Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
March 15, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2676102711
Trump aides aware of president's repeated gaffe - but are 'afraid to correct him': report
trump is too senile/stupid to know the difference between “excursion” and “incursion." trump's aides know the difference but they do NOT dare correct trump. Every time that trump uses the term "excursion" instead of incursion, I laugh. Again, trump is too senile to sue the right term and his aides are too scared to correct trump.
Trump aides aware of president’s repeated gaffe – but are ‘afraid to correct him’: report
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-14T16:00:13Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2676102711
President Donald Trump has been ridiculed in recent days for repeatedly referring to his administration’s military siege on Iran as an “excursion,” a potential mix-up with the word “incursion,” but according to a new report from Zeteo, his aides are well aware of the blunder but refuse to correct him out of fear.
“I’m not telling him,” a Trump administration official told Zeteo on Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The word “excursion,” as explained by MS NOW’s Jonathan Lemire on Friday, generally refers to “a short, organized pleasure trip, à la snorkeling,” whereas an “incursion” is a “sudden, often hostile entrance or invasion into a territory or place,” a far more appropriate term to describe the Trump administration’s operation in Iran.
And yet, despite the obvious blunder, Trump officials told Zeteo that correcting the president would be “a fool’s errand,” and that “doing so would likely get them yelled at,” the outlet reported.
“We say ‘incursion,’ the boss says ‘excursion.’ It’s not a big deal,” a second Trump official told Zeteo, also speaking on the condition of anonymity.
“I’m not telling him,” a Trump administration official told Zeteo on Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The word “excursion,” as explained by MS NOW’s Jonathan Lemire on Friday, generally refers to “a short, organized pleasure trip, à la snorkeling,” whereas an “incursion” is a “sudden, often hostile entrance or invasion into a territory or place,” a far more appropriate term to describe the Trump administration’s operation in Iran.
And yet, despite the obvious blunder, Trump officials told Zeteo that correcting the president would be “a fool’s errand,” and that “doing so would likely get them yelled at,” the outlet reported.
“We say ‘incursion,’ the boss says ‘excursion.’ It’s not a big deal,” a second Trump official told Zeteo, also speaking on the condition of anonymity.
March 14, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/jeanine-pirro-public-temper-tantrum/
Jeanine Pirro's 'extraordinary temper tantrum' floors CNN legal expert
Piro may be auditioning to replace Bondi
Jeanine Pirro's 'extraordinary temper tantrum' floors CNN legal expert
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-14T00:30:14.661Z
https://www.rawstory.com/jeanine-pirro-public-temper-tantrum/
Former federal prosecutor and CNN legal expert Elie Honig reacted Friday to comments from Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who was furious during an impromptu press conference following a major legal blow to the Trump administration.
Honig described the legal impact after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg granted the order, agreeing with the Fed that Trump's repeated attacks on Fed chair Jerome Powell indicate the investigation into the Federal Reserve's building renovation was pretextual and politically motivated.
"So first of all, that press conference in itself was extraordinary," Honig said. "Ordinarily, whenever you see a U.S. Attorney call a press conference and address the cameras, it's because there's been an indictment or a conviction or a sentence. I don't think I've ever seen a U.S. attorney or an attorney general call a press conference to complain about a ruling that he or she did not like. That was essentially a public temper tantrum."
Honig also fact-checked some of what Pirro said during the unusual press conference.
"You heard Jeanine Pirro say that this judge, Judge Boasberg, is a quote 'activist judge,''" Honig said. "This judge was elevated to the district court by Barack Obama. But before that, he was put on the local D.C. Superior Court by George W. Bush. And in this judge's past, he has actually denied a motion years ago to try to get Donald Trump's tax returns. He ruled in favor of Donald Trump on those tax returns. And then finally, most fundamentally, we just heard Jeanine Pirro complain that the grand jury subpoena is an important tool of prosecutors, which it is. You heard Jeanine Pirro say that the judge 'has taken that tool away from us.' That's not quite right."
Honig described the legal impact after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg granted the order, agreeing with the Fed that Trump's repeated attacks on Fed chair Jerome Powell indicate the investigation into the Federal Reserve's building renovation was pretextual and politically motivated.
"So first of all, that press conference in itself was extraordinary," Honig said. "Ordinarily, whenever you see a U.S. Attorney call a press conference and address the cameras, it's because there's been an indictment or a conviction or a sentence. I don't think I've ever seen a U.S. attorney or an attorney general call a press conference to complain about a ruling that he or she did not like. That was essentially a public temper tantrum."
Honig also fact-checked some of what Pirro said during the unusual press conference.
"You heard Jeanine Pirro say that this judge, Judge Boasberg, is a quote 'activist judge,''" Honig said. "This judge was elevated to the district court by Barack Obama. But before that, he was put on the local D.C. Superior Court by George W. Bush. And in this judge's past, he has actually denied a motion years ago to try to get Donald Trump's tax returns. He ruled in favor of Donald Trump on those tax returns. And then finally, most fundamentally, we just heard Jeanine Pirro complain that the grand jury subpoena is an important tool of prosecutors, which it is. You heard Jeanine Pirro say that the judge 'has taken that tool away from us.' That's not quite right."
March 14, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-s-fiery-outburst-at-doj
'I never signed off on that': Trump rages at DOJ
trump's feelings were hurt when the DOJ tried to dismiss the appeal of the cases involving the law firms targeted by trump. These law firms beat trump and trump's feelings were hurt. It is now very clear that the DOJ only works for trump.
President Trump exploded in an Oval Office outburst after learning the Justice Department had abandoned efforts to sanction targeted law firms through executive orders, according to Wall Street Journal reporting citing people familiar with the matter.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-13T13:40:10Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-s-fiery-outburst-at-doj
President Trump exploded in an Oval Office outburst after learning the Justice Department had abandoned efforts to sanction targeted law firms through executive orders, according to Wall Street Journal reporting citing people familiar with the matter.
Trump told officials "I never signed off on that," expressing fury over the decision made without his authorization.
The revelation emerged amid mounting criticism of the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute political opponents. Courts have already removed multiple Trump prosecutors for illegally serving in their positions, impacting prosecutions against former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, both involved in the 2016 Russia investigation.
Trump told officials "I never signed off on that," expressing fury over the decision made without his authorization.
The revelation emerged amid mounting criticism of the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute political opponents. Courts have already removed multiple Trump prosecutors for illegally serving in their positions, impacting prosecutions against former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, both involved in the 2016 Russia investigation.
March 13, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-pushes-gop-to-focus-on-health-care-in-midterms-which-would-be-fine-with-democrats
MaddowBlog-Trump pushes GOP to focus on health care in midterms, which would be fine with Democrats
The president told GOP lawmakers this week: “We can own the issue.” Republicans shouldn’t get their hopes up.
Trump insisted this week that Republicans should make health care a key part of the GOP’s strategy in the midterms: www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-13T20:25:07.940Z
Democrats should be so lucky:
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-pushes-gop-to-focus-on-health-care-in-midterms-which-would-be-fine-with-democrats
About a month ago, CNN reported that Donald Trump was determined to make health care “a central focus of his midterm sales pitch,” which seemed difficult to believe but apparently was a sign of things to come.
In fact, in his remarks to House Republicans this week, the president said, in reference to health care: “We can own the issue. For the first time ever, Republicans can own that issue.”
.....Republicans are welcome to try to turn that around between now and Election Day, but existing public attitudes aren’t the only hurdle in their way. There’s also the GOP’s record to consider. The New York Times reported a few weeks ago:
This, of course, comes on the heels of Republicans making a deliberate choice to raise the cost of coverage for 24 million Americans in December, which followed the GOP’s far-right domestic policy megabill, which slashed Medicaid funding....
But, sure, Mr. President, tell us some more about how Republicans “can own the issue.”
In 2018, during Trump’s first midterm elections, Democrats focused heavily on health care — it was the cycle after the GOP’s attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act, which was a political disaster for the party — and easily reclaimed a majority in the U.S. House. Eight years later, the president is apparently under the impression that it would be a good thing if his second midterm elections focused largely on the same issue.
Presidents often don’t get to pick which issues dominate the public conversation, but if Trump manages to push health care into the 2026 spotlight, I have a hunch Democrats wouldn’t mind.
In fact, in his remarks to House Republicans this week, the president said, in reference to health care: “We can own the issue. For the first time ever, Republicans can own that issue.”
Trump on healthcare: "We can own the issue! For the first time ever Republicans can own that issue."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-09T21:22:40.017Z
.....Republicans are welcome to try to turn that around between now and Election Day, but existing public attitudes aren’t the only hurdle in their way. There’s also the GOP’s record to consider. The New York Times reported a few weeks ago:
The Trump administration’s proposed new rules for Obamacare plans next year would shift more health care costs to Americans, with much higher deductibles that could lead to larger medical bills.
Under the proposal, people who rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance coverage could choose plans with much lower monthly premiums. But that could leave them exposed to medical expenses totaling thousands of dollars more than A.C.A. plans do now before their insurance would kick in.
This, of course, comes on the heels of Republicans making a deliberate choice to raise the cost of coverage for 24 million Americans in December, which followed the GOP’s far-right domestic policy megabill, which slashed Medicaid funding....
But, sure, Mr. President, tell us some more about how Republicans “can own the issue.”
In 2018, during Trump’s first midterm elections, Democrats focused heavily on health care — it was the cycle after the GOP’s attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act, which was a political disaster for the party — and easily reclaimed a majority in the U.S. House. Eight years later, the president is apparently under the impression that it would be a good thing if his second midterm elections focused largely on the same issue.
Presidents often don’t get to pick which issues dominate the public conversation, but if Trump manages to push health care into the 2026 spotlight, I have a hunch Democrats wouldn’t mind.
March 13, 2026
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-oil-2676098825/
Trump's oil boast has cringing industry execs running for cover: report
The only entities making money due to higher oil and gas prices are the US oil companies. Regular people are NOT benefiting from higher oil and gas prices. trump's attempt to spin the benefits of higher gas and oil prices are pissing off the oil companies who really do NOT want US consumers to focus on the fact that they are paying for these oil companies' excess profits and earnings.
Trump's boastful Truth Social post about oil industry profits has created an embarrassing moment for energy executives who desperately want those windfall gains to remain out of public view.
— Raw Story (@rawstory.com) 2026-03-13T20:36:06Z
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-oil-2676098825/
Trump's boastful Truth Social post about oil industry profits has created an embarrassing moment for energy executives who desperately want those windfall gains to remain out of public view.
As crude oil prices settled around $95 per barrel—far above the industry's preferred $60 threshold—Trump declared on Truth Social: "The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
The post crystallizes an uncomfortable reality for oil companies: they are profiting handsomely from war-driven price spikes while consumers face soaring gas prices at the pump. Since the Iran war began, crude prices have surged nearly $30 per barrel or more. Oil executives now face a public relations nightmare.
"The idea that the industry profits from war and death is not one a VP of public relations wants to promote," said Mark Jones, political science fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute.
Industry sources reacted with dismay. "Oh, boy...." one oil executive responded when shown Trump's post.
Trump's statement feeds directly into public perception that oil companies are deliberately gouging consumers. Another industry official, speaking anonymously, acknowledged the damage: "This highlights the complicated relationship the oil industry has with the president. There is also some notion that the oil and gas industry secretly works to raise prices, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry works."
As crude oil prices settled around $95 per barrel—far above the industry's preferred $60 threshold—Trump declared on Truth Social: "The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money."
The post crystallizes an uncomfortable reality for oil companies: they are profiting handsomely from war-driven price spikes while consumers face soaring gas prices at the pump. Since the Iran war began, crude prices have surged nearly $30 per barrel or more. Oil executives now face a public relations nightmare.
"The idea that the industry profits from war and death is not one a VP of public relations wants to promote," said Mark Jones, political science fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute.
Industry sources reacted with dismay. "Oh, boy...." one oil executive responded when shown Trump's post.
Trump's statement feeds directly into public perception that oil companies are deliberately gouging consumers. Another industry official, speaking anonymously, acknowledged the damage: "This highlights the complicated relationship the oil industry has with the president. There is also some notion that the oil and gas industry secretly works to raise prices, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry works."
March 13, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-reject-proposal-to-reopen-much-of-dhs-including-tsa
MaddowBlog-Republicans reject proposal to reopen much of DHS, including TSA
As the second month of the Homeland Security shutdown gets underway, GOP senators keep rejecting credible Democratic plans for partial solutions.
Senate Democrats have presented some credible proposals to reopen and fully fund TSA while the broader fight over Homeland Security funding continues.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-13T14:01:43.960Z
It’s tough to defend Republicans rejecting these plans.
www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/republicans-reject-proposal-to-reopen-much-of-dhs-including-tsa
To the surprise of no one, those bipartisan talks failed and funding for the massive agency expired, causing a DHS-specific shutdown.
One month later, efforts to end the standoff are going nowhere, though there has been some relevant activity on Capitol Hill in recent days. The New York Times reported:
The latest Republican proposal to end the standoff was difficult to take seriously: GOP senators proposed reopening the entirety of DHS, without any reforms whatsoever, for two weeks. This approach needed 60 votes to advance, and it fell far short on Thursday’s 51-46 vote. (Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only member of the minority to vote with the GOP.)
But the latest Democratic proposal is far more interesting. From the Times’ article:
In other words, the Democratic approach narrows the focus: Congress can reopen much of the DHS immediately — everything from TSA to FEMA, the Coast Guard to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — since those other agencies have nothing to do with the fight over reforms to immigration enforcement tactics.....
To hear GOP senators tell it, they are, at least for now, staunchly opposed to any kind of “piecemeal” approach. They have not, however, explained why an incremental solution is so objectionable.
As the second month of the partial shutdown gets underway, there’s no reason for optimism about a resolution.
One month later, efforts to end the standoff are going nowhere, though there has been some relevant activity on Capitol Hill in recent days. The New York Times reported:
The congressional impasse over funding the Department of Homeland Security is entering its second month after the Senate on Thursday again deadlocked over providing money for the agency, even as airports continued to experience security line backups.
The latest Republican proposal to end the standoff was difficult to take seriously: GOP senators proposed reopening the entirety of DHS, without any reforms whatsoever, for two weeks. This approach needed 60 votes to advance, and it fell far short on Thursday’s 51-46 vote. (Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only member of the minority to vote with the GOP.)
But the latest Democratic proposal is far more interesting. From the Times’ article:
Over the past two days, Democrats have taken to the Senate floor to propose funding [the Transportation Security Administration] and other branches of the Department of Homeland Security separately, to clear the way for paying federal employees while lawmakers seek negotiations with the White House over limits on the immigration agents.
In other words, the Democratic approach narrows the focus: Congress can reopen much of the DHS immediately — everything from TSA to FEMA, the Coast Guard to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency — since those other agencies have nothing to do with the fight over reforms to immigration enforcement tactics.....
To hear GOP senators tell it, they are, at least for now, staunchly opposed to any kind of “piecemeal” approach. They have not, however, explained why an incremental solution is so objectionable.
As the second month of the partial shutdown gets underway, there’s no reason for optimism about a resolution.
March 13, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/hegseth-rejects-the-idea-that-the-war-in-iran-is-spreading-despite-reality
MaddowBlog-Hegseth rejects the idea that the war in Iran is 'spreading,' despite reality
Hegseth rejects the idea that the war in Iran is ‘spreading,’ despite reality
The more the war becomes a regional conflict, with even broader economic consequences for much of the world, the more Pete Hegseth struggles with the meaning of the word “wideningâ€: www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2026-03-13T12:28:01.312Z
Relatedly, there's nothing "patriotic" about pretending reality doesn't exist.
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/hegseth-rejects-the-idea-that-the-war-in-iran-is-spreading-despite-reality
At a press conference last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took a moment to push back against reporting that he disagreed with. The beleaguered Pentagon chief said he’s heard commentary that the war in Iran “might be expanding” beyond Iranian borders.
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.
On Tuesday, the former Fox News host tried to re-emphasize the same argument.
....On the first day of the military offensive, the conflict involved three countries: The United States, Israel and Iran. But it wasn’t long before that list grew. By the sixth day of the war, The Washington Post noted that the violence had “touched 12 countries across the Middle East.”
Soon after, an Iranian drone strike hit Bahrain, injuring 32 people, and the day after that, the United Arab Emirates felt the need to shut down one of the larger oil refineries in the world in response to an Iranian strike. The developments coincided with related violence spreading to Iraq and Lebanon, where a conflict with Israel has intensified.
What’s more, other countries around the world have been economically impacted by the war, widening the conflict beyond the Middle East.
....All of which leaves us with a few simple questions for Hegseth: Is he (a) unaware of the developments that make clear just how quickly and aggressively the war is expanding; (b) trying to deceive the public about the consequences of a war the administration launched for reasons it’s struggled to explain; or (c) confused about what “expanding” and “spreading” mean?
“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said.
On Tuesday, the former Fox News host tried to re-emphasize the same argument.
Hegseth: "I see in the media banners that say, 'War expanding' or 'War spreading' -- it's actually the opposite. It's actually quite contained."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-03-10T12:29:44.166Z
....On the first day of the military offensive, the conflict involved three countries: The United States, Israel and Iran. But it wasn’t long before that list grew. By the sixth day of the war, The Washington Post noted that the violence had “touched 12 countries across the Middle East.”
Soon after, an Iranian drone strike hit Bahrain, injuring 32 people, and the day after that, the United Arab Emirates felt the need to shut down one of the larger oil refineries in the world in response to an Iranian strike. The developments coincided with related violence spreading to Iraq and Lebanon, where a conflict with Israel has intensified.
What’s more, other countries around the world have been economically impacted by the war, widening the conflict beyond the Middle East.
Donald Trump's attack on Iran is already having profound effects on economies around the world.
— MaddowBlog (@maddowblog.bsky.social) 2026-03-10T20:07:34.699Z
....All of which leaves us with a few simple questions for Hegseth: Is he (a) unaware of the developments that make clear just how quickly and aggressively the war is expanding; (b) trying to deceive the public about the consequences of a war the administration launched for reasons it’s struggled to explain; or (c) confused about what “expanding” and “spreading” mean?
March 13, 2026
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-reportedly-directed-doj-to-reverse-course-on-case-against-defiant-law-firms
trump is a spoiled child and his feelings were hurt that the DOJ was not pursing his petty attempts to punish these law firms. There will be more rulings against the DOJ and trump to come.
MaddowBlog-Trump reportedly directed DOJ to reverse course on case against defiant law firms
It seemed obvious that someone in a position of influence had intervened in the case, and that person was apparently, and predictably, the president.
“Trump reportedly directed DOJ to reverse course on case against defiant law firms
— Redeem the soul America (@rneagle.bsky.social) 2026-03-12T16:16:19.221Z
It seemed obvious that someone in a position of influence had intervened in the case, and that person was apparently, and predictably, the president.â€
Steve Benen
MS NOW
apple.news/Am6A9SAFkQim...
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-reportedly-directed-doj-to-reverse-course-on-case-against-defiant-law-firms
The victories for the quartet — Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey — looked even better last week when the Trump Justice Department announced plans to throw in the towel: Instead of appealing their earlier defeats, DOJ lawyers said they would abandon their defense of the president’s executive orders.
One day later, federal prosecutors changed their mind, completed a 180-degree turn and notified the four firms that they would proceed with the appeal after all.
It seemed rather obvious from a distance that someone in a high position of influence had intervened in the matter, and according to the latest reporting from The Wall Street Journal, that person is exactly who most observers assumed it was.
.....The move opened the door to the administration extending a losing legal fight simply to make the president feel better — a variety of judges from across the ideological spectrum have already ruled against the White House in this case, concluding that the move was plainly illegal — though Trump evidently doesn’t much care......
To be sure, none of these developments was or is especially surprising. It’s been obvious for the past 14 months or so that the Justice Department has become an extension of the West Wing, and the reversal in the case against the defiant law firms reinforces the unmistakable pattern.
But the revelations add fresh weight to the broader indictment about Trump’s control over federal law enforcement.
A few weeks ago, Main Justice unfurled a giant banner featuring the president’s face on its facade. The move removed a pretense that no one took seriously anyway. As The Wall Street Journal summarized in November, this is a Justice Department in which the president, not the attorney general, “calls the shots.”
One day later, federal prosecutors changed their mind, completed a 180-degree turn and notified the four firms that they would proceed with the appeal after all.
It seemed rather obvious from a distance that someone in a high position of influence had intervened in the matter, and according to the latest reporting from The Wall Street Journal, that person is exactly who most observers assumed it was.
The Justice Department’s surprise reversal last week on defending the White House’s sanctions against law firms came after an angry outburst by President Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
After The Wall Street Journal reported on March 2 that the department was dropping its defense of executive orders that outlined punishments against specific law firms, Trump told advisers to stop it immediately, the people said.
.....The move opened the door to the administration extending a losing legal fight simply to make the president feel better — a variety of judges from across the ideological spectrum have already ruled against the White House in this case, concluding that the move was plainly illegal — though Trump evidently doesn’t much care......
To be sure, none of these developments was or is especially surprising. It’s been obvious for the past 14 months or so that the Justice Department has become an extension of the West Wing, and the reversal in the case against the defiant law firms reinforces the unmistakable pattern.
But the revelations add fresh weight to the broader indictment about Trump’s control over federal law enforcement.
A few weeks ago, Main Justice unfurled a giant banner featuring the president’s face on its facade. The move removed a pretense that no one took seriously anyway. As The Wall Street Journal summarized in November, this is a Justice Department in which the president, not the attorney general, “calls the shots.”
trump is a spoiled child and his feelings were hurt that the DOJ was not pursing his petty attempts to punish these law firms. There will be more rulings against the DOJ and trump to come.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 178,922