As Ryan notes, it’s potentially very important that three of the Court’s conservatives are not buying the notion that Trump can do whatever he wants simply by making up a fake “emergency.”

Someone let the penguins of the Heard and McDonald Islands know that their long ordeal is coming to an end.

Among the most important signs of how SCOTUS might rein in a President's claim to emergency powers is: Chief Justice Roberts with Justices Gorsuch and Barrett on the 'major questions' doctrine. The three express deep skepticism of claims to open-ended emergency powers: 1/

Not gonna lie, it’s kind of fun to see the conservative administration’s key economic policy hoisted on the “major questions doctrine” petard.

For years I've argued that the "ham sandwich" critique is wrong and that the discipline of having to go through the grand jury to obtain an indictment still acts as an important check on prosecutorial power. Grand juries under the Trump regime continue to prove it. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/10/u...

OK, the Dunkin’ ad and the singing toilets were pretty funny.

The curious thing, given the inroads Trump made with Hispanics last year, is Bannon's apparent assumption that keeping them away from the polls in November would be good for Republicans. Sort of like Trump's attacks on mail-in voting - may hurt R's as much or more than D's.

The renovations undoubtedly will include lots of gold trimmings and a giant bust of Trump’s head to go next to JFK’s - but slightly larger, of course.

WaPo’s editorial board STILL doesn’t grapple with why THREE trial judges, and THREE appellate courts found a gag order against Trump was necessary. It also sidesteps that Smith AVOIDED a 1A battle by selecting charges that didn’t require proving incitement.

It continues to amaze me that the Washington Post appears more concerned about whether Trump’s gag order (prompted by his own unhinged attacks) was too broad than it is about his efforts to overturn the election, including unleashing a mob on the Capitol. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...

this photo. minneapolis. 💜 📷️ Alex Kormann/Star Tribune

To feed the narrative of "Trump as victim" Republicans had to make Smith appear to be a deranged, rogue prosecutor. Unfortunately for them, he was about as far from deranged as one can imagine. The same can't be said of some of the Republicans questioning him. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/jack-smith...

My latest on Sidebars: the Republican approach to the hearing can best be summed up as: “OK, so maybe Trump committed multiple felonies. But can we just talk for a minute about how you had the nerve to subpoena our phone records?” www.sidebarsblog.com/p/jack-smith...

A proud moment for the Washington Post: Jim Jordan quotes their editorial arguing that prosecuting Trump for Jan. 6 would have violated the First Amendment, and enters it into the record.

"Lindsey Halligan, tapped by President Trump to prosecute his enemies, has left the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia, Attorney General Pam Bondi said late Tuesday after a judge called Ms. Halligan’s bid to remain in office a “charade.”" www.nytimes.com/2026/01/20/u...

You’ve heard of fighting fire with fire? Well, this is Minnesota in January, so …

What they're not telling you is the "internal bleeding" was caused by other agents chest-bumping him and slapping him on the back to celebrate the shooting.

My latest on Sidebars: a Washington Post editorial parroted Trump's failed legal arguments and political talking points regarding his DC prosecution. These days, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" sounds less like a warning and more like a plan of action. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/the-washin...

My latest on Sidebars: a Washington Post editorial argued Jack Smith’s D.C. prosecution violated Trump’s free speech rights. It's wrong on the law, misrepresents the nature of the case, and parrots Trump talking points. Democracy dies in darkness, indeed. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/the-washin...

The Washington Post has published my letter to the editor in response to their bonkers editorial claiming that Jack Smith violated Trump's First Amendment rights. I'll have a blog post tomorrow that goes into the arguments in much greater detail. wapo.st/49E0F3a

That ought to separate the locals from the invaders.

More career prosecutors doing the honorable thing and resigning rather than submit to this Justice Department's corrupt commands. DOJ is being systematically purged of good people who respect the rule of law and believe in keeping politics out of criminal prosecutions.

This is good - but is Tillis really just figuring out now that the "independence and credibility of the Department of Justice ... are in question?" www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026...

Prosecutor: *Accurately summarizes the law* Washington Post Editorial Board: That’s a bold claim by the prosecutor!

Wait, now it's because of sex trafficking and child trafficking? Not crime, or immigration, or fraud? The rationale keeps shifting - they're just making stuff up. And "protecting kids" by storming their schools and arresting - or killing - their parents does not seem like a great strategy.

Yes they do. And they should proceed with their own investigation, regardless of whether the FBI cooperates with them.

Yeah, no kidding. When Trump, Vance, and Noem have already declared the officer did nothing wrong, and given how Trump retaliates, what FBI agent is going to conclude the shooting was unjustified and contradict the boss? www.nytimes.com/2026/01/10/u...

The regime that looks at the videos of the January 6 Capitol riot and tells you they show a peaceful protest by patriots will look at the videos of the Minnesota shooting and tell you they show an officer righteously acting in self-defense.

(State files homicide charges) Defense: "Where's the gun? Where's the car? Reasonable doubt!" Prosecution: "The feds would not give us access to them." I . . . don't think that ends well for the defense. I expect if there are state charges they will get all the evidence, one way or another.

Even if the FBI refuses to work together, the MN state authorities should be able to conduct their own criminal investigation. They can interview witnesses, gather video, and subpoena records such as an autopsy report. They can’t be “shut out” completely.

All they do is lie.

This really is just so sickening. www.whitehouse.gov/j6/

My latest on Sidebars: Smith's testimony highlighted the strength of his criminal cases against Trump. It also highlighted how the administration is dismantling a DOJ culture built up over decades by demanding loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the Constitution. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/jack-smith...

In a breathtaking reversal of reality, Trump uses a taxpayer funded website to whitewash the history of Jan. 6, blaming Capitol Police, Democrats and Pence -- everyone but himself and the mob that stormed the Capitol. @lukebroadwater.bsky.social @alanfeuer.bsky.social www.nytimes.com/2026/01/06/u...

I thought I had almost lost my ability to be shocked by this administration. But the new official White House website about January 6, filled with nothing but proven lies and Trump propaganda, is just unbelievable.

I posted this last year on January 6. It still holds up. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/january-6

My latest on Sidebars: Jack Smith's testimony to Congress underscored the strength of his criminal cases against Trump. It was also a reminder of the Justice Department based on the rule of law that we have lost -- and must reclaim once Trump leaves the stage. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/jack-smith...

JUST IN: AG Pam Bondi deletes a post touting a chart as proof of the Trump administration's success in reducing drug overdoses—after being informed the data actually reflected the *Biden* administration’s record.

Adding 2024 to 2020 in the list of years for which some Trumpsters seem to have forgotten who was president

In a future administration videos of desecrations like this being removed are going to be our version of the videos from other countries of crowds pulling down the statues of former dictators.

Experienced prosecutors have now failed twice to get an indictment. That highlights the likelihood that when Halligan acted alone to obtain the first indictment she misled the GJ or engaged in other misconduct, just as she apparently did in the Comey case. wapo.st/4q4pFaj

Once again, can't stress enough how rare it is for a GJ to refuse to indict. The probable cause standard is low and the vote need not be unanimous. In a normal DOJ this would be a screaming sign to drop the case - no way you will convince a unanimous jury at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ensign may well need to plead the 5th - never a great career move.

Someone is angling for a pardon.

A new grand jury has now refused to indict Letitia James after the first indictment was dismissed. As I wrote here for @theatlantic.com, the basic safeguards of the criminal justice system are proving to be one of the most effective checks on Trump's abuses. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/1...

A new grand jury has now refused to indict Letitia James, after her case was dismissed because Lindsey Halligan's appointment was unlawful. It's hard to overstate how rare it is for a GJ to refuse to indict - but for Pam Bondi's DOJ it's becoming common. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/the-grand-...

BREAKING via NBC News — Grand jury declines to indict N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James, less than two weeks after the first case was dismissed www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...

If you want to know about the charges against Congressman Cuellar, the Democrat Trump just pardoned, here's my breakdown from when the case was indicted. Trump's abuse of the pardon power is so destructive to the rule of law, in so many ways. www.sidebarsblog.com/p/unpacking-...

The statute of limitations should prohibit this. There is a law that allows govt. to refile if an indictment is dismissed after the limitations date, but it doesn't apply if there was never a valid indictment in the first place. That's true here, b/c Halligan never got the GJ to vote on it.