(Source)

The push comes days after:

Trump told the Attorney General to prosecute his enemies "NOW"

The Trump-appointed US Attorney decided there was no case against Comey

Then FBI Director Comey conspired with Democrats to protect Hillary Clinton and violate Federal law.

Investigate. Indict. Prosecute. Incarcerate.

Still the Right Answer

But Trump doesn't like it when someone talks about him in such a way. So Trump is setting out to ruin a man's life because he hurt Trump's feelings.

This is why Comey is being indicted.

But my question is:

Does Trump understand that to prove that Comey lied... all of Comey's investigation will be reviewed? Does he know that to prove himself innocent,Comey will have to present the evidence that Russia interfered in the election. This whole thing could backfire in Trump's face.

But why didn't get in trouble over Comey's evidence? Comey, a conservative, felt that the president of the United States could not be arrested for committing crimes while he was president. Comey started the whole "presidential immunity" theory.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 29, 2026

Heather Cox Richardson

May 30, 2026

This morning, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who just lost his primary after President Donald J. Trump endorsed Republican challenger Ken Paxton, posted:

“An old, but apt fable:

“A scorpion wants to cross a river but cannot swim, so it asks a frog to carry it across. The frog hesitates, afraid that the scorpion might sting it, but the scorpion promises not to, pointing out that it would drown if it killed the frog in the middle of the river. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: ‘I am sorry, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.’”

Cornyn appears to be firing a shot across the president’s bow, and now that Trump has alienated Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and John Cornyn of Texas by endorsing their opponents, there are six Republican senators who may be willing to stop moving in lockstep with him.

Trump’s war on Iran and the rising prices Americans are enduring in its wake are costing him support from all but his most fervent base, and there is no immediate solution that will make those problems go away. As Noah Berlatsky noted in Public Notice yesterday, no matter what he does in Iran, Trump will leave that situation with a loss. “[I]f Trump escalates, people are going to hate him. If he surrenders, people are going to hate him. If he dithers, people are going to hate him. He has no good options,” Berlatsky wrote, “which is why he’s spinning in place, hoping someone, anyone, will rescue him.”

There has been more noise today about how the U.S. and Iran are on the verge of an agreement, but so far it has come to naught. Luke Broadwater of the New York Times reported today that Trump met with advisors for two hours today in the Situation Room to discuss the agreement but came to no decision about it. What did happen today is that officials from both Chevron and Exxon warned that oil inventories are dangerously low, raising concerns about dramatic price spikes.

As Americans sour on Trump’s economy, lawmakers are backing away from his self-aggrandizing plans for a new $250 bill with his face on it for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. While the administration, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, is touting the plan, Scott MacFarlane of MeidasTouch notes that the necessary congressional approval is not forthcoming as lawmakers recognize that releasing a $250 bill raises images of gilded ballrooms and extravagance at a time when Americans are having trouble paying for gas and groceries.

It is currently against the law to put a living president on currency, so it will take an act of Congress to create this new bill. But, so far, only fifteen Republicans have cosponsored a bill to create the Trump $250 bill.

Trump’s other plans for demonstrating his power also took at least symbolic hits today.

Today Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to remove Trump’s name from the building, and from all official materials and signage, within fourteen days and blocked its plan to close for two years. As Chris Geidner of Law Dork explained, Cooper stood firm on Congress’s authority over the Kennedy Center. “Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name,” he wrote, “and only Congress can change it.”

Cooper also found that the board of the Kennedy Center agreed to close it for two years without advice of legal counsel and that Matt Floca, the Kennedy Center’s executive director and chief operating officer since Trump appointee Ric Grenell left, “had served in the role of Kennedy Center Executive Director for all of a few minutes before suggesting that the institution be shut down for years.”

Yesterday, Trump’s Freedom 250 organization, which he set up to compete with the bipartisan America 250 celebration of the nation’s birthday, announced that nine musical artists would perform at a sixteen-day “Great American State Fair” it was sponsoring on the National Mall. By today, most of the performers had pulled out after realizing that they had not been invited to be part of the nonpartisan America 250 but instead had been invited to Trump’s personal version of the anniversary celebration.

Dan Lamothe and Alex Horton of the Washington Post reported today that Trump is working hard for a certain kind of vibe at another Freedom 250 event: his Ultimate Fighting Championship matches at the White House for his 80th birthday on June 14. They reported that the Pentagon is trying to recruit hundreds of troops to show up to watch the matches in their uniforms. In addition to paying for their own travel, those military personnel must meet height and weight requirements.

U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia Leonie M. Brinkema temporarily stopped the Department of Justice from creating or operating the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, the $1.776 billion slush fund the administration created to pay off those convicted of committing crimes to help President Donald J. Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The administration cannot transfer money to the fund, consider any claims for payments from it, or pay out any money from it.

Louise Radnofsky and Lydia Wheeler of the Wall Street Journal report that those challenging the fund are people and entities prosecuted or threatened by the Trump administration. The plaintiffs say the government is not treating them on a par with Trump loyalists as worthy of compensation for government “weaponization.”

Brinkema has scheduled a hearing on the case for June 12.

This afternoon, yesterday’s request by thirty-five federal judges that U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams reopen the legal case Trump, his oldest sons, and the Trump Organization had brought against the IRS bore fruit. Although the Trumps dropped the suit, the Department of Justice used it as justification for the establishment of the $1.776 billion slush fund to pay off those who claimed the country’s legal system had been “weaponized” against them because they were convicted of crimes related to their actions to help Trump overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Today Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to the judges’ filing by June 12 and to address the judges’ claims that the two sides in the case—the Trumps on the one hand and the Internal Revenue Service, which Trump oversees, on the other—were not in fact adversaries in the case.

Josh Dawsey, Sadie Gurman, and C. Ryan Barber of the Wall Street Journal reported that more than a dozen Republican senators have privately asked Trump advisors to get rid of the slush fund, suggesting it will be hard to defend on the campaign trail before this fall’s midterm elections.

As the courts and the American people challenge Trump, he is lashing out. He responded to the judge’s order to take his name off the Kennedy Center with a long social media screed in which he insisted that he alone was “saving a dying Performing Arts Center” and said he would “transfer this failing Institution back to” Congress, although of course it was never his to command.

“There has never been a President of the United States who has been treated so unfairly by the Courts as I but, that’s OK, I will continue to do, what is considered to be, a great job for the wonderful people of our Country.” Then, in another long screed, he complained that the New York Times “is doing everything possible to criticize the magnificent restoration of the Reflecting Pool.”

But as Trump lashes out, his loyalists are working to consolidate their power.

The Office of Management and Budget, overseen by director Russell Vought, who was instrumental in the construction of Project 2025, has proposed a sweeping change in federal rules that would put Trump’s appointees in charge of billions of dollars of federal grants. According to Ryan Quinn of Inside Higher Ed, the change would empower Trump’s appointees to kill grants that aren’t aligned with Trump’s priorities. That includes grants awarded to universities through the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Earlier this month, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) president Sally Kornbluth said that federally funded research at MIT is down 20% compared to last year. “That is a striking loss for one of the most influential and productive research communities in the world,” she said. The number of graduate students MIT takes on will also drop by about 20%, or about 500 fewer.

As Erica Orden of Politico reported yesterday, in the case of the firing of former FBI director James Comey’s daughter Maurene Comey from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Karen Lesperance, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, told Judge Jesse Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the government’s position is that Trump has the power to fire anyone, even if he is doing so for political reasons. When Furman asked if there were any limits to that power—could he fire people to create an “all-white executive branch? Or all-Black?” he asked—Lesperance avoided the question.

Comey’s lawyer said the Justice Department’s position was a “novel and breathtaking theory about the scope of” presidential power.

Trump and his loyalists have tried for months now to get control of state voter lists but have lost repeatedly in court, since the Constitution establishes that states run elections. Today the United States Postal Service has proposed that it will send mail-in ballots only to voters who are registered with the federal government.

As Jacob Knutson and Jim Saksa of Democracy Docket note, this “would represent a massive expansion of federal control over voting, without congressional authorization.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

Ghost was having a discussion with his mom earlier where he was telling her how Trump sent the Secret Service after Comey for posting the 8647 picture. His mom, trying to figure this out, said "I know 86 is throwing someone out, but what's the 47?" To which Ghost explained that Trump is currently the 47th President.

The thing is, she went straight to that. She was very familiar with the term for throwing people out. Which is consistent with the Webster's Dictionary entry and with the bulk of entries on Urban Dictionary going back 20 years. Then she was shocked when Ghost explained that Trump claimed it was an assassination threat.

86 seems to be pretty consistently understood by everyone to be about removal.

Everyone except MAGAts.

And I just... refuse to believe that they are living in such a radically different alternate universe that they have a completely different understanding of this term. But if they know the actual meaning... that means they're lying.

The ones who know the meaning of the word and are going along with it, repeating the Regime's talking points, are overtly lying. They're maliciously trying to gaslight you into not trusting what you know to be true. But the ones who have heard of this and aren't commenting on it, choosing silence, are lying by omission. They're aware that their side is pushing lies, and they are okay sitting back and letting it happen. Either because they don't care as long as they can hurt the other side, or because they're pathetic cowards afraid of what their MAGAt peers would think of them if they dared speak out against the cult.

Both the loud MAGAt echoing the lies and silent MAGAt allowing them to spread are still aiding in the disinformation.

If MAGA supporters truly value free thinking and going against the mainstream as they occasionally pretend to, it should be no small matter for those who know what 86 means from their own life experiences to speak up against the lies other MAGAts are spreading when they claim it's an assassination threat.

To not speak up against the disinformation makes you complicit. If not from malice, then from cowardice.

And I don't know which I have less respect for.

Not “approved the wrong draft.”

Not “approved it but the transcript got lost.”

No.

They straight-up skipped the entire indictment step and hoped nobody would notice.

The government forgot the literal requirement for an indictment.

Having an indictment.

If this wasn’t happening in real life, you’d assume it was a satire about a collapsing empire.