Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude: the ridiculous chump (and general hospital)

5/23/2026

the ridiculous chump (and general hospital)

sarah-jane collins ('daily beast') reports:

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal writes that President Donald Trump has “lost the governing plot” just a year-and-a-half into his second term.

The conservative paper has published a damning editorial about the president, who turns 80 next month, writing that he is destroying any chance of policy gains by chasing pet projects and alienating Republicans in Congress.

“President Trump’s personal political obsessions are hurting his presidency, harming the chances for further policy gains the rest of this year, and putting control of the House and Senate in jeopardy,” its editorial board wrote on Friday.

The editorial, “Trump Has Lost the Governing Plot,” detailed how Trump’s petty vengeance plans have derailed his second term.

“Mr. Trump’s politics has always been largely personal, but in his second term it has become self-indulgent even by his standards,” the board wrote.

he's a convicted felon with the instincts of a cranky, spoiled child.

he's such a vengeful little bitch.

'general hospital'?

friday, rocco and britt went on the run. she called him to the hospital to tell him he had to get ready to run. ross was getting closer in figuring out that rocco shot him. he wanted to leave with her. she said no and he brought out the passport lulu had gotten for him in another name. she told him it was going to be ugly when she was off the medication that sidwell and ross had been providing her with to get her to work on their project. he said he wanted to be with her. he talked about how she gave birth to him and knew about the 1st 7 months of his life.

he talked about how dante and lulu were arguing over what to do with him with lulu wanting to go on the run with him and dante saying no.

he promised that after britt died, he would call his parents and tell them where he was.

some 1 was knocking on the door of britt's office so she told rocco to go to her car in the hospital parking lot and wait for her. it was elizabeth and why was rocco here? he needed britt's signature on a piece of paper for a program. that program closed applications a week ago. liz then saw rocco's passport in the name of 'taylor' and asked what was going on.

britt locked elizabeth in the closet in her office.

she went to the parking lot and made sure rocco wanted to go with her still and then she stomped on both of their phones and they drove off.

lulu is looking for rocco and can't find him. at 1 point laura asks to meet with her. so she meets with her mother and laura tells her that dante told her that she's thinking about running off with rocco. lulu tells her that she doesn't need a lecture and laura tells her she's not getting 1. if lulu thinks that she has to take rocco and run off to keep him safe, then she agrees with lulu and lulu has her support. she reminded lulu that she - and lulu's father luke - had often gone on the run.

willow told felicity that laura had asked her to see if she could do anything to help anna. so anna is not being sent to a maximum security prison in france. she'll return to the clinic she was at. and, what's more, willow's talked them into releasing anna.

willow's mother went to see jack who was being told by ross that he was going to be disappeared shortly. nina walked into the room and started talking to jack and didn't know ross was in the room. when he announced himself and asked why she was there, she told him it was because jack needed some 1. after ross left, nina asked jack if he was ok and if ross was threatening him. she told jack to blink once for no and twice for yes (or maybe it was the other way around). it would take longer, jack said speaking slowly and revealing that he can speak.

dante arrived at the hospital and went to britt's office where he heard some 1 banging in the closet. he opened it and elizabeth told him that rocco and britt were leaving town together.

let's close with c.i.'s 'The Snapshot:'

Friday, May 22, 2026. In a shock to Convicted Felon Donald Chump, Democrats and Republicans push back against his slush fund.

Melissa Quinn (CBS NEWS) reports:

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered White House staff and President Trump's top advisers to comply with a law that requires certain presidential records to be preserved.

In a 54-page decision, U.S. District Judge John Bates granted a preliminary injunction that requires most White House employees to preserve presidential and vice presidential records covered by the Presidential Records Act. The 1978 law was enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal and established public ownership of presidential records.

Among those who must comply with Bates' order are White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, the National Security Council, Council of Economic Advisers and employees working within the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Trump and Vice President JD Vance are not covered by the judge's directive. The injunction takes effect at 9 a.m. on May 26.

The decision stems from a memorandum opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel last month that claimed the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress' power. The office said Mr. Trump therefore didn't need to comply with it.

Two historical and government oversight groups, the American Historical Association and American Oversight, as well as the Freedom of the Press Foundation, sued to invalidate the Justice Department's opinion. They asked the judge to order White House officials to comply with the Presidential Records Act and preserve records.

In his decision granting that request for relief, the judge wrote that the Presidential Records Act is "likely constitutional," splitting from the Justice Department's determination.

Likely constitutional? Since when does the Constitution matter to Chump? He's an enemy of it and of the rule of law. He's a convicted felon. A law breaker who operates outside the law repeatedly. He cheapens our discourse and he cheapens politics -- and on cheapening politics, who would have thought it could be cheapened any more than already was?

Liz Dye (ABOVE THE LAW) notes:

During his first term, President Trump routinely tore up offical documents, forcing archivists to meticulously tape them together to comply with the Presidential Records Act. There were even reports that he clogged up toilets in the White House with shredded papers he hoped to disappear forever.

This time around, he’s taking a different approach. Instead of quietly defying the law, he ordered his advisors to dummy up an opinion saying that, actually, the PRA is unconstitutional. This requires a not inconsiderable amount of chutzpah, since the Supreme Court said almost 50 years ago that it is. And yesterday, Judge John Bates of the US District Court in DC said it again, in a meticulous opinion that opened with quotes from George Orwell and Shakespeare.

[. . .]

The case was assigned to Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, who’s been on the bench long enough that he remembers when the White House Counsel and OLC at least pretended to be doing real law. He did not hide his disdain for a government that seeks to operate in secret.

“While the presidency is a singularly important institution, that gravity does not free it from modest constraint. Quite the opposite,” he wrote. “Each branch of government derives its authority from the trust placed in it by the People, and Congress has validly determined that this Act helps to maintain that trust by shining some light on the activities of the President and his aides.”

Warrington and Gaiser caught substantial judicial side-eye as well, as the court sniffed that “it is not for this Court, OLC, or the White House to second guess Congress’s lawful determination—made pursuant to at least two different enumerated powers—that citizens ought eventually to have access to these records of presidential activities carried out in their name.”

In related attempts at law breaking and corruption, Matthew Rozsa reports on Chump's slush fund.

President Donald Trump is making mistakes as president that, according to his former Homeland Security Chief of Staff, will cost Americans their lives.

Miles Taylor, who served during Trump’s first term, told MS NOW on Wednesday that the $1.776 billion slush fund that Trump created for his political supporters and possibly himself is more expensive than the government spends on important national security projects.

"It's probably the biggest heist in American history of any kind, of any sort, that tells you a lot about the United States Congress,” Taylor said during an MS NOW appearance on Wednesday. “The Congress that spent most of its legislative time this week talking about the ballroom, trying to get ballroom funds passed instead of inflation and wars, or this heist."

The slush fund. It came up this week in a Senate Appropritions Subcommittee hearing that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared at (see Wednesday's snapshot). We'll note this exchange:

Senator Chris Coons: Thank you. You referenced a previous case, I think it was Keepseagle v. Vilsack, under the previous administration. Did that case involve a president suing his own government and then settling that case before it could be reviewed or approved by a judge?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, no. Neither does the commission.

Senator Chris Coons: No, it did not. And so when you suggested that they’re nearly identical, they’re not identical. I think there’s a critical difference here: President Trump is the first president to sue his own government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach this kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump’s family will receive a direct payout from this fund?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes, but what you just said is not true. I mean – if I can correct that – the president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we said that the structure of the commission is similar to Keepseagle, that’s true. It wasn’t – the underlying case is not the same, the structure of the commission is the same as the Keepseagle commission.

Senator CHris Coons: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Not that I’m aware, but there are a lot of things that President Trump’s the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times either.

Senator Chris Coons: Correct. No president’s been indicted. And will you commit that none of this money will go to President Trump’s campaign donors?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself. When you say campaign donors, they are not excluded from seeking compensation if they were weaponized.

Senator Chris Coons: Last question, during Police Week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, who had assaulted Capitol Police officers, could receive multimillion-dollar payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund?

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, I share the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to you last week, although none of this was announced last week, so that’s surprising.

Senator Chris Coons: They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund.

Senator Coons is one of many pushing back. Hafiz Rashid (THE NEW REPUBLIC) notes:

The lawsuit filed against President Trump’s $1.667 billion “anti-weaponization” fund has been assigned to a judge already on the president’s bad side.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon will be overseeing the case against Trump’s slush fund too. Leon has previously drawn Trump’s ire not only by delaying the construction of the White House ballroom, but also by striking down the president’s executive order to target law firm WilmerHale.

ATLANTA BLACK STAR NEWS notes:

Republicans called Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing to go after the Southern Poverty Law Center, but Jamie Raskin showed up to talk about something far bigger.

Armed with the Constitution and a list of names he wanted subpoenaed, the Maryland Democrat turned his opening remarks into a full-scale takedown of what he called one of the most corrupt financial schemes the Trump administration has pulled off yet — a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that Raskin argued was nothing more than a taxpayer-funded reward for Trump’s most loyal foot soldiers.

He laid out exactly where the money came from and who he believed was responsible.

“The Trump administration is perpetuating a fraud against America by taking nearly $1.8 billion of our money from the U.S. Judgment Fund and without any legal authorization from Congress, purporting to use it to pay off his once and future private militia,” Raskin said.

Raskin pointed to a damning detail that he said exposed just how legally indefensible the arrangement was — the Treasury Department’s own top lawyer walked out the door the moment the deal went public.

Career IRS attorneys, he noted, had already drafted a memo calling Trump’s underlying lawsuit deeply flawed and urging the DOJ to fight it in court.

Instead, the DOJ handed over $1.8 billion.

He then reached for the 14th Amendment, reading directly from Section 4 to make the constitutional case against every dollar of the fund.

“The United States shall not assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States. All such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

The warning for Jan. 6 insurrectionists expecting a million-dollar payout was delivered without hesitation.

“Everybody who thinks they’re getting a big payoff this week should understand this — this payment is illegal and void. The money belongs only to the taxpayers of America. And we will get that money back,” Raskin said.

Some coverage from the last 24 hours.

This is a big issue. This is a sitting president trying to break the law in front of everyone's eyes. Trying to hand over our tax dollars to insurrectionists. Trying to wall off himself and his family from any IRS investigations. That's him admitting that he and his family can't be audited, that he's scared not only of existing cases prior to his re-election but of new cases since he's started his second term and used the presidency to enrich his own pockets.

Michael Rainey (FISCAL TIMES) notes that the slush fund "also brings all investigations by the IRS into Trump and his family and businesses to a permanent halt. That would mean that a long-running investigation into Trump’s taxes will be shut down, eliminating the risk that he could be hit with a massive bill for back payments and penalties" and that this could save Chump $100 million in current investigations from before the 2024 election. Rainey also notes:

Trump said the fund was going to be used to reimburse people for the legal costs associated with what he called abuse by the Obama and Biden administrations. “People were destroyed, they went to jail,” Trump said. “Their families were ruined, they committed suicide.”

Trump added that the reimbursement costs were “peanuts” compared to the value of lives he said had been destroyed.

So Chump will be supporting reparations for slavery since slavery destroyed people, they went to jail, they were tortured, they were murdered, they committed suicide, families were ruined. So that must mean Chump will be urging Congress to do reparations for slavery, right?

No? He only cares about his cult members who broke the law and tried to overthrow the republic? Yeah, that's Chump for you.

Alex Woodward (INDEPENDENT) speaks with "UC Berkeley Law professor Brian Galle, a former federal prosecutor with the Justice Department’s Tax Division."

Federal law prohibits the executive branch from requesting — “directly or indirectly” — that the IRS terminate investigations into any taxpayer, let alone the president. “It says what the president did this week was a crime,” said Galle, the UC Berkeley Law professor.

That statute also requires IRS officers and officials who receive those requests to report them to the Treasury Department's inspector general, the agency’s independent watchdog. Failure to do so can result in criminal prosecution.

Get it? Federal law prohibits what Chump and Blanche are proposing. Prohibits it.

We noted various Democrats above who were rightly objecting to the slush fund but we also included a video noting Republican Senator Mitch McConnell was objecting to it. Last night in "Something we should all be able to agree on," Betty noted Republican Senator Thom Tillis was objecting to the proposal. Luke Broadwater (NEW YORK TIMES) reports:

For much of President Trump’s time in office, Republican lawmakers have had little appetite to stand up to his brand of vindictive politics.

Through revenge primary campaigns, bullying social media posts and the threat that he can command the G.O.P. base to go after anyone at any time, Mr. Trump has brought lawmakers in his party under his control like no president in modern history. A single critical word against Mr. Trump or his agenda could result in a full-scale retribution campaign to force a disloyal Republican from office.

But this week, in a rarity in G.O.P. politics, Mr. Trump’s taunts, bullying and threats have backfired, at least for now. Senate Republicans, after the president targeted two of their own, stood up to Mr. Trump on two of his biggest priorities: money for his White House ballroom, and a $1.8 billion fund to reward Trump supporters who claim political persecution by Democrats, such as the rioters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops?” said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky. “Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick.”

Michael Gold (NEW YORK TIMES) adds:

When Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, arrived at the Capitol on Thursday to meet with Republicans questioning the Justice Department fund that President Trump has said he wants to use to pay people who claim to have been unfairly targeted by the government, he may have expected a few strident complaints.

Instead, what unfolded in an ornate room just off the Senate floor on Thursday morning was a two-hour blowup in which dozens of Republican senators vented their anger and concern about the president’s fund at Mr. Blanche.

They questioned its legal basis, whom it would pay and how the process would work. And they made it clear they wanted no part of the plan, the product of a deal struck between Mr. Trump’s lawyers and his own administration to use money that Congress does not control to pay off purported victims of government mistreatment, potentially including some of the rioters who violently assaulted their workplace during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

By the end, Republicans were so livid that party leaders scrapped planned votes on the party’s top priority — a $72 billion immigration crackdown measure it had planned to muscle through before Memorial Day — punting action for fear of having to cast votes on the fund.

Let's wind down with this from Senator Dick Durbin's office:

During his opening statement at a nominations hearing, Durbin also denounced the Trump loyalists appearing in Committee today including two circuit nominees, nominee to be Inspector General in DOJ

WASHINGTON – During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee nominations hearing, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, criticized the Trump Administration’s misuse of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of January 6 insurrectionists and Trump’s political allies through a nearly $2 billion Department of Justice slush fund.

Today’s nominations hearing includes Benjamin Flowers, to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Matthew Schwartz, to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and, Don Berthiaume, Jr., to be Inspector General in the Department of Justice. During his opening statement, Durbin also denounced the lifetime nominations of Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Flowers. Mr. Schwartz continues to represent the President in two pending cases. That includes the appeal of a New York State jury verdict finding President Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, stemming from a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Mr. Flowers filed a Supreme Court amicus brief supporting the President’s unconstitutional attempt to limit birthright citizenship.

Key Quotes:

“Imagine if Joe Biden went this far [with a DOJ slush fund]. Would we have a hearing in the Judiciary Committee? I certainly know we would and you do too. Will there be a hearing in this Committee when it comes to this new slush fund which [stated] ‘forever bar[red] and preclude[d] from prosecuting or pursuing… claims against President Trump, related individuals—including, without limitation, family and filing jointly.’ It’s a get-out-of-jail free card forever.”

“Just last week, the President posted another rant on social media, lambasting judges who had the audacity to follow the law instead of catering to his whims. After claiming his Supreme Court appointees have ‘shown so little respect’ because they ruled against him, President Trump said federal judges should ‘be loyal to the person that appointed them.’ In fact, judges take an oath that they will administer justice ‘without respect to persons’ and ‘will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties…under the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ Nowhere in the oath does it say that judges are beholden to the president who nominates them.”

“Nonetheless, President Trump continues to nominate his personal attorneys to serve as judges. Matthew Schwartz, who we will hear from this morning, is the third personal attorney of President Trump who he has nominated to a circuit court seat, following the nominations of Emil Bove and Justin Smith.”

“For aspiring judges not lucky enough to become one of the President’s personal attorneys, they can jockey for President Trump’s support in another way: supporting his baseless legal arguments. Benjamin Flowers, who is also before us today, fits that bill. In one amicus brief, he challenged Pennsylvania’s administration of the 2020 election. Why? Because President Trump lost the popular vote in Pennsylvania and was trying to overturn the results.”

“President Trump is disappointed in the Supreme Court Justices he appointed during his first term. While they are reliable and conservative, they occasionally rule against him. For Donald Trump, this is an unforgivable act of disloyalty. So, in his second term, he demands that his appointees bend a knee, kiss the ring, and demonstrate their blind loyalty to him. President Trump is now putting forward nominees who have shown that they are willing to ignore the rule of law so long as they follow his agenda.”

“That is in direct conflict with what is required of federal judges. We should have confidence that jurists will be neutral arbiters who rule without fear or favor. But I am deeply concerned that President Trump tapped today’s nominees because he believes that they will ‘be loyal to the person that appointed them.’”

Video of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.

Audio of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.

Footage of Durbin’s opening statement is available here for TV Stations.

-30-

And with this from THE BLACK COMMENTATOR:

BlackCommentator.com

May 21, 2026 Issue 1088