Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The president speaking at his golf course to the leaders of Latin American nations at the “Shield of Americas.”

This guy is clinically demented. Try to read it.
“I'd love to get to your countries at some point. Marco loves going to your countries. He's always at one of these… https://t.co/UER0oqPFyF pic.twitter.com/LHPoFvJe4z

— Jim Stewartson, Decelerationist 🇨🇦🇺🇦🇺🇸 (@jimstewartson) March 7, 2026

“I’d love to get to your countries at some point. Marco loves going to your countries. He’s always at one of these countries. He likes your countries the best, OK? You know, where are you? I mean, Chile, how good, how is Chile doing? Good. He likes it.

He feels very calm. We all like him, right? It helps. He’s got a language– he’s got a language advantage over me. Because I’m not learning your damn language. I don’t have time. I was OK with languages. But I’m not going to spend time learning your language. That much I want to. Just give me a good interpreter.

Interpreter? Very important. And I know if somebody’s good. I may not speak the language. But I know I had an interpreter recently that wasn’t good, talking to a very strong person from a different part of the world. And I could tell, even though I– even though I don’t speak the language, I could tell the interpreter was not good.

When you go, uh, uh, uh, when I give a long flowing, beautiful sentence, and in this case, it was a woman. And she gave it in about one fourth at the time. I said, well, their language may be efficient. But it’s not that efficient.

And I could also tell one half great interpreters. Interpreter is very important. You have a bad interpreter. You think you’re doing well? What did I do a good job talking to? This one of that was I great when I spoke to Putin today. Was I great when I spoke to President? And she was I great. But if the interpreter is speaking right or is weak or is ineffective or not good or not interpreting your words correctly, um, in one case we had an interpreter who once you disagreed with what we were saying, you actually changed it. We considered her a foreign minister, right?

But what no, the interpreter is– I talk about it all the time. Interpreters are really important. When you don’t speak the language, they don’t speak the language. It’s you people have no idea. People have no idea how valuable. And I’m on them all the time. People have no idea how valuable a good interpreter is.”

He was speaking before a group of South American leaders for the “Shield of the Americas” event whatever that looney tunes idea is.

He couldn’t order from a menu in a Mexican restaurant. But just as he says that everyone says everyone says he could have been a great musician and the scientists all tell him nobody understands it like he does, he’s “ok with languages.” He just doesn’t have time to learn their “damn language.”

There’s more. Here’s Trump at an interminable event about college sports yesterday:

DOOCY: It sounds like the Russians are helping Iran target and attack Americans–

TRUMP: That's an easy problem compared to what we're doing here. What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time. We're talking about something else. pic.twitter.com/OXlKlC3SQt

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 6, 2026

He followed up with this:

Trump: That was a bad question. I’ll give you one more question.
Doocy: Can I ask one off topic?
Trump: On topic
Doocy: What’s motivating you to do this right now because there’s a lot going on?
Trump: What’s happening in college sports and it doesn’t sound as important as what’s happening in other places but it’s very important to me.

This is literally crazy. He’s not only spending vast amounts of time at superfluous events, he’s refusing to answer questions about the war. Which he started. Just last week.

Should we be worried? I’d say so:

President Trump was asked on Thursday if Americans needed to worry about the possibility of terrorist reprisals by Iran inside the United States. He responded, not quite reassuringly, “I guess.”

His follow-up response was even colder comfort. “Some people will die,” he said.

His remarks did not go unnoticed inside the Justice Department and the F.B.I. — especially among agents and prosecutors who handle national security and terrorism cases. After a year of constant firings, resignations and other disruptive distractions, elite counterterrorism and counterintelligence units have been stretched thin and left short-handed, current and former officials say.

There is widespread concern about the capacity of these units to deal with threats unleashed by Iran in particular, an adversary known for its willingness to combine espionage, cyberwarfare and attacks in the real world in bringing the fight overseas.

I don’t mean to alarm you but it gets worse:

Donald Trump’s White House is blocking top US intelligence agencies from warning law enforcement across the country about rising threats to the homeland tied to his war with Iran, the Daily Mail can reveal.

The FBI, Homeland Security, and the National Counterterrorism Center were preparing to put out a joint intelligence statement on Friday to state and local authorities alerting them of a heightened threat due to the ongoing war in Iran, a senior DHS official said. The bulletin, which was reviewed by the Daily Mail, details ‘elevated threats by the government of Iran to US military and government personnel and facilities, Jewish and Israeli institutions and their perceived supporters, and Iranian dissidents and other anti-regime activists in the United States.”Radicalized individuals with a variety of ideological backgrounds also may see this conflict or other geopolitical events as a justification for violence,’ the report continues.

The five-page bulletin blocked by the White House provides specific details on how Iranian proxies may carry out attacks across the country. One section explains how local law enforcement can respond to this type of violence.The official title is ‘A Public Safety Awareness Report: Elevated threat in the United States during US-Iran conflict’. 

Homeland Security broke protocol and gave the White House a heads-up about the nationwide bulletin hours before it was set to be released.  Top Trump officials ordered it placed on ‘hold’. The White House did not deny blocking the terror bulletin in a statement to the Daily Mail.

‘The White House is coordinating closely with all government agencies to ensure information being disseminated is accurate, up to date, and has been properly vetted — even if that means taking additional time to review to ensure nothing is done in a vacuum,’ said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson.

Sure. What’s the harm in waiting?

We’re lucky that Trump is the luckiest man who ever lived but I don’t know how long his luck — or ours — is going to hold out.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adam Dunigan (@adamduniganva8)

Meanwhile:

Hegseth: "The only ones who need to be worried right now are Iranians who think they're going to live"
pic.twitter.com/gZIl7sdcGl

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 7, 2026

Proposes Get Out of Disbarment rule

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed a proposal from AG Pam Bondi for shielding Department of Justice lawyers from professional accountability for unethical behavior. A new rule would “block state bars from investigating and punishing DOJ lawyers accused of violating state ethics requirements.”

And it would do that in an oh-so-Trumpian manner. Through endless delay:

Under this rule, Attorney General Pam Bondi could freeze state bars’ probes until the department has undertaken its own independent review of any allegations—a black-box process that could stretch on extensively. Wielding this new power, Bondi could essentially quash any state investigations into ethics violations by DOJ lawyers, including accusations that these front-line attorneys lied in court, by allowing “reviews” that might last indefinitely. If upheld, the rule would bail out the many, many DOJ lawyers who allegedly breached their ethical obligations in defending the Trump administration.

And even better than Trump’s endless court appeals, no judges need be involved here.

The New York Times reported on Thursday that the now-infamous Lindsey Halligan is under investigation by the Florida bar association and faces possible disbarment over alleged misconduct. The action in Florida, the Times suggests, “could serve as a check on administration lawyers who have been accused by judges of pushing the boundaries of the law or intentionally misleading the courts” as well as “deter attorneys considering working for the Justice Department.” After so many experienced DOJ lawyers quit or were fired soon after Trump regained the White House, Bondi finds herself shorthanded.

But Bondi is not being a good boss who backs up her team. If the Halligan matter goes forward, Bondi too could find herself at risk of disbarment in Florida.

Mark Joseph Stern: First, let me just remind you that there is no federal bar, which is an important background point to understand. State bars license and oversee the practice of law. So when lawyers violate ethics, it is the state bars that step in and impose punishments. The Justice Department has its own process for investigating and penalizing its lawyers accused of violating ethics, but that is not a substitute for state bar investigations and punishments. The DOJ cannot impose the same kinds of professional penalties, including disbarment.

Lithwick asks Stern the obvious: If this was legal, wouldn’t the DOJ have been doing this all along?

No, the government hasn’t been doing that, because it would be illegal. And let me tell you why: A federal statute known as the McDade Amendment says that DOJ attorneys “shall be subject to State laws and rules … to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.” So when a DOJ lawyer is licensed in Florida, like Halligan is, she must follow the ethical requirements of the Florida bar.

Yes, well, Bondi proposes a work-around that’s not legally workable. Not that she’s persnickety about following the law except to use it as a cudgel. Stern believes that’s the idea. Bondi likely would go to federal court to seek injunctions against a state bar’s investigation. But that runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent.

In Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, SCOTUS ruled unanimously in 1982 that federal courts not meddle in state bar disciplinary actions, because states have “an extremely important interest in maintaining and assuring the professional conduct of the attorneys it licenses.”

Stern is shocked that the DOJ did not mention “this insurmountable obstacle,” saying, “But I guess that’s just the kind of sloppy and dishonest lawyering that’s led to some of these ethics complaints in the first place.”

Given the sloppy and dishonest lawyering we’ve witnessed from the Roberts court, I’m not sure I’d be so confident that the court’s conservatives would defend that precedent from 1982.

A regional war with 17 countries

We just ran across this first-time candidate for VA-8 on Instagram. Adam Dunigan is a former Marine and former CIA case officer. He and five other Democrats are challenging five-term incumbent, Don Beyer Jr., 75, in Virginia’s August primary.

This isn’t an endorsement. (I just encountered his campaign this morning.) But his concise “morning SITREP” from March 5 about the regional war Donald Trump started with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu caught my attention.

View this post on Instagram

Also, Dunigan’s got Jeff Jackson presence.

Two other items from Dunigan’s site stood out alongside his aim of stopping Trump’s authoritarian project. First, the former Marine’s commitment to restoring accountability (emphasis mine):

Our democracy is backsliding into an authoritarian project. At a moment like this, we need leaders who are only accountable to the voters who elected them. This means breaking the stranglehold of oligarchs, billionaires, corporations, and political insiders who have weaponized their influence against the interests of middle class and working Americans. We must return to governing by a common set of principles, not shareholder value. 

Second, Dunigan’s assessment of the Democratic Party, with which I heartily concur, “The Democratic Party must evolve or accept obsolescence.”

One piece of advice, Adam. Your logo still says “Vote June 16th.” On February 24, Virginia’s Department of Elections announced it would move its primary to August 4.

This one’s for all you “Better Call Saul” and puppy fans:

During the filming of Better Call Saul’s episode “Bagman,” something heartwarming happened that might restore your faith in humanity.

While shooting in the scorching desert on the Hajiilee Reservation, a stray dog wandered onto the set and collapsed between Bob Odenkirk and Jonathan Banks. She was severely dehydrated and in terrible condition.

The crew gave her food and water, but Bob couldn’t just leave her there. He personally contacted the reservation authorities to get permission to take her to Albuquerque for treatment. At the vet, they discovered two heartbreaking details: She had apparently never walked on grass before, she didn’t recognize the sensation. She was pregnant.

That’s when the Better Call Saul family stepped in. Rhea Seehorn helped deliver the puppies. Every single puppy was adopted by someone from the crew. And the mother? She went home with Patrick Fabian, who adopted her, along with one of the pups for his daughters.

Jonathan Banks later shared the story on a podcast, nearly in tears

On the week when the notorious puppy killer Kristi Noem was finally shown the door, this warmed my heart.

The Texas Senate race is a MAGA litmus test:

President Donald Trump is preparing to endorse a longtime Senate incumbent over a loyal ally in a closely watched Republican primary — a decision that would put him at odds with parts of the MAGA base that have rallied behind the challenger.

Trump has said he intends to endorse Sen. John Cornyn over his Republican opponent Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general and a longtime ally of Trump, according to three people familiar with his thinking, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The Republican primary race heads to a runoff in May. Trump said Wednesday on Truth Social that he plans to make an endorsement soon and declared that the candidate he doesn’t endorse should drop out.

Trump said on Truth Social that he intends to endorse one of them and demands that the other drop when he does it. We know that he loves the criminal monster Paxton (a Texas version of him) but has been persuaded that Cornyn is the safer bet.

Paxton says that he will only consider dropping out if the Senate blows up the filibuster and passes the SAFE Act which isn’t going to happen but makes him all the more beloved by the MAGA base. It’s a problem:

From prominent MAGA voices to lesser-known grassroots activists, many in Trump’s die-hard base say they are befuddled that the president is heeding the calls of establishment GOP operatives over his most loyal backers, adding to frustrations among supporters who warn that waning enthusiasm could threaten Republican turnout in the midterms.

Conservative media figures and MAGA influencers have blanketed social media this week with posts highlighting Cornyn’s past criticisms of Trump, questioning the president’s commitment to “drain the swamp” in Washington, and pledging to support Paxton regardless of Trump’s endorsement. They also recirculated a 2023 Truth Social post from Trump in which he compared Cornyn to former senator Mitt Romney, a Trump critic, and said Cornyn was “always quick to surrender to the Dems.”

“It is a massive ask for the president, love him though we may, to come in and say, ‘Hey, that conservative that you love for the same reasons you love me? I want you to change your mind’” and not vote for Paxton, said Mark Davis, a conservative radio host in Texas who is closely attuned with Trump-supporting Republican activists in the state.

I just don’t think Trump has that kind of juice but he probably has enough left to put Cornyn over the top. That’s all he cares about. He’ll take his victory lap and claimed that he’s the most powerful movement leader the world has ever known — Ghandi and Hitler combined. But little by little the crack is growing wider.

Raging at his loss:

President Trump seethed when the Supreme Court stripped away his unilateral tariff authority, the first real check on his presidency. Then he set out to impose his will on every remaining vector of American power — smashing norms and shrugging off Congress in a historic, 14-day show of executive force.

Over the past two weeks, Trump launched a massive Middle East war, blacklisted the hottest AI company on the planet, ordered new global tariffs, and presided over the biggest media merger in two decades.

He did it all unilaterally — without passing a single law, and without pretending he needed to. 

[…]

Trump has spent his second term systematically testing how much power a president can seize without Congress, the courts or public opinion stopping him. The answer, so far: almost limitless.

• Trump has signed fewer laws than any modern president at this stage — because he doesn’t need them. Executive orders, military force and the bully pulpit have proven more efficient.
• Trump’s advisers say he’s content using unilateral powers, and congressional Republicans — with rare exceptions — have cheered him on at every turn.

What’s all the more remarkable is that Trump is doing this with most of America opposed to his performance in office — and to these specific actions.

• A Economist/YouGov poll conducted as the Iran war began found Trump’s disapproval at 59% — a second-term record. His net approval, according to Nate Silver’s average, sits at -13.
• An January poll by CNN found 58% of Americans say Trump has already gone too far in using presidential power — a figure collected before the most aggressive stretch of his presidency.

He doesn’t care about public opinion much. Why should he? He can do what he wants without any fear of accountability.

The Supremes stepped in one time (and granted it was on an issue about which Trump cares deeply) and batted him back. Otherwise they’ve pretty much backed his power play. That he lost his mind because of that one ruling and decided to launch a war in response tells you everything you need to know about his mental state.

And then there’s the Congress. They are completely useless even in the face of almost assured huge losses a few months from now. I suppose they’re counting on Trump and their allies in the states to manipulate the election so they can keep them to a minimum but it’s hard to see how that will work. Essentially, they’re either true Trump believers, cowards or opportunists so they’re just as bad as he is.

He’s always been a whiner but now that the megalomania has fully kicked in any loss sends him into an emotional maelstrom. This could get very bad if the war doesn’t go perfectly.

This had to give Trump a big thrill up the leg:

Republicans on Capitol Hill are asking the Justice Department to consider bringing criminal charges against Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in President Donald Trump’s first administration who became a star congressional witness about the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, according to two sources familiar with recent developments.

GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk made a criminal referral of Hutchinson to the Justice Department in recent days, the sources said. He accused Hutchinson of lying to Congress in her summer 2022 testimony when she alleged Trump was aware of the potential for violence on January 6, 2021, and forged ahead with his attempts to rile up his supporters.

Loudermilk has long attempted to reframe the public perception of the events at the Capitol, including by scrutinizing the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot and found Trump was “directly responsible” for the riot. Loudermilk’s referral was co-signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who chairs the committee under which Loudermilk is running a probe of January 6.

The “charges” such as they are are about her heresy testimony about what she heard second hand about Trump in the limo and Trump saying that they could let the people with guns come in because they weren’t there to hurt him. How that translates to a crime, I don’t know but the main purpose of something like this is to serve as a warning to anyone who deigns to testify against Trump. (Epstein survivors certainly will take notice.)

These miscreants will never give up on exonerating their Dear Leader for that day. It won’t work, of course. We all know what we saw. But until he’s long dead they’ll keep trying. It’s a cult.

Pew asks an interesting question:

Americans are more likely than people in other countries surveyed in 2025 to question the morality of their fellow countrymen, according to Pew Research Center surveys in 25 countries.

We asked people around the world to rate the morality and ethics of others in their country.

In nearly all countries surveyed, more people say that others in their country have somewhat or very good morals than say their compatriots display somewhat or very bad levels of morality.

The United States is the only place we surveyed where more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%).

Because we have never asked this question before, we don’t know whether a majority of Americans have long held a skeptical view of the ethics of fellow Americans, or if it’s something new – and if so, what’s driving it. But partisan politics appear to play a role.

Yeah, I’d say so. And one of the parties is led by a man whose entire political career was built on grievance and hate for anyone who doesn’t lick his boots, using crude insults and endless threats against them. He governs as the president of only his own followers and punishes those who aren’t. So this makes perfect sense.

Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to rate fellow Americans as morally and ethically bad (60% vs. 46%). 

That’s because it’s true. They elected a criminal to the presidency knowing exactly what he did and they didn’t care. That’s immoral. Sorry.