Boom!

No sooner did I post yesterday on Trump's next tasks, which I saw as neutralizing Leader McConnell and RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel, than it looks like he has them both well in hand.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made the shocking decision to recommend Republicans block the advancement of the Senate pro-migration border bill.

. . . McConnell cited the overwhelming number of Senate Republicans planning to vote against the measure either on substance or because they wanted more time, according to Punchbowl News.

. . . According to Punchbowl, McConnell said the political mood in the country has changed since negotiations began months ago. At that time, McConnell and Democrat leaders agreed to pair foreign aid to Ukraine, of which McConnell is the Senate’s greatest champion, with a border compromise.

So what's changed about the political mood of the country? Just one thing, Donald Trump. In a remarkably brief period between his indictments, most of which took place last summer, and the start of the 2024 primary season, Trump began to exceed expectations in national polls, culminating in a rapid victory over his potential primary opponents, most of which withdrew from the race before New Hampshire. At this point, he's actually in a far stronger position than he was in 2016, with the nomination now out of reach for any other candidate at the start of the primaries. At the same time, his position against Biden in general election polls is steadily improving.

This has put him in the position of Republican party leader and quasi-incumbent. with an enthusiastic base. It appears that McConnell and the other Senate Republican moderates were blindsided by the strength of the Trump base when they finally unveiled the text of their "compromise", which contained every one of the elements they'd previously denounced as "internet rumors". According to the link,

Leaked details of the secretive deal, which McConnell’s chosen Republican lead negotiator Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) and other allies denied, were confirmed Sunday upon the bill’s release. The overwhelming opposition led to McConnell altering his plan Monday night.

Even Lankford, who continued championing the deal leading up to Monday night’s Senate Republican Conference meeting, would not say after the meeting if he would vote to move forward Wednesday on the deal he negotiated, according to the Huffington Post.

It looks like McConnell's only option, with the House Republican leadership refusing to take up the Senate bill, is to find a way for the Senate Republican moderates to back out without going on the record with a vote.

Meanwhile, Trump has given RNC Chair McDaniel to the end of this month to resign gracefully or be fired:

Donald Trump reportedly sat down with RNC chair Ronna McDaniel at Mar-a-Lago for more than two hours Monday to discuss the status of the party.

According to Politico, the meeting took place after Trump filmed an interview with Newsmax in which he said, "I think she knows that, I think she understands that," in response to a question from Rob Schmitt as to whether it was time for McDaniel to step aside.

According to Politico,

After the meeting, Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that McDaniel was his “friend,” but said he would be calling for changes to the committee following the South Carolina GOP primary on Feb. 24.

“Ronna is now Head of the RNC, and I’ll be making a decision the day after the South Carolina Primary as to my recommendations for RNC Growth,” he wrote.

. . . Trump, who is the strong frontrunner to win the GOP nomination, suggested that he would push for changes during an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News.

“I think she did great when she ran Michigan for me. I think she did OK, initially, in the RNC. I would say right now, there’ll probably be some changes made,” he said.

Trump is simply beginning to drive events. A lot of people haven't woken up to that, but the primaries are over, and Trump is already beginning to anticipate the outcome of the general.

Trump's Job

It's hard to disagree with Sen Lee's characterization of the Republican "compromise" security bill and Sen McConnmell's leadership:

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called for Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) to be replaced as Senate Republican leader Sunday, denouncing the new border security deal McConnell supports as “an unmitigated disaster.”

“This feels like an elaborate practical joke. But it’s not funny. Not one bit,” Lee wrote on social media when the details of the bill were made public.

This follows, though, on the remarkable success of the House conservatives in removing Kevin McCarthy as Speaker and replacing him with Mike Johnson. Trump has allied himself with Johnson over the Senate "compromise":

In terms of dictating Republican policy, Trump in recent weeks has gone out out of his way to try and kill the bipartisan bill to address border security.

Trump, who has spoken repeatedly with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., says the bill in unnecessary, and that Biden should use the authority he already has to seal the border.

Johnson reiterated his opposition in the wake of the final text's release:

“I’ve seen enough,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared Sunday night.

Just hours after Senate negotiators unveiled their pro-migration border bill, Johnson pledged the bill would never move through the House.

“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created,” Johnson posted on X. “As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, ‘the border never closes.'

This is clearly setting up an intra-party conflict between Trump, McConnell, and the Senate moderates. The problem for the moderates is Trump's currently growing strength in the polls, while his only remaining opponent, Nikki Haley, ia rapidly shedding credibility. Her remarks so far have been in favor of the Senate compromise, although passage in the Senate itself isn't assured.

Another major goal will be removing Ronna McDaniel as head of the Republican National Committee:

Donald Trump appeared to distance himself from Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel on Sunday amid growing discontent from some of his allies, suggesting that her time leading up the organization might be coming to an end soon.

“I think she did great when she ran Michigan for me,” Trump said on Sunday during an interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Features [sic]” with Maria Bartiromo. “I think she did okay, initially, in the RNC. I would say right now there’ll probably be some changes made.”

. . . His more skeptical turn on Sunday surprised some people close to his political operation who had seen the appeals to Trump, but believed he’d remain above the fray given the nearing general election.

Trump allies have grown increasingly sour on McDaniel over the past few months, and the criticism came to a head last week when FEC filings revealed the RNC had around $8 million cash on hand, marking its worst fundraising year in almost a decade. In recent weeks and days, people close to Trump have ramped up their long-brewing complaints against McDaniel both in public and privately to the former president himself.

. . . Trump’s latest comments represent a sharp change in rhetoric when it comes to McDaniel’s position at the RNC: Last year, he said she’d done a “fantastic job” running the organization and opted against endorsing Harmeet Dhillon, one of his allies who ran against her for the position. After his victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, McDaniel urged Republicans to “unite around our eventual nominee, which is going to be Donald Trump,” an unusual direct endorsement from a sitting party chair that came despite Trump shunning the RNC-organized debates.

Ms McDaniel clearly understands her new circumstances. As Trump secures the delegates to assure his nomination, I feel pretty certain he'll move to consolidate control over the party, something he hadn't had in his first term.

How Do They Get The Toothpaste Back In The Tube?

One of the additions to the language that came out of the Watergate scandal was the lament from Nixon's aides that "we can't get the toothpaste back in the tube". In other words, certain disclosures can't be un-disclosed after the fact. This actually strikes me as the futile goal of Fani Willis's February 2 filing with Judge McAfee:

Willis and Wade have been subpoenaed to testify in a Feb. 15 evidentiary hearing that the judge in the election interference case scheduled to examine the allegations against them, but the DA in her filing has asked the judge to deny the motions from the defendants and essentially cancel the hearing, claiming that "no further factual development is necessary."

However, even Newsweek is suggesting things have gone too far for that:

Legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman warned that there is "blood in the water" in the developing Fani Willis-Nathan Wade investigation, despite his belief that their relationship presents "no conflict" to Willis' case against Donald Trump.

. . . "It's 100 percent true under Georgia law, she needed to do it. The law of these kinds of scandals is to get it all out early," he explained. "The thing is, by now, there's sort of blood in the water. You have one of these phoney baloney special investigative commissions in Georgia, none other than [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan subpoenaed her today. [Judge Scott] McAfee's going to have a hearing on the 15th and oddly, even before this, he styled it an 'evidentiary hearing.' So what sort of evidence is it going to take? It could be a bit of a circus."

However, Ashleigh Merchant, the attorney who originally brought the scandal to light, filed an almost immediate response to the court:

The filing spells out some of the probing questions Merchant would ask [Willis's lover Nathan] Wade at an evidentiary hearing about her charges against Willis, if a judge allows it to go forward in the explosive case.

Merchant's filing cites a 2019 judicial conference where according to the Willis filing Wade says he and Willis met and became friends. 'In Paragraph 17 of your affidavit, you swore that you met Ms. Willis in October of 2019 at a Municipal Court training. Isn’t it true that you began more than just a friendship at that conference?' Merchant asks, without revealing the source of her information.

Merchant's filing says 'witnesses will testify that you cohabitated with Ms. Willis at her home in South Fulton until her father moved in with her and you then began to cohabitate at the apartment of a friend of hers in East Point.'

. . . It said the pair had been seen together in public and said they are 'believed' to have cohabited – something Willis denies in her filing. Merchant's filing states that she 'knows the special prosecutor and has researched his litigation experience' – saying he has never tried a felony RICO case and has a 'lack of experience in this type of felony,' and raised doubts about his 'qualifications.'

Another link adds additional information from Merchant's filing:

“Let us be clear: if Mr. Roman [Merchant's client] had not uncovered the now-admitted personal relationship between Willis and Wade, no one may have ever known about it,” the filing says. “That raises the obvious and important question: If they had nothing to hide in the first place because they did nothing wrong, then why did they intentionally not tell anyone about it until they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar?”

The filing proceeds to dispute several statements made by Wade in his sworn affidavit.

“In Paragraph 31 of your affidavit, you swore that you have never cohabitated with Ms. Willis but the attached documents show you shared a king size bed with her in Aruba from November 1, 2022 until November 4, 2022,” the filing reads.

Since the February 15 appearance is characterized by the judge as an "evidentiary hearing", we may assume that Ms Merchant will be able to cross-examine Willis and Wade about their statements that they haven't cohabited, and they share expenses equally. If she can demonstrate that those claims are false, this could well affect the judge's decision on how to handle the defense's motion for dismissal or some lesser remedy.

But beyond that, Willis herself acknowledges that the allegations -- which she has effectively acknowledged are true -- are "salacious". Her only option is to find some way to bring public discussion and late-night TV jokes on the subject to a complete stop. One way to start would be to get the judge to cancel the February 15 hearing, but he has his own reputation to consider, and this is unlikely in my view.

But the toothpaste is out of the tube. The Nathan's Hot Dog meme is just too delicious.

Keeping Track Of The Whole Fani Willis Saga

The big news yesterday was Fani Willis's acknowledgement of a "personal" relationship with her special prosecutor Nathan Wade, but that was just a limited hangout meant to minimize what was already generally and correctly assumed. I decided to bring myself up to date on the whole range of other motions, lawsuits, subpoenas, and allegations against Willis in the wake of the initial complaint by defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant on behalf of Trump codefendant Mike Roman. Quite a lot has emerged in just a three-week period.

The original Roman motion to disqualify Willis was filed on January 8 with Judge Scott McAfee, who is presiding over the Fulton County RICO trial. All the other actions have cascaded from this motion.

On January 12,

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) sent a letter to Nathan Wade, an associate of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, demanding documents and information about the coordination of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office (FCDAO) with other politically motivated investigations and the potential misuse of federal funds. Although Fani Willis has so far refused to cooperate with the Committee's oversight, invoices that Nathan Wade submitted for payment by the FCDAO, and made public as part of a court filing, highlight this collusion.

The letter requested all documents, communications, memoranda, invoices, and contracts by Januatry 26. The response from Wade's office is currently unknown, althokugh a February 2 subpoena by Jordan, discussed below, appears to be an attempt to enforce this initial request.

On January 21, the chairman of the Fulton County Audit Committee,

Bob Ellis, sent a letter to Ms. Willis late last week asking whether she engaged in a “romantic relationship” with Mr. Wade or if she “misused” county funds. He also asked whether she “accepted valuable gifts and personal benefits from a contractor [or] recipient of County funds.”

. . . His letter also demanded that the district attorney’s office provide invoices, costs, fees, and other expenses since Jan. 1, 2021. He gave her a deadline for Feb. 2, 2024.

On January 25,

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump said the district attorney in the Georgia election interference prosecution should be removed from the case, claiming she “inappropriately injected race into the case and stoked racial animus” in response to allegations of misconduct against her.

. . . [Trump's lawyers allege] she vigorously defended Wade and his qualifications in a speech during a service honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at a historic Black church in Atlanta on Jan. 14. She suggested during that address that the questioning of Wade’s hiring was rooted in racism.

“These assertions by the DA engender a great likelihood of substantial prejudice towards the defendants in the eyes of the public in general, and prospective jurors in Fulton County in particular,” Sadow and Little wrote. “Moreover, the DA’s self-serving comments came with the added, sought after, benefit of garnering racially based sympathy for her self-inflicted quagmire.”

In doing this, Trump officially joined the original motion filed by Ashleigh Merchant on behalf of Mike Roman to disquality Willis based on her undisclosed relationship with Wade.

On January 26,

the [Georgia] state Senate approved legislation that will permit a special committee to investigate Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis amid misconduct allegations.

The alleged misconduct "includes the ongoing expenditure of significant public funds for the purpose of hiring a special assistant district attorney with whom District Attorney Willis had, and may yet have, an ongoing romantic relationship," the resolution states.

On January 31, the Washington Free Beacon reported on a 2022 whistleblower complaint by Amanda Timpson, an employee in the district attorney's office.

Timpson claimed to Willis that she had been demoted after attempting to stop a top Willis campaign aide from misusing federal grant money meant for a youth gang prevention initiative.

According to Timpson, the aide, Michael Cuffee, planned to use part of a $488,000 federal grant—earmarked for the creation of a Center of Youth Empowerment and Gang Prevention—to pay for "swag," computers, and travel.

"He wanted to do things with grants that were impossible, and I kept telling him, like, 'We can't do that,'" Timpson told Willis in a Nov. 19, 2021, meeting. "He told everybody … 'We're going to get MacBooks, we're going to get swag, we're going to use it for travel.' I said, 'You cannot do that, it's a very, very specific grant.'"

. . . Less than two months later, Willis abruptly terminated Timpson and had her escorted out of her office by seven armed investigators, according to Timpson. When Timpson filed a whistleblower complaint the following year that alleged wrongful termination, Willis's office issued a statement describing Timpson as a "holdover from the prior administration" who was terminated because of her "failure to meet the standards of the new administration."

. . . Timpson in August 2022 filed a whistleblower complaint in Fulton County Superior Court, seeking damages for lost wages. The case is in discovery.

The Washington Free Beacon story outlines other allegations from Timpson that cover widespread misallocation of grant money from numerous sources for computerrs, airfare, hotels, and car rentals. The Free Becon infers that this is a general pattern in Willis's office that extends beyond the particular Nathan Wade scandal.

On January 31, Ashleigh Merchant, the lawyer for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman who filed the original motion that's led to the subsequent events, filed a lawsuit against Willis with a subpoena demanding that she and Wade testify in the February 15 hearing in Judge McAfee's court:

Merchant alleges in the lawsuit that the DA’s office isn’t complying with the Georgia Open Records Act by intentionally stalling requests for documents. She said that the office has “refused, without adequate explanation, to provide” Roman’s legal team “with many of the requested materials that are known to exist and which are not subject to any exception in the Act and some of which have been outstanding since September of 2023.”

Merchant asks the court to order the DA’s office to hand over the records she seeks or show that they can’t be provided. She also requested that the court award her team the expenses incurred in trying to get Willis to comply with the law.

On February 2, following up on the Free Beacon story linked above,

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has subpoenaed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over allegations that she misused federal funds.

In the subpoena and cover letter, both obtained by FOX 5, Jordan claims that the District Attorney's Office has "failed to comply voluntarily" with the committee's requests for documents connected to the office's receipt and use of U.S. Department of Justice grants.

. . . Jordan cites in the new letter to Willis a report from the Washington Free Beacon alleging that Willis fired an employee who tried to stop the Fulton County District Attorney's Office from using a federal grant for the creation of a Center of Youth Empowerment and Gang Prevention for travel, computers and "swag."

. . . Willis has been asked to appear before the Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C. on the morning of Feb. 23 - a little more than a week after she is scheduled to appear before a Fulton County judge for a hearing on allegations she had an improper romantic relationship with Wade.

This subpoena appears to have been issued in response to Wade's not answering Jordan's January 12 letter. So far, Willis's pattern has been either not to respond to requests for information or to suggest that the allegations against her are based on racism. At this point, though, she will still need to respond to the Fulton County Audit Committee, the February 15 hearing in Judge McAfee's courtroom with the additional Ashleigh Merchant subpoena on that date, the request to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on February 23, and as yet unspecified inquiries from the Georgia state Senate.

This pressure is likely to be unrelanting, and it's hard not to think it will begin to affect the Fulton County RICO trial, as of now tentatively scheduled for August. My own view is that she won't survive this level of public exposure.

Trump January 6 Trial Taken Off Court Calendar, Indefinitely Postponed

Via the Washington Post,

Former president Donald Trump’s March 4 trial date on charges of plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election has been dropped from the public calendar of the federal court in Washington, a sign of what has long been anticipated — that his claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would delay his trial while it remains on appeal.

. . . As of at least Thursday, the March 4 trial date was dropped from a date-searchable calendar on the public website of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It was not immediately clear when it was removed. An internal master court trial calendar distributed Jan. 26 showed Trump’s trial date, suggesting the change was recent, according to a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an internal document.

Chutkan also has acknowledged that Trump’s March trial was off. On Jan. 24, for example, Chutkan scheduled a new trial for April 2, when Trump’s projected six- to eight-week trial would have been ongoing. On Wednesday, Chutkan set a March 18 hearing for another defendant, saying, “I suspect in March I will not be in trial.”

Chutkan’s next trial is set for July 2. The judge set that date in December, a sign that she believed Trump’s trial would be over by then.

On Sunday, I noted the increasing concern that the DC appeals court had not issued an expected quick rebuff of Trump's appeal. The Post concludes,

But since Trump’s appeal paused his case, Chutkan has no authority to set a new trial schedule or impose other burdens or deadlines on the defense until higher courts respond. Chutkan has also made clear that if and when she gets the green light to set a new date, she would not set shorter deadlines that would require Trump’s attorneys to make up for lost time, suggesting the trial would be pushed back weeks if not months.

The concern at the appeals court's delay has only been building. From Politico on Wednesday, before the news of the case's disappearance from the court calendar:

Whether Donald Trump faces a potential prison sentence in 2024 is at the mercy of a federal appeals court that’s operating on its own schedule — at a time when every day matters.

More than 50 days have elapsed since Trump’s criminal proceedings in a Washington, D.C., trial court — on charges for attempting to subvert the 2020 election — were paused indefinitely. They won’t resume until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and, most likely, the Supreme Court resolve the question hanging over the entire case: whether Trump, as a former president, is immune from criminal prosecution.

. . . Lengthy delays in his federal criminal cases create the possibility that, if he wins the presidency this November, Trump could avoid the charges altogether by having the Justice Department end the prosecutions or perhaps even by pardoning himself.

The original lawfare strategy, which appears to have been finalized in mid-2023, relied on the New York civil cases to establsih Trump as a fraudster, rapist, and slanderer, with the January 6 case going to trial on March 4, the day before Super Tuesday. The intent appears to have been to knock Trump out as a general election candidate in the Republican primaries, but so far, it appears that the New York cases haven't been taken seriously by the electorate, given the bizarre figures like Judge Engoron and E Jean Carroll who've emerged, while disappointing performances by all of Trump's Republican primary opponents have put that contest out of reach well before March 4, with that particular trial now postponed to the indefinite future.

In fact, as I noted on Sunday, much more delay from the DC appeals court means that even if it does issue a stern rebuke to Trump in coming days or weeks, Trump will appeal to the US Supreme Court, but the court will likely not take up the case before its summer break, almost certainly pushing the trial past the November election even if the Supreme Court eventually also rejects Trump's argument.

My spidey sense, though, also tells me that even the DC appeals panel, whatever their political loyalties, feels deeply uncomfortable about being stampeded into a quick decision to achieve a limited political goal, and the refusal of the US Supreme Court to hear the case on an expedited basis already reflects a judicial instinct not to be rushed into a decision on such a momentous issue.

But this whole question leaves out the separate issue of District Attorney Willis's problems in the Fulton County RICO trial. Again, the lawfare strategy appears to have had an inchoate goal of somehow getting Trump into a prison cell, or at least convicted of a conspiracy, before the November election. The difficulty is that, as with the New York civil trials, even if Willis and Wade manage to hold onto their posiitons and continue the prosecution, the proceedings will turn out to be too farcical to carry much credibility with the electorate.

As far as anyone can tell, the lawfare strategy was going to be a centerpiece of Biden's reelection campaign. Right now, it appears not just to be collapsing, but degenerating into slapstick.

UPDATE: Via Just the News:

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday officially suspended former President Donald Trump's March 4 trial in special counsel Jack Smith's election case, The Hill reported.

Both Parties Are Terrified Of Trump On The Border

Last Saturday, I noted that Trump had effectively killed the Langford Republican border compromise. Since then, Langford and others have blamed "intetrnet rumors" for destroying the plan's prospects:

Lankford said, “Right now these internet rumors is all the people are running on. It would be absolutely absurd for me to agree to 5,000 people a day. This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. There’s no amnesty. It increases the number of border patrol agents, increases asylum officers. It increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals. It ends catch and release. It focuses on additional deportation flights out. It changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard, and then get returned back to their home country. This is not about letting 5,000 people in a day. This is the most misunderstood section of this proposal.”

The problem is that Langford won't release any specifics about the plan that would refute the rumors, and he complains the problem is that it's a "presidential election year", which is a backhanded acknowledgement that Trump is driving policy for enough Senate Republicans to kill the deal. Meanwhile, Biden's response has been that Republicans are preventing action on the border by delaying the same deal:

Biden announced his endorsement of the deal late Friday evening.

“Securing the border through these negotiations is a win for America. For everyone who is demanding tougher border control, this is the way to do it. If you’re serious about the border crisis, pass a bipartisan bill and I will sign it,” Biden said in a statement.

But via the same link, the deal is already dead, and Trump killed it:

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has backed away from the deal, and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has told colleagues that the deal is “dead on arrival” in the House.

Former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has helped expose the deal’s details to hugely expand overall immigration to the United States — publicly and privately urging Senate Republicans to oppose the effort.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC), Mitt Romney (R-UT), John Thune (R-SD), and Todd Young (R-IN) have complained that Trump’s influence has made the deal toxic for other Republicans to sign on to.

Trump's ability to drive events is continuing to worry Republican senators. According to Politico,

Asked if the agreement appears to be on a path toward passing the Senate, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) replied: “It certainly doesn’t seem like it.”

“There are a number of our members who say, ‘Well, I'll join a majority of the Republicans but if it doesn't enjoy that sort of support, then count me out,'” Cornyn said in an interview. “The whole idea of passing something that the House won't even take up is another challenge."

There are two main reasons for the growing questions about the bill’s future: Trump's attacks and Johnson's vows not to take it up. And the two seem related; Johnson said Tuesday he had talked to Trump about the issue “at length” though he denied they are opposing it for political reasons.

Opposing it for political reasons in a presidential election year with Trump the likely Republican nominee? Perish the thought! But the fear is extending beyond Republicans:

Some Democrats and the White House have acknowledged that President Biden could take executive actions to better secure the U.S. border without additional legislation passed by Congress.

Pressure is mounting on Biden to issue executive orders to address the border crisis after he rescinded many Trump-era border executive orders upon taking office. Biden unilaterally ended the border emergency that Trump had implemented after he took office in January 2021 as well.

Just the News asked Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., how he responds to those who argue that Biden could fix a lot of the border issues unilaterally since he eliminated a lot of former President Donald Trump's border executive orders when he came into office.

"There's a lot of issues here, OK? There's some things he could do," he said. "I'm hoping that as soon as the Senate comes up with their deal, that we get at least a shot at looking at it, voting. I'm not sure if I'll support it. Give us a shot at voting on it."

But it's likely there will never be a vote in the plan -- even Democrat senators don't want to be on record voting for the controversial and as yet unpublished aspects of the "compromise". As of yesterday, Speaker Johnson declared the deal "officially dead".

Trump is happy to get credit for killing the deal:

On Saturday, at a campaign rally in Nevada, the Republican presidential front-runner seemed to gloat about his efforts to kill the bill.

"As the leader of our party there is zero chance I will support this horrible open borders betrayal of America. It's not going to happen," Trump said. "I notice a lot of the Senators are trying to say -- respectfully they are blaming it on me, I say that's OK please blame it on me, please, because they were getting ready to pass a very bad bill."

With the bill dead and even Democrats acknowledging Biden can and must act over the border, this leaves the next step up to Biden, whose options are now pretty limited. If he does anything, it will appear that Trump forced him to do it.

More Comes Out On The January 6 Pipe Bomb Investigations

Yesterday's post on the FBI and ATF investigations of the January 6 pipe bombs was based primarily on testimony before the House Judiciary Committee from last summer. Since then, new allegations about those investigations have emerged. As of yesterday's post, the official story was that notwithstanding the FBI's huge investigative resources, three years of searching for the bomber have come up empty, while it seems as if the person who discovered the bomb the next day was never seriously considered as a suspect, despite this being a basic investigative principle.

Via the Daily Wire this past Monday:

A former FBI agent said that the Bureau quickly believed that it tied the person who planted pipe bombs at the Democrat National Committee and the Republican National Committee to a particular Metro fare card and license plate, but did not allow him to interview the person of interest and pulled his team off of the lead.

. . . Kyle Seraphin, who led FBI surveillance teams, told The Daily Wire that shortly after January 6, a counterintelligence team met him at a firehouse in Falls Church, Virginia to brief him on his next surveillance target: They had used security footage to follow the person into a Metro station after he planted the bombs, and identified the fare card that was used.

That fare card then allowed them to determine that the person got off at a Metro stop in Northern Virginia, where surveillance footage showed the person entering a car. Both the car and the fare card were in the name of the same person — a retired Air Force chief master sergeant who was now working as a contractor with a security clearance, they said.

Seraphin and his team were assigned to stake out the person’s row house for days, but the FBI blocked his request to interview the person, he said. Then they were called off the target completely and told to pore through low-priority leads about minor January 6 participants, he said.

This information was initially published in May 2023:

The Washington Times first reported the allegation in May 2023. The article, which was paywalled, did not get widespread attention, yet when the House Judiciary Committee interviewed Steve D’Antuono, the former head of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, it seemed to be on his mind.

“People like Kyle Seraphin and others that are not a case agent, have no knowledge of the case, have no knowledge of what happened in the case, he also made another accusation too that there was an individual with a Metro card. My understanding is all that was chased down. There was a lead that was chased down, but he says that we didn’t chase it down,” D’Antuono said.

His comment seemed to confirm that the Metro card lead did exist, and he did not explain how or why it ultimately resulted in nothing.

Yesterday, more information also came out about the person who found the pipe bombs:

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday confirmed the person who found the January 6 pipebombs is a current US Capitol Police Officer.

Earlier this month new explosive J6 footage was released. It turns out that a plainclothes police officer found the DNC pipebombs at 1:05 pm on January 6.

Darren Beattie said according to sources who have seen the extended video, bomb robots showed up several minutes later and dismantled and diffused [sic] the pipe bomb.

Although former FBI Washington Field Office head D'Antuono discounted Kyle Seraphin's knowledge of the case, Seraphin did raise a key question in the first link above:

"The bureau is far too competent to fail this,” he said. “When they had the World Trade Center bombing in ‘93 they went under four stories of rubble and were able to find a partial VIN number that they used to track it down to the people responsible. And you’re telling me you had a pristine, non-detonated bomb and they couldn’t find anything on it?”

As a true crime fan, I've got to say this would appear to be another case of Investigations 101 -- you look at product information from the off-the-shelf components of the bomb, manufacturer, SKUs, batch numbers, and so forth, that you trace back to the store that sold them on a particular date and location. Then you look at surveillance video of the sale. The kitchen timer, apparently a common item, would be one line of inquiry, but electrical components, the pipe, and even the explosive would be another -- and since the bomb didn't detonate, all these items would be intact and available.

It appears that the Republicans are on the case, and more will inevitably come out. I'm still intrigued at the strange echoes of the Richard Jewell case -- there, the FBI focused on Jewell as the suspect, because he found the bomb. Now I note that the DNC bomb was planted under a park bench, which is where Jewell found the Atlanta bomb. It's almost as though someone in the FBI cooked up a scenario for a phony bombing based on the easiest example he could think of.