"May be"

 

It wouldn't surprise me if Trump holds onto her simply because this was reported in the NYT.

And maybe, he's getting rid of all the women.

This one, I think, is quite likely.

I couldn't think why Bondi, though, because she sucks up to him constantly and is a hateful human being.

This is how the Times reports it:

President Trump has discussed firing Attorney General Pam Bondi in recent days as he grows frustrated with her leadership at the Justice Department and her handling of the Epstein files, according to four people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Trump has floated the idea of replacing Ms. Bondi with Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the people said.

[...]

Ms. Bondi’s allies pointed to photos of her and the president traveling to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to dispute the notion that the president is planning to fire her.

“Attorney General Pam Bondi is a wonderful person and she is doing a good job,” Mr. Trump said in a statement to The New York Times.

[...]

But the president has been souring on Ms. Bondi for months. Among his top complaints is Ms. Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files, which has become a political liability for Mr. Trump among his supporters.

  NYT

What does he want her to do with them? Destroy them?

He has also complained about her shortcomings as a communicator and vented about what he sees as the department’s lack of aggressiveness in going after his foes.

Is Stephen Miller available?

Pam is scheduled for House Oversight subpoenaed testimony April 14. We'll see if it happens, and if it does, whether she does anything other than she's done before: snipe and snarl.

UPDATE 03:26 pm:  D'oh!

Good riddance.  Who's next?  Some other asshole.  Lee Zeldin?

Nope.  At least for now:  Her awful assistant and ex-Trump personal attorney Todd Blanche.

Well, Bondi won't be having to testify again.  Update: Rep. Robert Garcia says, no, she will absolutely still have to testify.

UPDATE 04/03/2026:

About that whistleblower complaint against Tulsi Gabbard

The whistle-blower report was based on a telephone intercept provided to the N.S.A. from a foreign intelligence service.

[...]

Because the intelligence report mentioned Mr. Kushner, Ms. Gabbard provided the information to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, according to people briefed on the events.

[...]

The whistle-blower report was drafted last May, while the Trump administration was deliberating about a strike on Iran. At the end of June, the military bombed Iranian nuclear sites on Mr. Trump’s orders.

Mr. Kushner has subsequently helped lead negotiations between the administration and Iran over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its sponsorship of terrorism across the Middle East. He also has business interests in the Middle East and in other parts of the world.

The episode has led to clashes over how to interpret the mention of Mr. Kushner in the discussion and whether Ms. Gabbard was improperly seeking to keep the intelligence from being distributed within the intelligence community.

[...]

The names of Americans, particularly senior U.S. officials, are usually redacted from accounts of intelligence intercepts, a process called masking.

The foreign nationals were discussing Mr. Kushner, but some officials who have read the underlying intelligence or been briefed on its contents downplayed the significance of the references to him.

  NYT

They would, wouldn't they?

The foreign nationals, they said, were commenting on Mr. Kushner’s influence with the Trump administration.

I have no doubt they were.

The intercept also included what officials described as “gossip” or speculation about Mr. Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence. Some senior officials said the information was demonstrably false. While the whistle-blower believed that information should be circulated, the N.S.A.’s general counsel, Ms. Gabbard and the intelligence community’s inspectors general disagreed.

Officials declined to describe the gossip, saying that revealing it would expose the source of the information.

The complaint, the investigation of the complaint and the underlying intelligence all remain classified.

[...]

Some officials who either read or were briefed on the intelligence report said that had Ms. Gabbard not moved to restrict access to the report, it would have been quickly forgotten as one of many that recount foreign officials trying to figure out who has influence with Mr. Trump.

Probably true, but that could depend on what was reported.

A heavily redacted copy of the inspector general’s report was provided to Congress. Ms. Gabbard’s office redacted Mr. Kushner’s name, citing executive privilege.

[...]

Ms. Gabbard had previously pulled back and then restricted access to another N.S.A. intercept. That intelligence report involved an intercept of a call between Nicolás Maduro, then the Venezuelan president, and Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s envoy. Names of U.S. officials recorded in intelligence intercepts are supposed to be masked, and Ms. Gabbard argued the N.S.A. had failed to properly conceal Mr. Grenell’s identity. Mr. Grenell was negotiating with Mr. Maduro on Mr. Trump’s orders.

"I'd like you to claim Venezuela interfered with the 2020 election and is planning to interfere in 2026 and 2028."

How long before the whistleblower is investigated by Bondi?  Probably happening now.

The Tulsi Gabbard-Maduro connection

Norm Ornsteing has reposted Allison Gill's assessment of the Gabbard-Maduro connection to interfere in the 2026 (and beyond) elections. That's a pretty darn good recommendation.

Back in 2020 after losing to Joe Biden, Donald Trump conspired with multiple individuals to overturn the results. There were multiple conspiracies that all failed, leading to his final act of desperation: sending a violent and angry mob to the Capitol to block the certification of the votes.

[...]

But there was another conspiracy afoot that Jack Smith outlined as part of the fraudulent elector scheme: fabricated foreign election interference.

Going back to November and December of 2020, Trump tried furiously to seize voting machines in multiple states. He asked the Department of Justice to seize voting machines, but Bill Barr said he didn’t have the authority, nor was there any evidence of election fraud that would justify it.

Trump then asked the Department of Homeland Security to seize the voting machines, but they also rebuffed his demands. Finally, in a contentious meeting in the Oval Office on December 18th, 2020, Trump floated the idea of the military seizing voting machines. During that meeting, Rudy Giuliani told Trump that they couldn’t involve the Pentagon unless there was proof of foreign election interference.

  Allison Gill 

Continue reading.

They ALL lie.  You will never know the true story.

UPDATE 02/06/2026:

What in the world?

 

WSJ article

So, let the whistleblower testify to a Congressional committee (that includes Democrats, needless to say).

So, is it related to the tag of "Russian Asset" she's been getting for at least a couple years, coming up again after being seen sneaking around the raid of the Fulton County, Georgia, election office?  

Allison Gill and Andy McCabe speculate in their most recent podcast on the Gabbard in Georgia incident:  In 2020, Trump wanted to use the military to seize voting machines but was told the only way he could legitimately do that is if there was foreign interference in the election - something various investigations and accounts verified didn't happen.  Now, recently, he kidnapped Nicolas Maduro and has him over a barrel so Maduro could be induced with threats and/or offers to "admit" Venezuela was indeed interfering in the 2020 election, as some Trump lackeys were claiming back then.  Gabbard's appearance in the raid on Georgia election offices puts the smell of national security on it.  Seems complex, but not out of the realm of possibility.  

A simpler explanation for her appearance there is she knows she's falling out of favor with Trump and has been sidelined in the administration, and showing Trump she's on board with the 2020 stolen election might put her back in his good graces.

Still, the Gill-McCabe scenario can't be easily dismissed.

UPDATE 03:10 pm:

Take over voting in at least 15 places.  How are you going to "nationalize voting" in anything fewer than 50 states?

Nothing to see here.

UPDATE 07:45 pm:  This makes Gill and McCabe's speculations seem even more likely...

UPDATE 02/03/2026:  Further evidence to give credence to Gill and McCabe's speculation.  The Maduro kidnapping wasn't about Venezuela's governance.

UPDATE 02/05/2026:  Allison Gill has written up her speculations in an article she published today.

UPDATE 02/12/2026:  Apparently, the secretive whistleblower complaint has something to do with Jared Kushner.

UPDATE 02/13/2026:

The whistle-blower report was based on a telephone intercept provided to the N.S.A. from a foreign intelligence service.

[...]

Because the intelligence report mentioned Mr. Kushner, Ms. Gabbard provided the information to Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, according to people briefed on the events.

[...]

The whistle-blower report was drafted last May, while the Trump administration was deliberating about a strike on Iran. At the end of June, the military bombed Iranian nuclear sites on Mr. Trump’s orders.

Mr. Kushner has subsequently helped lead negotiations between the administration and Iran over Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and its sponsorship of terrorism across the Middle East. He also has business interests in the Middle East and in other parts of the world.

The episode has led to clashes over how to interpret the mention of Mr. Kushner in the discussion and whether Ms. Gabbard was improperly seeking to keep the intelligence from being distributed within the intelligence community.

[...]

The names of Americans, particularly senior U.S. officials, are usually redacted from accounts of intelligence intercepts, a process called masking.

The foreign nationals were discussing Mr. Kushner, but some officials who have read the underlying intelligence or been briefed on its contents downplayed the significance of the references to him.

  NYT

They would, wouldn't they?

The foreign nationals, they said, were commenting on Mr. Kushner’s influence with the Trump administration.

I have no doubt they were.

The intercept also included what officials described as “gossip” or speculation about Mr. Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence. Some senior officials said the information was demonstrably false. While the whistle-blower believed that information should be circulated, the N.S.A.’s general counsel, Ms. Gabbard and the intelligence community’s inspectors general disagreed.

Officials declined to describe the gossip, saying that revealing it would expose the source of the information.

The complaint, the investigation of the complaint and the underlying intelligence all remain classified.

[...]

Some officials who either read or were briefed on the intelligence report said that had Ms. Gabbard not moved to restrict access to the report, it would have been quickly forgotten as one of many that recount foreign officials trying to figure out who has influence with Mr. Trump.

Probably true, but that could depend on what was reported.

A heavily redacted copy of the inspector general’s report was provided to Congress. Ms. Gabbard’s office redacted Mr. Kushner’s name, citing executive privilege.

[...]

Ms. Gabbard had previously pulled back and then restricted access to another N.S.A. intercept. That intelligence report involved an intercept of a call between Nicolás Maduro, then the Venezuelan president, and Richard Grenell, Mr. Trump’s envoy. Names of U.S. officials recorded in intelligence intercepts are supposed to be masked, and Ms. Gabbard argued the N.S.A. had failed to properly conceal Mr. Grenell’s identity. Mr. Grenell was negotiating with Mr. Maduro on Mr. Trump’s orders.

"I'd like you to claim Venezuela interfered with the 2020 election and is planning to interfere in 2026 and 2028."

Intelligence report nixed by Gabbard

Every four years U.S. intelligence officials have published Global Trends, a public document that predicts what challenges the United States — and the world — will face in the coming decades.

With the intelligence community often focused on immediate issues, the Global Trends report has taken a longer-term look. Past editions warned of threats and shifts that came to pass, including climate change challenges, new immigration patterns and the risk of a pandemic.

But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, led by Tulsi Gabbard, is eliminating the group that compiles the report.

  NYT

Perhaps because Trump's name is on that list, too.

Democracy dies in the dark.

A bridge too far

Tulsi Gabbard has openly accused the Obama administration of launching a “years-long coup” against President Donald Trump in an attempt to subvert his 2016 election win.

Gabbard released declassified emails Friday and claimed that they reveal a “treasonous conspiracy” committed by former President Barack Obama and his officials over the investigation surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 election.

  UK Independent

Trump peddled conspiracy theories about Obama, telling reporters the former president tried to rig the 2016 presidential election.

[...]

"Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response," Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesperson for Obama, said in a statement.

"But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one," he added. "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction."

"Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes," Rodenbush said.

The findings, he continued, were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio.

Trump accused Obama, former President Biden, Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper of trying "to rig an election," adding without merit that "they got caught."

[...]

"This is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was sedatious, that Obama was trying to lead a coup," Trump said Tuesday, appearing to mispronounce "seditious."

[...]

Special counsel Robert Mueller and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee — where Secretary of State Marco Rubio was a senior member — both concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win.

[...]

No serious investigation ever claimed Russia changed actual vote tallies.

  Axios

Marc Elias warned us when the crude doodle birthday card story broke that Trump is rattled, making him dangerous. I don't think we've seen the worst yet.

How long does Tulsi Gabbard have left in Trump 2.0?

Politico reported that Trump is furious at the video posted by DNI Tulsi Gabbard last week warning about the impact of a nuclear war. She said that we have never been closer to one, which is not the message Trump wants right now from his DNI.

A senior Trump admin official: “I don’t think Trump dislikes Tulsi as a person. But certainly the video made him not super hot on her, and he doesn’t like it when people are off message. Many took that video as trying to correct the administration’s position.”

Another WH official: "He’s not interested in firing her at this moment because she’s not doing any harm. I think he’s questioning her viewpoint as a value, especially after that video.”

CBS: “Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing Fordo, Iran's most heavily secured nuclear facility, and his mindset is that disabling it is necessary because of the risk of weapons being produced in a relatively short period of time. Trump is aware of the diplomatic effort being undertaken with EU officials meeting with the Iranian foreign minister in Switzerland on Friday.”

  Meidas Touch

Tell me again, why is Trump not there?

“John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, has said in closed-door settings that Iran is viewed as being very close to possessing nuclear weapons, despite the official line from the intelligence community that Iran's leadership hasn't given a formal order to build bombs. Trump has been briefed on both the risks and the benefits of bombing the Fordow nuclear facility in Iran and his mindset is that disabling it is necessary.” Source: “He believes there’s not much choice. Finishing the job means destroying Fordo.”

Trump was asked if a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the US is imminent: “I may do it, I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do."

"Least of all me," he did not add.

Trump’s former NSA John Bolton: “Trump wants a Nobel Peace Prize, because Barack Obama received one. He won't get it for solving the Russian-Ukraine war. He tried unsuccessfully to claim credit for the recent India-Pakistan cease fire. He’s now failing to reach an agreement with Iran, and is being asked by Israel to help destroy Tehran's nuclear-weapons program.”

[...]

Press Sec Karoline Leavitt: “Regarding Iran, I have a message directly from the president, and I quote, ‘Based on the fact that there is a chance of substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks."

Two weeks. Everything is two weeks. I really would love to know what that's about.

Anyway, based on negotiations that may or may not take place?

While the Trump admin has talked about nuclear deterrence at the reason for US involvement in a war against Iran, Republican Senators continue to call for regime change. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-CN) joined the chorus to CNN: “It is time for regime change, and I believe that this president should be given a fair amount of leeway to affect that.”

Fox continues to beat the drums of war 24/7, with 100% of their hosts, guests and contributors wanting to go all-in despite the fact that a big chunk of the Republican Party is against that. It is 2002 all over again when they did the same thing. Sean Hannity to Iran: “You've been warned. At best your economy will be destroyed. Your refineries will be up in smoke. Your infrastructure will be in tatters. You won't have lights to turn on if you keep going the way you're going.”

… The position of Republicans in the House and Senate (other than Thomas Massie) is pretty simple - Trust in Trump. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) was asked her position on Fox: “Well, this will be entirely up to the president. Whatever the call that is made by President Donald Trump, I will be supportive of.”

Of course.

NPR: “Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) said he thinks Iran ‘likely’ has a nuclear weapons program—but he sees so many questions about how a strike would work, retaliation, a wider war and boots on the ground that he concludes: ‘I do not think that we should do this.’

That's what I keep thinking. What if they already have a weapon? Maybe our intel isn't accurate. Oh well. Cross your fingers.

Smith is the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, respected on defense issues. He cast doubt that the US could simply send a plane over Fordo with one big bomb and solve the problem. He says troops may be needed, there may be other sites, and Iran may escalate.”

I think that's a given. Why do Americans continue to think that all we have to do is show up with an American flag and a big gun? It hasn't worked in my lifetime. Or yours.

Reporter to Leavitt: “President Trump has said previously several times in regards to sanctions on Russia that they would be imposed in two weeks. He used that ‘two weeks’ phrase several times, then it was another two weeks, and another two weeks. So how can we be sure that he will stick to this deadline?”

And, why does he always use two weeks? Inquiring minds want to know.

h/t Stephen

Thank you for your attention to this matter

 You only imagined Congress has the power.

As Big Brother told us: war is peace.

He doesn't bother to hide his disdain for the female reporter either.

Jesus H Christ

NBC said that 4 sources told them DNI Tulsi Gabbard is looking at reconfiguring the President’s Daily Brief to look and feel like a Fox broadcast, thinking that is the only way to get him to participate since he doesn’t read.

  Meidas Touch

President of the United States, ladies and gentlemen.

The PDB is created daily for the president, but Trump has only agreed to receive it 14 times since taking office - less than once a week.

Trump 2.0 - Truth is the enemy

 

86 47

I finally got my protest sign made.

Our national nightmare contains a huge national embarrassment.

You should listen to that whole clip.  It's a beaut.

But, speaking of 86ing 47...

U.S. law enforcement officials said on May 15 that they were looking into a social media post by former FBI Director James Comey depicting an image of "8647," which some Trump supporters interpreted as a threat against President Donald Trump.

[...]

Comey posted an Instagram photo of the number 8647 formed by seashells on the beach.

"Cool shell formation on my beach walk," Comey said.

[...]

Comey, who was fired by Trump in 2017, later took down the post, according to Reuters, saying he was unaware the apparent political message could have been associated with violence.

  USA Today

Only in the MAGA mind.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard went further, saying she believes Comey should be put behind bars for the post.

Jesus Christ. Perhaps they should be thanking Comey. He was supposedly instrumental in killing Hillary Clinton's chances of the presidency, handing it to BlubberButt in 2016.

Early in his first term, in May 2017, Trump fired Comey, who as FBI director had been leading an investigation into the Trump 2016 presidential campaign's possible collusion with Russia to help Trump get elected.

They don't like anyone who goes by the rule of law (even loosely) and isn't batshit crazy.

Anyway, 86 has long been a term meaning to throw someone - or something - out. Not to assassinate someone. FFS. 

It was well used by MAGA when Biden was president.  They know what it means.

I didn't know where the number came from, but...

Urban myth in New York has it that the term "86'd" originated when barkeeps threw disorderly guests out of Chumley’s, they did so out the more discreet door located at 86 Bedford St. Another version, cited in the book “The History and Stories of the Best Bars of New York,” was that during Prohibition, police would call the bartenders at Chumley’s to '86' their patrons out the 86 Bedford door so they wouldn’t have to arrest them.

Chumley's. 

And that reminds me that I'm still waiting for the second season of Taboo. Dammit. (The reason it reminds me of that is because there is a character called Chumley, only it's England, so it's spelled Cholmondeley.)

UPDATE 01:48 pm:

Please don't report it like this.

Rerport the reality.  He "was unaware of that meaning" because IT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN THAT!  That is not it's meaning until some asshole MAGAnut says it does.  And then, it still doesn't!

UPDATE 05/17/2025:

Loyalty is the only qualification necessary

 And it is non-negotiable.

Trump 2.0 - Revoke security clearance for Dems

 

And yet, she can be on a group chat discussing national security issues with a journalist who was mistakenly added.

Somebody needs to revoke HER security clearance and that of everyone on that chat.

War plans chat group

[T]he Trump administration’s national security principals hold highly sensitive military planning discussions on Signal, the encrypted text-messaging app. And we know this because Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Waltz, accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic, to a Signal group chat including JD Vance, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Scott Bessent, Tulsi Gabbard, Susie Wiles, and others. Without realizing a very prominent journalist was mistakenly added to the group, the principals breezily planned strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. Hegseth even sent the group highly detailed attack plans that turned out to be perfectly accurate.

[...]

Trump is likelier to order an investigation of Jeffrey Goldberg, or to raid his home, than to allow an investigation of his own national security principals.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has already blown the whole story off as a harmless oopsie, suggesting Republicans in Congress won’t be looking into this either (not that we should have expected them to)

  Off Message

 (See background post here.)

Ho-hum. No biggie. Nothing to see here. Move along.

This is, thus, yet another story that’s principally about Republican enablement and complicity.

[...]

Instead of getting genuinely mad about Republican scandals, and trying to turn them into liabilities for Trump and Republican leaders, the way Republicans did with Hillary Clinton’s emails, they say “BUT HER EMAILS,” and then move on.

[...]

The lesson of the Clinton emails debacle is that the public can be made to care about many, many things more than they care about the price of eggs.

  Off Message

But not for any length of time.

Democrats: useless as tits on a boar.

And Republicans are furiously whitewashing, massaging the conscience of their MAGA followers who will mindlessly absorb and repeat.

How utterly ridiculous.  Typical D'Souza.  Can anyone help him out with this question of why Goldberg didn't share actual war plans publicly?

Trump Homeland Security Advisor and lackey Stephen Miller understood the issue in '22.  What's he saying now?

But here we are.

UPDATE 08:18 am:

I guess being able to monitor in real time IS better than waiting for them to fill you in after the fact.

And he knows he's safe making that claim because Goldberg isn't as corrupt, feckless, and incompetent as Hegseth.

Howard Nutlick.  

UPDATE 08:49 am:

UPDATE 01:23 pm:

Next up:  Trump claims to have declassified the war planning info shared on Signal.

UPDATE 04:59 pm:

From the Senate hearing on national security threats:

Narrator:  They can, and they will.

Narrator:  It doesn't just seem that way.  

Yep.  But only if Dems don't just walk away and "move on."

Or to admit ignorance like this:

Assume they'll get it from Goldberg.  

UPDATE 03/26/2025:  The money quote: