Charlie Kirk didn't shy away from who he was, and we shouldn't either.

He was not, as Speaker Mike Johnson piously declared on Fox News, someone who loved debate but also "loved people on the other side of the table." Here's Charlie Kirk on July 24, 2023: "Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia-filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America."

In contrast, here's what Joe Biden posted on September 10: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk's family and loved ones."

Nor was Kirk, as Johnson also puffed, "motivated by truth and love." On July 13, 2023, he suggested that MSNBC's Joy Reid, First Lady Michelle Obama, Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson were nothing but "affirmative action picks." "You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."

This was hardly Kirk's only slur on Black Americans. From his podcast on May 19, 2023: "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that's a fact. It's happening more and more." And on January 23, 2024: "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified." He called Martin Luther King Jr. "awful" and told a crowd in 2023: "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's."

Charlie Kirk represented politics at its worst. He laced his speeches with racist and bigoted remarks. He created a "Professors Watch List," demanding that any professor associated with the political left be fired. He championed the phony "great replacement theory." He dismissed the horror of mass shootings, arguing "it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every year" as the price we pay for the Second Amendment. Again, Kirk had every right to express such statements, but that doesn't make them any less abhorrent.

In politics, we each get to choose our heroes. Mine include: John McCain, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders,and Jamie Raskin. Charlie Kirk will never be one of them.
(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Dumb idea: Shutting down the government

Here we go again. Another deadline. The government's running out of money. And the big question is: Will Congress find some way to keep the lights on or will they simply shut it down?

We've seen this movie before, and we know how it usually ends. At the last minute, both sides find some way to keep the government open, if only for another few months. But this time's different. Usually, it's far-right Republicans who demand a government shutdown. These days, it's progressive Democrats.

What's exciting Democrats nationwide is the idea of preventing Donald Trump from doing even more harm by simply shutting down the government. It's being pushed by many leading Democrats, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Murphy, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. People I usually always agree with.

Believe me, I understand their frustration. We all share it. We're watching a madman assume the powers of a dictator and totally destroy everything we believe in and everything we thought this country stands for, including: due process, the rule of law, free speech, protection of the environment, belief in science, separation of powers, democracy itself, accepting the results of an election - and telling the truth. Guardrails we once thought would protect us from such an outlaw president disappeared once Congress and the Supreme Court surrendered their independence and assumed the role of Trump's co-conspirators. And Trump still has three years to go.

No wonder so many Democrats are advocating the nuclear option. As Robert Reich said on LinkedIn: "Keeping the U.S. government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times. So I for one have decided that the best route is to shut the whole f**cking thing down."

Again, I share the frustration. But I for one argue the opposite: for Democrats, shutting down the government would be a big mistake. For several reasons.

First, as we should have learned by now, no matter the merits of the arguments made, whichever party shuts down the government gets blamed for it and pays the political price. Democrats have made a strong case for taking back the House in 2026 by pointing out how incapable Republicans are at governing. They'll lose that advantage if they, not Republicans, shut everything down.

Second, shutting down the government will not achieve its goal of stopping Donald Trump. He'll still find any excuse to declare an "emergency" in order to expand his presidential powers. In fact, a government shutdown would hand him one phony "emergency" to act on. And don't count on this gang of spineless congressional Republicans to restrain him just for the sake of keeping the Smithsonian museums open.

Third, who's a shutdown going to hurt? It's not Donald Trump, his Cabinet, or congressional Republicans. They'll still get paid. They'll still be up to their old tricks. The people who suffer will be all those hundreds of thousands of federal employees (those lucky enough to still have a job) who will not get a paycheck, the millions of Americans who depend on their services - at our Veterans hospitals, national parks, customs, airports, law enforcement, health and safety agencies - and the millions of small business owners whose profits will shrink because so many regular customers won't have any money to spend.

Average, working-class Americans will be the victims of any government shutdown, not the Republican politicians Democrats want to restrain. As tempting as it may be, shutting down the government would only backfire on Democrats.

Which is not to say Democrats should give Republicans everything they want in a budget deal. No way. They still have the filibuster on their side. Republicans need them to pass any budget. They should use that power and fight like hell against extreme right-wing proposals Republicans will try to attach to the budget, but stop short of pulling the plug.

Let's be real. There's only one way to stop Trump's madness: at the ballot box, starting in 2026. With a big win in Virginia this week and another projected win in Arizona later this month, Democrats are even closer to winning back the House. With Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Roy Cooper in North Carolina and an open seat in Arizona, Democrats also now have a good chance of taking back the Senate.

That's the ticket. Winning in 2026 should be the Democrats' one and only focus. Shutting down the government is a tempting, but dangerous, distraction.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 

Trump's new theme song: Cha-ching, cha-ching!
Not every president has been such a gold-digger. In his masterful biography of our 33rd president, David McCullough describes Harry Truman's humble return to Independence, Missouri.

"He had traveled home from Washington unprotected by Secret Service agents and there were to be none watching over him. He had come home without salary or pension. He had no income or support of any kind from the federal government other than his Army pension of $112.56 a month. He was provided with no government funds for secretarial help or office space, and not a penny of expense money." In his last weeks in office, McCullough reports, Truman had to take out a bank loan to tide him over.

As former president, Truman had no plans or interest in future employment. McCullough writes: "He said his only intention was to do nothing - accept no position, lend his name to no organization or transaction - that would exploit or commercialize the prestige and dignity of the office of the President."

There could be no greater contrast to Donald Trump, who from the start saw the presidency, not just as a monumental ego trip, but as the ultimate get-rich opportunity. Speaking to Fortune magazine in 2000, back when he was first thinking about running for president, Trump famously said: "It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it."

Bingo. Said and done. If nothing else, that's one goal he's accomplished. Both as a candidate and in office, Trump's primary focus has been how to accumulate more wealth - an obscene amount of wealth - for himself and his family. He sees his job as president not as serving the public, but as personal profiteering. And, in that, he has succeeded beyond even his wildest imagination.

Of course, Trump himself would never tell us how much money he's pocketed as president. He still hasn't released his tax returns, and never will - because he'd be embarrassed by how much he's made and how little he's paid in taxes. But if, like me, you'd wondered how much Trump's raking in from all the money-making deals he's made, fret no more. As a great public service, and a tribute to the importance of investigative journalism, the New Yorker magazine's exposed the raw truth.

In its August 1 1 edition - it's worth subscribing, just to read the whole thing - the New Yorker features "The Number," a blockbuster 17-page article by reporter David D. Kirkpatrick. As Kirkpatrick explains, there'd been a lot of talk about deals Trump's made or merch he's selling, but nobody had added it all up, so "I decided to attempt to tally up just how much Trump and his immediate family have pocketed off his time at the White House." Fasten your seat belts. The total is staggering.

Kirkpatrick breaks it down into every category Trump's involved in, from golf courses to new hotel deals to his various crypto ventures. In each, he's careful to include only what he can confirm. And he provides a running total of Trump's haul.

As documented by Kirkpatrick, here's the cash bonanza for each Trump money-making scheme. Mar-A Lago: $125 million; Trump Merch: $127.7 million; Persian Gulf: $320 million; More Saudi deals: $105.8 million; Private jet: $150 million; Hotel Hanoi: $40 million; Corporate squeeze: $91 million; Truth Social: $25 million; 1789 Capital: $19.6 million; Token Investments: $412.5 million; American Bitcoin: $13 million; Crypto ventures: $14.4 million; Crypto Gulf: $243 million; $Trump: $385 million; Trump Media Crypto: $1.3 billion.

Don't reach for your calculator. Kirkpatrick's added it up for you. Some of those deals were made by Trump himself, some by sons Donald Jr. or Eric, some by son-in-law Jared Kushner, but a big bite of every deal goes into Trump's own pocket - for a total of $3.4 billion!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. While Donald Trump's been mass firing federal employees, rounding up and deporting immigrants who've committed no crimes, weaponizing the Justice Department against his political opponents, rolling back environmental protections, and sending the military into American cities, he's also been exploiting the presidency to become richer and richer.

But where's the outrage? Sherman Adams, Eisenhower's chief of staff, was forced to resign after the gift of a vicuna coat. House Speaker Jim Wright was tossed out for profiting from a book deal. First Lady Hillary Clinton was condemned for making $100,000 on a stock trade - 14 years before her husband was elected president.

There was a time when ethics mattered. No more.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Trump's military takeover starts in Washington

Returning to Washington, D.C., this week, we saw three soldiers on a street corner near the Washington Monument. The next morning, Carol went out for a run and, one block from our house, saw a car that had been t-boned and totally destroyed by a 14-ton armored military vehicle.

Later that morning, I ran into two soldiers at our subway station. "Where are you guys from?" I asked one of them. "South Carolina National Guard," he said. "And what do you know about the Washington Metro?" I asked next. "Nothing," he honestly replied. "It's the first time I've ever been here." Was that supposed to make me feel safer?

Welcome to Donald Trump's Occupied Washington. The whole thing is a joke. But a sick and dangerous joke.

There is absolutely no justification for Donald Trump's military takeover of Washington, D.C. What's new? He is simply lying when, without any evidence, he calls Washington "one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the world." Put that right up there with Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States, Trump won the 2020 election and he didn't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Lies, lies, lies.

Take it from this D.C. resident. I've lived in Washington for 29 years. I've never been accosted, threatened or mugged. And I don't know anybody who has. Washington is a beautiful, clean and safe city - for residents and for visitors.

Which is not to say that, like any other city, Washington doesn't have a serious crime problem. There are some neighborhoods where I would not feel safe walking alone at night. Especially for residents of those neighborhoods, the fact that there is any street crime at all is a serious problem. But it's a problem that the Metropolitan Police Department is quite capable of handling on its own.

Trump doesn't mention that the attempted carjacking of a DOGE staffer - Trump's alleged excuse for calling in the military - was thwarted by DC police, who caught and arrested the two teenagers involved.

The city does not need and does not want the Army and up to 1,100 National Guard troops patrolling the streets. In the latest Washington Post poll, 80 percent of Washingtonians, even those in dicey neighborhoods, oppose the federal presence.

In fact, as confirmed by the Washington Post, the crime rate per 100,000 in D.C. has fallen to its lowest point since before the pandemic. Violent crime has been on the decline since 2023, when a generational spike in killings rendered the nation's capital one of America's deadliest cities. DC's homicide rate in 2024 was less than a third of the highs in the early 1990s. And 2025 continues that downward trend.

Trump's own actions prove that his military takeover has nothing to do with keeping Washington residents safe. It's all about creating a big distraction from Jeffrey Epstein and politicizing the military - just as he's already succeeded in politicizing the Justice Department.

For starters, Trump's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt admitted that the White House "reconfigured" D.C.'s crime statistics because they were too rosy, in order to back up the president's claims of lawlessness in Washington. Plus, it's no accident that six states asked to send in National Guard troops are all red states with Republican governors. Nor that mayors of three cities where Trump has sent, or threatened to send, troops - Los Angeles, Oakland and Washington - are Black women.

Most tellingly of all, look at where federal troops are deployed. You won't find them in troubled neighborhoods like Congress Heights and Anacostia, whose residents desperately need more protection. Nope. They're stationed at tourist attractions: the National Mall, Smithsonian, White House, Union Station and subway stops. And police records show that most people arrested by federal agents so far were immigrants. Yes, Trump's soldiers are fighting crime by arresting people who've not committed any crime.

And, of course, it must be said that Donald Trump is the LAST person in the world to complain about crime in Washington. The worst crime spree in the city's history was the sacking of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, spurred and instigated by Trump himself - who then pardoned nearly 1,600 people who participated in the attack, including those charged with sedition and assaulting police officers. Mr. Law and Order, Trump ain't!

But make no mistake. This is only the first step. If Trump gets away with it here, federal troops will soon swarm into every other city with a Democratic mayor - and his Napoleonic control of America will be complete.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

There are many things to be depressed about these days, although they all boil down to one thing: Donald Trump.

One of the things that depresses me most is that Trump does and says so many outrageous things every hour of every day that we not only can't keep up with them, we've grown numb to it. We have, and the mainstream media have, too. Trump's strategy of "flooding the zone" works. If any other president said or did the same things he's guilty of, it would make banner headlines and drive crowds into the streets. But Donald Trump says it, and people just shrug it off.

On July 22, for example, talking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump was asked about National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard's request that the Justice Department launch a criminal investigation into whoever was responsible for the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election to help candidate Trump - which Trump still calls "the Russian hoax." Who should be charged with a crime?

"Well, based on what I read, and I read pretty much what you read," replied Trump, "it would be President Obama. He started it." Then Trump rambled on, concluding a meandering response with these blockbuster words: "Look, he's guilty. It's not a question. ... This was treason." Which, of course, is punishable by death.

Woah! I couldn't believe it. This might be the most explosive thing Donald Trump's ever said. I couldn't wait for the front-page New York Times headline the next morning: "Trump Accuses Obama of Treason!" Instead, the Times, like every other mainstream media publication, buried the "treason" quote in the middle of another story on page 14.

And, of course, slavishly following Trump's orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi this week launched a criminal investigation into alleged treasonous activity by former President Obama. So much for Trump's promise not to "weaponize" the Justice Department.

After nine years, we shouldn't have to say this, but there's not one shred of truth to anything Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard or Pam Bondi are saying. In fact, there's no doubt Russia was meddling in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump. It's been proven beyond doubt. Seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies came to that conclusion. So did a three-year Senate Intelligence Committee investigation led by then-Senator Marco Rubio, who cited "irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling." And so did the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which not only showed that Russia was interfering in the election, but that the Trump campaign "expected it would benefit electorally" from it.

Again, we shouldn't have to say this, but it's ridiculous to blame Obama for starting the Mueller investigation. Mueller was actually appointed Special Counsel by Trump's Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 - five months after Obama had left the White House.

But that's not all. In January 2020, unhappy with the Mueller report, Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr appointed yet another special counsel, John Durham, to investigate the origins of the Russian investigation for what Trump claimed was a "conspiracy" against him by the FBI, the Justice Department, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Three years later, Durham reported he found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by Obama administration officials to sabotage Trump.

Add it up. The Russian operation to influence the outcome of the 2016 election was real. And Donald Trump's attempt to paint any investigation of Russia's involvement as a politically motivated attack on him is a giant nothing-burger. That should be the end of it, except now Trump has an attorney general who's willing to politicize the Justice Department and keep the conspiracy alive - as one more distraction from Jeffrey Epstein.

Speaking of attorney generals, we wouldn't even be in this mess today if it weren't for Merrick Garland, Biden's spineless attorney general. If Garland had not waited two years before pursuing Trump for stealing presidential documents and sending an armed mob to attack the Capitol on January 6, the cases against Trump would have been settled long before 2024 and Trump might even be in jail. Clearly, there was one former president guilty of treason. Not Barack Obama, but Donald Trump. And Merrick Garland looked the other way.

Democrats can learn an important lesson here from Republicans: When you've got power, use it. Don't hesitate. Don't worry about rounding up bipartisan support. Use your power to do good things. And forget about what Michelle Obama said. When they go low, don't go high. Go even lower. That's how to win.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Kamala Harris makes the wrong decision

Deciding to run for political office is an incredibly tough, personal decision. It requires an unusual combination of courage, ambition, determination and self-confidence - plus a solid check on reality and a good sense of timing.

It's hard to get it right. Many people make the mistake of running for office when they have no chance of winning. But Kamala Harris just did the opposite. She made the mistake of not running for governor of California when she had every chance of winning.

Don't get me wrong. I say that, not as a foe of Harris, but as a longtime, unapologetic fan. She was an outstanding California attorney general, United States senator and vice president. I don't blame her for 2024. It's not her fault that a fickle American electorate decided to give the Orange Man another chance to wreck our democracy. True, she should have distanced herself more from President Joe Biden. But she still ran a strong campaign. With more time, she might have won.

So what's next? Harris is too young to retire on the ranch, plus she wants to stay in public office. And she should. For her, governor of California would have been perfect. Next to president, it may be the most powerful post in the nation. You're automatically head of the fourth largest economic power in the world - a recognized leader in the fields of technology, finance, entertainment, aerospace, education and agriculture. As the nation's most visible and powerful governor, you are not only a national player, you can have your own foreign policy and be a major voice on the world stage.

Plus - reality check! - while Harris would enjoy no coronation, getting elected governor would have been a slam dunk. She enjoys total name recognition and high public approval. Current Gov. Gavin Newsom is term-limited and can't run for a third term. Other strong Democrats were interested, but most of them had admitted they would step aside if she decided to run. And the idea that any Republican could beat her doesn't even pass the laugh test. No Republican has won statewide in California since 2006, when Arnold Schwarzenegger was reelected governor. The job was hers for the asking.

In fact, as former chair of the California Democratic Party, I've been asked over and over again, ever since she lost in 2024, whether Harris should run for governor of California. And my answer was always the same: an enthusiastic "YES!" And then the important caveat: "As long as she stays there, and doesn't run again for president in 2028."

My answer's the same today. The downside of Harris not running is that she leaves open the possibility - in her own mind, and in the world of political speculation - that she would launch her third bid for president by jumping into the 2028 Democratic primary. Reportedly, in private conversations with friends, she's already toying with that idea.

And that's the last thing the Democratic Party needs. For Kamala Harris and for the party, running for president again in 2028 would be an even bigger mistake than not running for governor.

Again, that's no criticism of her qualities as a leader. It's simply stating the obvious: that in order to get back in power - and save the country! - the Democratic Party needs to move forward with new leadership and not be stuck in the past, trying to recycle the old.

One thing for sure: If Harris were to enter the 2028 Democratic primary, she would not be handed the nomination. She'd have to fight for it. And she'd be up against a strong lineup of already popular candidates, mainly governors, all of whom are already running around the country testing the waters. They include: Pennsylvania's Josh Shapiro, Maryland's Wes Moore, Kentucky's Andy Beshear, Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois' J. B. Pritzker and, of course, California's Newsom. Each has executive experience. Plus each as the advantage of being a new face on the national scene and, perhaps most importantly, of not being part of the tired old Washington political establishment.

If nothing else, the stunning victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York City's mayoral race shows that voters are hungry for new faces and new ideas. That presents an incredible opportunity for Democrats nationwide at every level, but not if they insist on repackaging yesterday's losers.

Having decided not to run for governor, there are other public service options Kamala Harris might consider, like university president or head of a foundation. But running for president again should not be one of them.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 

Elon Musk was right: Trump's in Epstein files!

For most of his political career, Trump's been the Harry Houdini of American politics. Like Houdini, Trump locked himself in boxes it was impossible to get out of - yet he always escaped.

To the delight of his MAGA base, Trump escaped a Department of Justice investigation into efforts by Russia to help his 2016 campaign. He escaped 34 counts of falsifying federal records to hide his affair with Stormy Daniels. He escaped being found liable for sexual abuse by a jury in the E. Jean Carroll case. He escaped trying to overturn results of the 2020 primary election in Georgia. And he escaped being impeached - not once, but twice.

But now Trump is locked in a box he can't get out of. It's a box of his own making, called Jeffrey Epstein.

For the last six years, ever since Epstein was convicted of sex trafficking underage girls, Trump and his loyal followers, including Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and J.D. Vance, convinced his MAGA base that Epstein was the subject of a massive government coverup by the "deep state." They insisted he was murdered in his cell, and not a suicide victim. They accused the Justice Department of covering up his "client list" to protect well-known "elites" who took part in his depravity. And they promised that, if elected, Trump would release the Epstein files and expose the whole deal.

Once sworn in, Attorney General Pam Bondi further raised expectations by inviting influencers to the White House and giving each of them a big box labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase 1" which turned out to contain nothing new. She then went on Fox News and promised the full Epstein files were "sitting on her desk" for her review.

Oops! One week later, Bondi issued a statement refuting everything she and Trump had ever said about Epstein: He was not murdered, he committed suicide, and there was no client list.

But the MAGA base isn't buying it. Why? Because Trump did such a good job selling the Epstein conspiracy that now he can't lie his way out of it.

You must admit, it's been amusing, watching Trump try all of his old tricks to get out of the Epstein box. He begged his supporters to please, please, please stop talking about Epstein. He blamed it all on Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Trying to change the subject, he released the files about the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., without the King family's approval. He ordered the attorney general to ask the court to release "pertinent" parts of the Epstein grand jury testimony (a federal judge refused). He sued the Wall Street Journal.

Then, in sheer desperation, Trump accused former President Obama of committing "treason" by launching a Department of Justice investigation led by Robert Mueller into Russia's involvement in the 2016 election. Which, of course, is the most outrageous charge of all. Mueller, in fact, was appointed by Trump's own Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017, five months after Obama left the White House.

And, by the way - maybe Trump forgot? - without charging Trump with any crime, Mueller concluded that Russia did, in fact, attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 election on Trump's behalf and that the Trump campaign knew all about it, which was confirmed by all 17 American intelligence agencies. It was the same conclusion reached unanimously after a three-year investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee, whose Acting Chair at the time, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla), now Trump's secretary of state, cited "irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling."

Trump has thrown every plate of spaghetti he can think of against the wall, but so far none of it's sticking. Not only will the Epstein scandal not go away, every day it gets worse.

This week alone, CNN uncovered never-before-published photos of Trump and Epstein, two New York playboy friends, hanging out together. And the Wall Street Journal dropped the bombshell that Trump was informed by Bondi in May that his name does, in fact, often show up in the Epstein files. What do you know? It looks like Elon Musk was right, after all!

With the House now scheduled to vote on releasing the Epstein files after their August recess, and the House Oversight Committee summoning testimony from Epstein's partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell, the scandal's not going away anytime soon.

Who knows? In the end, it may be a convicted sexual predator who brings down a convicted serial sexual abuser. If so, how appropriate.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.