<....His attorneys have already been sanctioned by fines, he added. If they repeat their misconduct, they can be fined “more heavily and even threatened with being found in contempt and possibly be jailed.”

“Trump’s lawyers are acting unprofessionally and apart from Judge Engoron’s sanctions may be subject to an investigation and discipline by New York’s disciplinary authorities which could result in suspension of their license and even disbarment,” Gershman said.

But delay tactics can often be “effective” too, Alexander pointed out. Under certain circumstances, the opposition gets worn down by the “very tedious nature of the battle”.

“Delay tactics can have a tendency to dissuade the opposition, or get people to just give up,” he added. “Defense attorneys are basically saying, 'we're playing the long game, and we're going to wear you down.'”

That tends to be more effective in the private sector than the public sector though, Alexander said, explaining that when the government has a track record of persistence, that's "less likely" to be an effective approach.

Trump himself has continued to maintain his image as a victim of a "witch hunt" — delivering speeches outside the courtroom and using his 2024 presidential campaign to send out email blasts referencing the ongoing legal battle.

“I just left the courthouse for the first day of my unjust trial in New York,” his first email said. It ended with a request to make a contribution “to peacefully DEFEND our movement from the never-ending witch hunts.”

In front of reporters, Trump has complained that the judge has “already made up his mind” and should be “disbarred.”

“This is a judge that should be out of office,” Trump told reporters. “This is a judge that some people say could be charged criminally for what he’s doing. He’s interfering with an election, and it’s a disgrace.”

While the Trump team’s tactics may be focused on fighting the case on appeal, he doesn’t stand a chance of being successful, Gershman predicted.

“There is no chance that Trump and his co-defendants will be successful at trial or on appeal,” he said. “The attorney general’s case presents overwhelming evidence over many years of dishonesty, fraud, and self-dealing.”

Alexander agreed and added that he doesn’t think “you can take odds on the appeal at this point” since the legal record is being made and “the facts are in dispute.”

“For a court order to be reversible, the appellant has to demonstrate that an adverse consequence has arisen from the order,” he said. “The trier of fact is going to decide whether former president Trump’s conduct was illegal.”>

<A hearing on Monday in United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan's courtroom could have a wide-ranging impact on Donald Trump's other trials depending on whether a limited gag order is broadened at the request of special counsel Jack Smith.

According to MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner, the courts -- so far -- have been granting the former president great leeway in what he has said about the judges overseeing his multitude of criminal cases as well as his attacks on prosecutors and investigators.

Depending on the severity of Chutkan's ruling -- which could ban him from inciting his followers at rallies and on his struggling Truth Social platform \-- other judges could feel free to clamp down on the former president's out-of-court shenanigans.

As Kirschner writes, "Regarding court-imposed limitations on a defendant’s speech, in 1991 the Supreme Court made it clear that courts can restrict extrajudicial statements that pose a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” a judicial proceeding without running afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees."

He then notes that Trump has been given more than enough rope by judges who have balked at making controversial rulings fearing the appearance of bias.

"I cannot recall ever seeing a defendant on pretrial release in a felony case threaten the life of a witness — or, in Trump’s case, suggest that a witness should be executed — and remain on pretrial release," he argues. "The judicial system’s casual treatment of Trump’s unending threats, harassment and intimidation of witnesses is as perplexing as it is alarming." Accordingly, he says Chutkan has the opportunity this week to end the "kid-gloves" treatment of the former president.

"Will the courts continue to leave him free to endanger witnesses and poison jury pools? Or will they begin treating him the way they tend to treat those without power, wealth and influence and hold him accountable for his extraordinarily dangerous and damaging rhetoric? Our criminal justice system is being tested — now it must rise to the challenge," he argues.>

<Defense attorneys, prosecutors and the judge in the trial of Donald Trump co-defendants Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro went head-to-head Monday in an effort to figure out what potential jurors in the case can be asked, the Associated Press reported.

Powell and Chesebro, along with former President Donald Trump, are accused of conspiring to overturn the result of the 2020 election.

"Lawyers for Powell and Chesebro met with prosecutors and the judge overseeing the case to hash out what will be asked on a lengthy questionnaire when the first group of 450 prospective jurors arrives at the courthouse on Friday," the AP's report stated.

"Whether that should include questions about their opinions about potential witnesses, the other defendants and issues that go to the heart of the case dominated that discussion."

Among the questions that the judge and lawyers debated were if jurors could be asked if they believe Trump and his associates are guilty – questions that would not be asked at a normal trial.

"Defense attorneys also wanted to include a string of questions about whether potential jurors believe Trump and his associates tried to steal the election and what they think about people who spread misinformation or tried to help overturn the election," the AP wrote.

"Bernick argued those questions were basically meant to test defense theory and see what jurors are receptive to before putting on their case. Chesebro attorney Scott Grubman said he could see why such questions might be barred in a normal case, but he argued that this case is unprecedented and “has no parallels in American or Georgia jurisprudence.”

"McAfee seemed unconvinced, saying the questions seemed to cross a “hard line in the sand” against asking prospective jurors whether they think someone is guilty or not.">

<Democratic voters in Wisconsin hoping to undo Republican-drawn legislative district maps told the liberal-controlled state Supreme Court on Monday that it should create new maps by March — forcing every lawmaker to stand for election under redrawn lines in 2024.

“The current maps are unsalvageable,” attorneys for the voters argued.

But Republicans who control the Legislature countered that Democrats were exercising “raw political power” and trying to take advantage of the new liberal majority on the court to overturn its 2021 ruling that adopted the current maps.

“A change in this Court’s membership cannot justify overturning that precedent,” attorneys for the Legislature wrote in legal filings. Oral arguments are set for Nov. 21.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has intervened on the side of voters asking the court to toss out the Republican-drawn maps, widely seen as among the most gerrymandered in the country, and draw new ones ahead of the 2024 election.

Republicans have been in majority control of both the Wisconsin Senate and Assembly since 2011. During that time, they have enacted a wide range of conservative priorities. They have all but eliminated collective bargaining for public workers, and since 2019 they've been a block on Evers' agenda. Republicans are also just two seats short of a supermajority that would allow them to overturn Evers' vetoes.

New maps favoring Democrats would weaken Republicans' grip on legislative power, which they have also used in the Senate to fire Evers appointees and to threaten impeachment of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz and the state's elections leader.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos continues to threaten impeachment of Protasiewicz after she refused to step down from the redistricting case. Impeachment has drawn bipartisan opposition and two former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, asked by Vos to investigate the possibility, told him it was not warranted. Vos last week suggested he would pursue impeachment if Protasiewicz votes to throw out the Republican maps.

Republicans have argued Protasiewicz has pre-judged the case based on comments she made during the campaign calling the current maps “unfair” and “rigged.”

Those comments “invited” the filing of the current lawsuit, the Legislature argued in its latest filing with the Supreme Court. If Protasiewicz overturns the court’s earlier ruling adopting the Republican-drawn map, that will be evidence of unconstitutional “prejudgment and bias,” the Legislature argued....>

<.....Protasiewicz, in her decision not to recuse from the case, said that while stating her opinion about the maps, she never made a promise or pledge about how she would rule on the case.

The redistricting lawsuit, filed the day after Protasiewicz joined the court in August and flipped majority control to 4-3 for liberals, asks that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election next year in newly drawn districts. In Senate districts that are midway through a four-year term in 2024, there would be a special election, with the winners serving two years. The regular four-year cycle would resume again in 2026.

The Legislature argued that the court should give it time to draw new maps and not rush to enact something any sooner than the 2026 election.

Wisconsin's redistricting case centers on whether the current districts are not contiguous and if they violate the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

The majority of current legislative districts — 54 out of 99 in the Assembly and 21 out of 33 in the Senate — violate the state constitution's contiguity requirement, attorneys challenging the maps argued Monday.

That makes Wisconsin an outlier nationally, with 46 other states having no noncontiguous districts, and Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Tennessee having a total of nine noncontiguous districts, attorneys argued.

Wisconsin's redistricting laws, backed up by state and federal court rulings over the past 50 years, have permitted districts under certain circumstances to be noncontiguous, attorneys for the Legislature argued. Even if the court decided to address the issue, it could only affect alleged areas where districts aren't contiguous and not upend existing district lines, Republicans argued.

Those seeking new maps contend that the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it adopted the Republican-drawn map that Evers had previously vetoed, “improperly seizing powers for itself the Constitution assigns to other branches.”

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.>

<NBC News reporter Garrett Haake revealed that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) can count on at least one no-vote from his Replican [sic] colleagues when it comes to the speaker nomination ballot.

Speaking to Rep. Carlos A. Giménez (R-FL), Haake asked whether he's changed his position from the start of the overthrow of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). Republican Rep. Ann Wagner (MO) was sarcastically mocked for her "backbone of steel" after she said on Thursday she would not support Jordan – but caved in on Monday.

"I’m in the same place I’ve always been," said Giménez. "I’m backing Kevin McCarthy. ...I’m not going to be participating in a coup. Lately, I’ve been having real problems with Jim Jordan."

Giménez's characterization of a coup at the hands of Jordan and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) comes as Jordan is being accused of being part of the 2020 attempt to overthrow the U.S. election.

Jordan refused to answer a subpoena to be interviewed about his involvement in the Jan. 6 attack and the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election.>

<Great news, America. Criminal defendant and leading GOP presidential primary candidate Donald Trump has something new to whine about – a partial gag order placed on him by the federal judge in his election interference case.

If you thought Trump’s yearslong journey to become the sorest of sore losers by ceaselessly braying about the 2020 presidential election he lost was growing tiresome, just you wait. Monday’s order provides fresh fodder for his persecution cannon, which I’m sure will be red hot from firing as the former president processes the fact that he, like anyone facing criminal charges, can’t freely intimidate witnesses, prosecutors or court personnel.

In issuing the order, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said: “Mr. Trump can certainly claim he’s being unfairly prosecuted, but I cannot imagine any other case where a defendant is allowed to call the prosecution ‘deranged,’ a ‘thug’ or anything else.”

She added: “His political campaign does not give him carte blanche to vilify public servants for simply doing their job.”

With a partial gag order in place, imagine the rage Donald Trump will spout

Setting aside the remarkable fact that a federal judge sees credible concerns that the far-and-away front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination is attempting to intimidate witnesses and prosecutors in his own criminal case, consider the way we’d expect Trump to respond to Chutkan’s decision.

Something along the lines of: “A CRAZY RADICAL LEFTIST MARXIST TRUMP-HATING ‘JUDGE’ has now totally violated my CONSTITUTIONAL rights by issuing a ‘gag order’ on me in what everyone knows is ELECTION INTERFERENCE led by Crazy Joe Biden and his boss, Barack HUSSEIN Obama. FIGHT BACK!”

I made that all up, but would you be surprised if Trump wrote something similar? And if you wouldn't be surprised, doesn't that suggest we're facing a serious problem?

Immediately after the ruling, Trump posted on Truth Social: "A TERRIBLE THING HAPPENED TO DEMOCRACY TODAY – GAG ORDER!" and "WILL APPEAL THE GAG ORDER RULING. WITCH HUNT!"

There's little doubt the angry rants will get worse.

Be honest Republican voters. Is Trump really what you want?

Trump learns criminal defendants can't threaten witnesses or prosecutors

Prior to the gag order, Trump had labeled special counsel Jack Smith “a crackhead” and called him “psycho.”

In August, Trump posted what prosecutors viewed as a threat against witnesses, writing: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”

And in a Sept. 22 post on Truth Social, Trump accused retired Gen. Mark Milley, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now a witness in the election interference case, of treason and suggested that he should be executed.

Prosecutors, in their filing requesting a gag order, wrote that “no other criminal defendant would be permitted to issue public statements insinuating that a known witness in his case should be executed; this defendant should not be, either.”

Judge muzzles Trump: McCarthy booted from House speaker, Trump gagged. The Republican Party is an unserious mess.

How long will it take Trump to violate the new partial gag order?

Trump will squeal desperately and claim his free-speech rights are being trampled, but even a low-functioning mollusk would know that’s nonsense.

Trump was president, true. He isn’t anymore.

Trump is running for president, true. But that doesn’t give him the freedom to say whatever the hell he wants about people involved in the multiple criminal cases in which he faces 91 state and federal felony charges.

I’m not above the law, you’re not above the law and Trump, sad as it may be for him to learn, is not above the law.

But at least now he has some new material to work with. When your very essence is defined by aggrievement, a legal setback provides fresh paint for your victimhood self-portrait.

Let’s see how long it takes the whiner in chief to violate the judge’s gag order. I’m guessing it comes in 3, 2, 1 …>

<The battle for the Senate is ramping up a little more than one year before Election Day, with candidate and primary fields getting more settled by the month.

Democrats remain hopeful of their chances to keep hold of their slim majority despite a difficult map for the party in 2024, but Republicans have prime opportunities to knock off incumbents and pick up seats in states won by former President Trump in the 2020 and 2016 presidential elections.

Here are the top five Senate races to watch at this point.

West Virginia

No matter how you slice it, the road to reelection for Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — if he decides to run — is a treacherous one as the political universe awaits word on whether he will seek a third full term in the Senate.

The West Virginia centrist is expected to decide either late this year or shortly before the January filing deadline, just as he did in 2018.

He faces an uphill climb no matter how you look at it. Not only would he be running in a presidential year that could see Trump — who won the state by 39 points in 2020 — atop the ballot for Republicans, but he would likely be doing so against sitting Gov. Jim Justice (R).

All of that is a recipe for trouble, which Democrats readily acknowledge even though they refuse to discount Manchin’s ability to connect with the electorate.

“West Virginia is the one that … worries us the most,” said John LaBombard, a former top aide to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and a Democratic strategist with ROKK Solutions. “It’s hard for anyone to make the decision to run again when the path is so challenging. Even for Sen. Manchin, it would be a challenging path.”

“I would not count him out,” LaBombard cautioned. “I think people make the mistake of betting against Manchin.”

According to a survey taken last month, Justice holds big leads over Manchin in a general election match-up and Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.) in the primary, and Republicans could not feel more bullish about him.

“Justice is a juggernaut,” one GOP operative said, wishing those challenging him “good luck.”

Montana
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is awaiting his eventual GOP challenger in a push for a fourth term next year, with questions surrounding whether Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) will end up launching a second consecutive bid for the seat.

Tester faces many of the same potential issues as Manchin: a tough environment with Trump atop the GOP ticket and a deep red state that forces him to rely on the support of independents and some Republicans on top of his Democratic base.

The big difference for Tester is the unpredictability of his GOP opponent.

National Republicans have thrown their full weight behind businessman Tim Sheehy, who they argue is uniquely set to take on Tester. But in order to do that, he’ll have to defeat Rosendale — if the conservative follows through with a statewide run that he’s been teasing for months.

Political watchers argue that time is running low on Rosendale to launch a bid, especially considering that Sheehy has been up on the airwaves since July.

“Is he ever actually going to announce?” the GOP operative said. “Like, what are we doing here?”

Adding to the questions is Rosendale’s latest dalliance with the political spotlight after it emerged that he clamored for a small House GOP majority — angering many Republicans — and voted with seven others to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from his post.

Rosendale’s battles with McCarthy have not helped his fundraising. He posted a paltry $334,000 in the third quarter, a total dwarfed by both Tester, who raised more than $5 million, and Sheehy, who raised $2.8 million.

Rosendale has signaled he believes he has time to make a decision. He said in a recent interview that he is ready to greenlight a run as late as the state’s filing deadline in March.

“We’re still making considerations. … I’m pleased [with] the support that I have across the state. I can’t ignore that. But it’s a very big decision,” he told The Hill. “We’ve got plenty of time to make that decision. … I’ve got plenty of time. I mean, I truly do.”....>

<.....Ohio

Rounding out the holy trinity of Senate contests this cycle, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is gearing up for what is expected to be the toughest contest of his career.

Brown won his 2012 and 2018 contests by 6 and 7 percentage points, respectively, but is likely looking at a much closer affair this time around as he grapples with a state that has grown decidedly more red since he last faced the voters.

The incumbent Democrat is doing his part, posting a $5.8 million fundraising quarter, but he is running into major headwinds.

Unlike the last time he ran — in a presidential year when then-President Obama won the state — Brown will have to do the heavy lifting, as Democrats believe it is unlikely President Biden’s operation will devote major resources to the state.

Who Brown will face is a major question.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R), state Sen. Matt Dolan (R) and businessman Bernie Moreno are battling it out for the Republican nod. Dolan and Moreno each reported roughly $4 million raised in the third quarter, including $3 million from their own pockets.

LaRose is the lone non-self-funder on the GOP side, prompting questions over whether he can keep pace with the two financially. None of the three are giving Republicans boatloads of confidence heading into one of the cornerstone contests on the map.

“This is the problem with having a bunch of B- and C-tier candidates,” the GOP operative said.

“Brown will never be comfortable in his election cycle, and he has no right to be comfortable in a state Trump will win by 6 to 8 points,” the operative continued. “But the reality is he’s probably got the best draw of all these super vulnerable candidates no matter which of these three Republicans make it out.”....>

<.....Arizona

Perhaps the most enigmatic Senate contest became a little more clear last week when Kari Lake rolled out her campaign, likely cementing the GOP nomination in the fight for Sinema’s seat.

The main question on the GOP side is whether Lake’s rebrand is real or not. During her launch event early last week, Lake sounded like a different candidate from the one during and after her losing 2022 gubernatorial bid that commonly featured talk about a stolen election and Lake infamously telling McCain Republicans in the state to “get the hell out.”

Instead, she extended an olive branch to Biden’s supporters as she seeks to broaden her base of support.

“I don’t think you’re a threat to democracy. You are a citizen just like me,” Lake said. “And I know you’re struggling as well. We’re all struggling — there’s not a gas pump out there for Republicans and one for Democrats.”

According to sources, some Republicans are buying into it — for now — and cite a more buttoned up operation than the shoestring one she ran in 2022.

“She’s taking that very seriously. She’s focusing on the main thing and sprinting toward victory,” a second GOP operative said, adding that includes building support from Arizonans and “no more virtue signaling” to people in Washington.

A source familiar with strategy at the National Republican Senatorial Committee said that it has not ruled out endorsing her.

However, her path to victory could be much more different if Sinema continues on course with an independent bid against her and Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

“I can’t guarantee anything. It’s crazy,” LaBombard said of a possible three-way race.

Pennsylvania

Unlike any of the other states on this list, the GOP at almost every level has unified behind David McCormick in his second run in as many cycles to take on Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) next year.

McCormick made his bid official last month and has quickly coalesced the party behind him, including the entire delegation of House Republicans and the state party, both of which endorsed him shortly after his announcement. Republicans believe McCormick is a far superior candidate to the one that failed against Mehmet Oz last year and that he has cleaned things up where they needed to be.

“He understands what went wrong last time,” the first GOP operative said. “Casey is better than the average Pennsylvania Democrat, but Dave’s not going to have a resource problem. If he is able to effectively get his message right and not be pulled in too many directions like he was last time, this is a state that’s going to come down to tens of thousands of votes on the presidential level, and we know it’s possible that you can split tickets in Pennsylvania to the degree that he would need to.”

The operative said that McCormick’s ideal scenario is the map that put former Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) across the finish line in 2016: outperform Trump in the suburbs and hold serve where the ex-president is strong throughout the reddest parts of the state.

However, taking on Casey is a massive challenge for Republicans, and one that has not been successful ever since he knocked off former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), formerly the No. 3 Senate Republican, in 2006. The three-term senator has notched resounding victories in each of his reelection bids.

A recent Quinnipiac poll shows this might happen again, with Casey leading by a 6 point margin — 50 percent to 44 percent — over the former Bridgewater Associates CEO.>

He should be warned that Over There, the losing party pays all costs:

<Former President Donald Trump is going on the legal offensive in hopes of winning a payout from the retired British intelligence officer who claimed Trump engaged in "perverted sexual acts."

Trump's lawyers told a London court on Monday that the former president wants to give evidence proving that the claims made against him were false. The two-day hearing on Trump's lawsuit against Christopher Steele and his business, Orbis Business Intelligence, began Monday.

Trump's team is arguing that Steele breached British data protection laws and inflicted "personal and reputational damage and distress" on Trump when he leaked the controversial dossier. The "Steele dossier," which shook Washington when it was made public days before Trump took office in January 2017, alleged that Trump conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election.

Although the claims were viewed as credible at the time because they came from Steele, many of the allegations were never substantiated.

Trump is seeking to prove that the "shocking and scandalous claims" made in the dossier are false, including the allegations that he paid bribes to Russian officials for a blackmail tape of himself with prostitutes in Moscow.

"President Trump brings this case because he seeks vindication of his legal rights," his attorney, Hugh Tomlinson told the High Court on Monday. Tomlinson also famously represented King Charles III, successfully arguing that a British tabloid should not be able to publish the diaries of the then-Prince of Wales.

The legal action across the pond comes as Trump faces a string of criminal and civil charges in the U.S. that have come with costly legal fees for the former president, who has denied all of the accusations against him. Campaign finance disclosures show that Trump, the Republican frontrunner for the 2024 election, burned through at least $42.8 million in the first half of the year, with much of the money being used to cover his legal costs.

The British lawsuit also comes months after Special Counsel John Durham finished his criminal inquiry into the FBI's Trump-Russia probe earlier this year. Durham, who never charged Steele and whose criminal case against Steele's primary sub-source ended in acquittal, found that the FBI lacked the evidence to open a full investigation into Trump.

Orbis is asking for Trump's claims to be thrown out of court, saying that while the dossier was leaked, it was never meant to be published by BuzzFeed and that all copies held by Orbis were destroyed in 2017.

Orbis lawyer Antony White also argued that the lawsuit was "brought for the purpose of harassing Orbis and Mr Steele and pursuing longstanding grievances."

White told the court on Monday that Trump "has a long history of repeatedly bringing frivolous, meritless and vexatious claims for the purpose of vexing and harassing perceived enemies and others against whom he bears a grudge."

Newsweek reached out to Orbis via email for comment.

While Tomlinson acknowledged at the beginning of the hearing that the data protection lawsuit is one of many legal cases Trump is involved in, he added that "None of this is relevant to the question of whether the personal data in question is accurate."

Last year, a federal judge in Florida threw out the lawsuit Trump filed against Steele, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee and 25 other people alleging that they conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign by spreading false information about his ties to Russia.

"Under the guise of 'opposition research,' 'data analytics,' and other political stratagems, the Defendants nefariously sought to sway the public's trust," the lawsuit read. "They worked together with a single, self-serving purpose: to vilify Donald J. Trump.">

<Less than a year ago, his colleagues had to restrain Rep. Mike Rogers as his temper flared and he lunged at Rep. Matt Gaetz on the House floor a little ahead of midnight on the 14th round of failed balloting to pick a new Speaker. Rogers had heard enough from Gaetz, a leader of the effort to keep Kevin McCarthy’s hands off the gavel, and Rogers wanted to put an end to a four-day spectacle that laid bare just how unmanageable the Republican conference had become. Gaetz finally relented, making McCarthy Speaker with the barest of majorities.

But for a long stretch of time that evening, Gaetz held all the power on the House floor as the C-SPAN cameras were rolling. It was precisely that kind of Gaetzian chutzpah that Rogers, a McCarthy ally, feared would become the norm, so he threatened the Florida lawmaker with a walloping that never came.

Fast forward to today, when Rogers’ fears have been proven correct. Gaetz laid in wait most of the year before leading the uprising that booted McCarthy from the job on Oct. 3 with no obvious successor in waiting. An initial attempt to install Rep. Steve Scalise in the role failed, and the Louisiana Republican bowed out. It left establishment-minded Republicans smarting and looking nervously at a bid from Rep. Jim Jordan, a pugilistic partisan. Rogers on Friday told reporters at the Capitol that under no circumstances could he support Jordan, whom Rogers saw as a D.O.A. contender. Rogers went so far as to meet with Democrats to see what concessions Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would need to start the ball rolling toward a coalition government that didn’t include Jordan anywhere near leadership. For a short flash, it looked like Rogers, the chairman of the powerful House Armed Services Committee, would emerge as the leader within his party of anti-Jordan resistance, making Jordan’s rise as short as Rogers’ temper.....>

<....But it appears Rogers has been swayed. He announced on Monday his support for Jordan, noting that Jordan had expressed to him an openness to passing a Farm Bill and a defense spending measure, two Rogers priorities. Jordan, a former Ohio State wrestling coach and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee that’s leading the impeachment efforts against President Joe Biden, also snagged the surprise backing of former holdouts Michael Burgess of Texas and Ken Calvert of California, both senior GOP lawmakers on their committees. Other former “hell no” holdouts like Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri also managed to get to yes by Monday.

Maybe—and it’s a big maybe—Jordan’s bid for House Speaker could get across the finish line after all. Not by finesse, mind you, but by threat. After all, that’s Jordan’s M.O.

He and allies spent the weekend calling through skeptics with a blend of sincere curiosity followed up with stern caution. What took McCarthy two months of behind-the-scenes wrangling and 15 votes on the floor, Jordan is trying to cobble together in mere days with little to trade but vague promises not to shiv colleagues and explicit threats that opposing him will not be worth the vote. As one close Jordan ally put it, “he doesn’t have time for games or finesse.” His isn’t as much a game of persuasion as browbeating. His defenders aren’t wrong when they argue that Jordan wouldn’t be acting this way if his tactics don’t work.

At the moment, Jordan remains short of the 217 votes needed to install him, something even his closest allies concede. The House majority is a delicate and perilous thing, and Jordan as the face of the party isn’t exactly one that wins over the swing voters in suburbs, in book clubs, or PTA meetings. Moderates rightly worry that a partisan zealot could spoil their standing with voters who just want Washington to get out of the way. Moderates are still searching for an alternative.

Even so, Jordan plans to bring his promotion to a full vote on Tuesday. The events will force House Republicans to go on the record with their position on a Speaker Jordan. That implicit threat is part of Jordan’s calculation, one meant to bully holdouts into falling in line; failing to support House Republicans’ endorsed candidate for the top job could split them from not just their colleagues but also donors. It could also be the making of a tangible enemies list enshrined in the Congressional Record. While major donors don’t love Jordan or his Freedom Caucus-style tactics, they are in urgent pursuit of something passing for functionality and normalcy.

Even among the reluctant, there is a begrudging acceptance that, at some point, someone has to wield the Speaker’s gavel. Without anyone in the chair, the House simply cannot do anything more than flick the light switches or refill the water coolers. A standstill House doesn’t seem like that big of a deal for a few days, but it’s approaching the two-week mark, and the legislative paralysis has meant zero meaningful outlays from Washington in the wake of spiraling tumult in the Middle East.

There are plenty of reasons to stay skeptical of Jordan’s ability to rise to Speaker, and then hold onto the position. For one, he faces the same mathematical challenge to reach the magic number of votes to win the job in a chamber with almost zero margin of error. For another, the rule as it stands allows any lone member of the House to call for a vote of no confidence. With 55 Republicans voting against Jordan during Friday’s closed-door conference meeting, there is no shortage of peril ahead of him.

Still, every successful Speakership comes with an incumbent level of risk. During an era when Trumpist impulses and MAGA fantasy double as some version of a governing philosophy, that appetite for risk only increases, and Jordan’s bid reflects that. A Jordan-era House could be one governed with a blend of grievance and paranoia, but one that could spark the far-right elements of the GOP in ways that never quite took hold during McCarthy, Paul Ryan, or John Boehner. The Republican Party has been looking for someone who could match the GOP’s fringiest elements, and Jordan certainly seems primed to service them. He’s still short on votes, but folks like Rogers linking hands—or at least dropping their stiff arms—signals that the party may well be coming to accept the fate ahead, however fleeting it may be.>

<Former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) on Monday envisioned a short House speakership for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), should he gain enough support to win the leadership role.

McCaskill told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace it was “astounding” that House Republicans want to elevate Jordan, who played a key role in Donald Trump’s failed efforts to overturn the 2020 election result, to the top job.

Jordan’s cutting of deals to obtain the speakership would backfire and lead to his removal by the “crazy caucus,” McCaskill suggested in parallel to what happened to ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) two weeks ago.

Jordan was making promises “that will be hard to be kept within the chaos of the Republican caucus,” she claimed.

“I don’t know how long he’ll be speaker,” McCaskill admitted.

“You know, we may be back here again in another month, or two months, and talking about him being removed,” she continued. “They have a huge schism in their party and it is between people who have the same foundational values the Republican Party has always had and the Trump people and never the two are going to mix well.”

“They may paper over it tomorrow but I can’t imagine this is going to bode well for our country over the next six months,” the former senator added.>

<I realize this may be asking a lot, but wouldn’t it be great if so many of our politicians weren’t unscrupulous creeps?

These days, after scanning the headlines about the folks “running” the government, I often feel like I need a shower.

It seems like an almost daily occurrence that a current or former elected official lands in court for one shady misdeed or another. Government corruption almost seems normal.

It shouldn’t be.

Between the alarming attack on Israel this month and the Republicans bungling their House leadership, some of the latest scandals have gotten the amount of attention they deserve.

Republicans fiddle while world burns: Listen up, Republicans. The world is in chaos, so why are you playing stupid games?

Let me refresh you on what’s been happening.

Foreign Relations Committee chair – or foreign agent?

The charges keep coming for Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey. A career politician to his core, Menendez has spent decades in Congress, between his time in the House and now the Senate.

His seniority earned him the powerful position of chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he is now charged with abusing for his personal gain. Menendez had to step down from that role while his case plays out, but he doesn’t appear to be leaving office anytime soon – at least of his own accord.

Last week, Menendez was slapped with additional charges of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent. That is on top of last month's indictment on bribery charges.

Stop and think about that: The (now former) chair of Foreign Relations, a committee that reviews treaties with other nations and votes on all diplomatic nominations, is accused of acting as a foreign agent for hire.

What he’s accused of is extremely serious. Menendez – along with his wife – is charged in part with benefiting the Egyptian government as well as several businessmen in exchange for hundreds of thousands in gold bars and cash. Some of the loot was found at his home – hidden in closets and clothes, which doesn’t seem suspicious at all.

And for good measure, throw in a Mercedes convertible worth more than $60,000, which prosecutors say business executives purchased for the senator and his wife in exchange for Menendez interfering in an insurance fraud case.

It's not the first time Menendez has had a run-in with the law involving bribery charges. In 2017, a federal jury deadlocked on whether to convict the senator, which led to a mistrial.

See a pattern here?

Menendez, according to historians, may be the first sitting senator in U.S. history to have been indicted in two different criminal cases, a distinction no one should strive for.

Not a time for whataboutism

Now, if you’re a liberal, I can bet what you’re thinking: “Well, look at former President Donald Trump!” or “How about Rep. George Santos?”

Trump has been indicted in four criminal cases, as well as a civil fraud case, all of which are unprecedented for a former president (who also is, of course, the leading Republican candidate for president in 2024).

Then there's curious George. Last week, a new indictment alleges Santos stole the identities of campaign donors and used donors’ credit cards as his own personal piggy bank. That comes five months after he was charged with other financial crimes.

It’s really no wonder that his campaign coffers are in arrears.

There’s also the fact that Santos made up his entire résumé. He’s a first-class sleazebag.

Yet, unlike Menendez, Santos is a freshman congressman, one who is unlikely to make it to his sophomore term (assuming voters are paying attention)....>

<.....Menendez had a position of leadership and real power, and Democrats kept promoting him despite earlier warning signs. What Menendez is accused of doing deserves to be scrutinized on its own accord.

What to do with these congressional creeps?

The question remains: What to do with these bad actors?

It’s easy for Democrats to scream and yell that Santos is a disgrace and must go. And Republicans like to do the same to Democrats. For instance, Republicans have called for Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat from New York, to be expelled from the House after he pulled a fire alarm before a key vote to keep the government open. Bowman says it was a "mistake," and his office released a memo in his defense that labeled Republicans as "Nazis."

Regardless, it’s an odd “mistake” for a former school principal to make and a bizarre incident, even if it doesn’t rise to the level of expulsion. But I digress.

The bar for expelling a House member is high, and it has only happened a few times in our country’s history. Of the 15 times the Senate has expelled a member, 14 occurred during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy.

Unfortunately, partisanship often comes before principle. The fact remains that with thin margins of control in the House and Senate, both sides need as many warm bodies as they can get, regardless of how repugnant.

Some New York Republicans have called for the House to expel Santos, although that’s not likely to happen. The same goes for the Senate. Quite a few Democrats have called on Menendez to resign, but they’re not likely to take the matter further.

At the least, Menendez and Santos could be censured by their colleagues and face that embarrassment.

These men deserve their day in court, but I'm less certain they should be roaming the halls of Congress.

The surest way to rid the government of (alleged) weasels is for voters to make sure they don’t get the chance again.>

<Former Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake received another legal loss on Monday, after a judge dismissed her lawsuit where she alleged that "Arizona's use of electronic tabulation systems violated the federal Constitution."

On Monday, a panel of 9th Circuit judges dismissed Lake's lawsuit that she brought alongside former Arizona Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem, claiming that electronic voting tabulations in the state's 2022 midterm election could not be trusted with accurate results.

The dismissal of the lawsuit, which was filed in April, comes after Lake faced several legal setbacks following her loss last year in Arizona's governor race to Democrat Katie Hobbs. Lake has claimed, without any evidence, that the election was stolen from her due to a rigged system of faulty machines and potentially forged or invalid signatures on envelopes of submitted absentee ballots.

"In the end, none of Plaintiffs' allegations supports a plausible inference that their individual votes in future elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation, particularly given the robust safeguards in Arizona law, the use of paper ballots, and the post-tabulation retention of those ballots," the panel of judges wrote. "The district court correctly dismissed the operative complaint for lack of Article III standing."

According to Democracy Docket, Lake's lawsuit argued that "because electronic machines are often connected to the internet and use software that is not publicly disclosed, the machines are inherently vulnerable to cyberattacks and voting fraud."

Meanwhile, Lake has continued to fight against her election loss, filing numerous lawsuits against voting systems and previously claimed that she was "entitled to an order vacating Maricopa County's canvass and Arizona's certification of the results of the 2022 election."

Despite her recent legal woes, Lake announced this month that she was planning to run for the U.S. Senate.

"I'm really tired of watching our politicians retreat from every single important battle. They're cowards. That's how we got into the mess we're in right now because they have surrendered far too many hills," she said at a rally earlier this month. "I am not going to retreat. I'm going to stand on top of this hill with every single one of you, and I know you're by my side as I formally announce my candidacy for the United States Senate."

In a post to X, formerly Twitter last Thursday, Lake wrote, "Our story isn't finished. Not by a long shot. We still have a state to save. I'm running for the United States Senate because our children deserve the same opportunities we got growing up."

Should Lake win the nomination, she will likely face off against Representative Ruben Gallego, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. These two could then find themselves competing against independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who has not said whether she will run.

Newsweek reached out to Lake's press office via email for comment.>

<A federal judge has issued a gag order preventing former President Donald Trump from making critical remarks about prosecutors, the court, or potential witnesses in the run-up to his trial on charges related to election subversion, as per BBC.

This gag order comes with a lot of criticism, especially from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has often rallied for Trump.

Following the gag order from Judge Tanya S Chutkan, the Congresswoman claimed that the decision had allegedly destroyed the First Amendment.

On X, formerly known as Twitter, Greene shared a video of herself, as she explained how the judgment escalated and expressed her frustration with the same.

Marjorie Taylor Greene explains Donald Trump's gag order

On X, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote, "Today, a Democrat judge issued an order gagging President Trump, destroying the First Amendment. The judge made her courtroom the Ministry of Truth."

Greene continued, "She said the case isn't about the court of public opinion, yet she allows the media to sit in her courtroom, the very people who craft public opinion through their headlines and stories. Public opinion matters and President Trump isn't even able to defend himself."

"This entire operation is run by Joe Biden, his political opponent, and nothing more than election interference. This is the weaponization of government! If this can happen to a former President, the only question is, who's next?" concluded Greene.

Greene also shared a video of herself outside the courthouse where the decision was made by Tanya S Chutkan.

In the video, Greene explained the gag order and also claimed that former President Donald Trump was allowed to talk about "Joe Biden and his administration."

The Congresswoman also claimed that Chutkan's orders "make no sense."

Only a few hours before the judgment was made, Greene wrote on X, "I'm here at the Federal courthouse in DC as a member of the Oversight Committee to see if Judge Chutkan is really going to destroy the 1st amendment - free speech rights of former President Trump and leading candidate for President in 2024."

Internet responds to Marjorie Taylor Greene

The Congresswoman's video explaining the gag order and her post about Donald Trump and the First Amendment garnered a lot of attention on the social media platform.

People were quick to oppose and slam Marjorie Taylor Greene as one user said, "Does MTG honestly believe that if she says the same thing over and over again, it will magically become true somehow? Seriously? As usual, Trump got himself in this situation and he has nobody to blame but himself."

"Shut up Marje," wrote one user and another said, "Please let it be you next. 🙏"

One user on X wrote, "Hopefully you're next, MTG," and another said, "The disinformation that you are giving to the public is dangerous and needs to stop. Resign from Congress, Marge. Enough with the lies. Stop supporting an indicted, twice-impeached former president."

Greene continued to face backlash on X, as one user said, "Someone needs to put a gag order on MTG. Her mouth just fuels lies and hate. Never facts nor truth.">

<Failed 2020 Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) lost out on Monday in a bid to ban electronic voting machines in the Grand Canyon State’s 2022 midterms — and an appellate court footnote noted that the pro-Donald Trump Cyber Ninjas audit worked against her claims.

The dismissed lawsuit, which previously led to sanctions against the lawyers who brought it for making “false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions,” was noticed for appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in July. Arguments followed on Sept. 12 and the opinion affirming dismissal dropped just over month [sic] later.

U.S. Circuit Judges Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, Andrew Hurwitz, a Barack Obama appointee, and Patrick Bumatay, a Donald Trump appointee, heard and decided the case. Notably, the appellate court’s opinion was per curiam, written by no judge in particular but on behalf of each of them — and with no disagreement.

Lake’s lawsuit, joined by filed Arizona Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem (R), had asserted that “[j]ust as the government cannot insist on ‘trust me,’ so too, private companies that perform governmental functions, such as vote counting, cannot be trusted without verification.” But the appellate panel flipped that argument on its head by agreeing that “speculative allegations” do not equal standing to sue.

“Plaintiffs’ candidacies failed at the polls, and their various attempts to overturn the election outcome in state court have to date been unavailing. On appeal, they no longer seek any relief concerning the 2022 election, but instead seek to bar use of electronic tabulation systems in future Arizona elections,” the panel said. “We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs’ ‘speculative allegations that voting machines may be hackable are insufficient to establish an injury in fact under Article III.'”

The circuit judges emphasized that Lake’s appeal did not focus on “past harm” and was “limited to potential future hacking.” Nor did Lake “contend that any electronic tabulation machine in Arizona has ever been hacked.”

“Although Plaintiffs contend that the use of electronic tabulation systems denies them a ‘fundamental right’ to vote, they do not allege that the State has in any way burdened their individual exercise of the franchise,” the per curiam opinion continued.

In a footnote pointing to the Cyber Ninjas audit in Maricopa County that confirmed President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win, the panel commented on Lake’s assertion of a “constitutional right to a certain level of accuracy in the Arizona tabulation system,” saying that claim “plainly fails” in this instance.

“Plaintiffs cite the ‘Cyber Ninjas’ hand-count audit of Maricopa County votes in 2020 authorized by the Arizona Senate,” the footnote said. “But, they overlook the audit report’s conclusion that ‘there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official election canvass results for Maricopa County.'”

The judges concluded that the “precise nature of Plaintiffs’ claimed injury is not clear” and that they “simply have not plausibly alleged a ‘real and immediate threat of’ future injury.”

“In the end, none of Plaintiffs’ allegations supports a plausible inference that their individual votes in future elections will be adversely affected by the use of electronic tabulation, particularly given the robust safeguards in Arizona law, the use of paper ballots, and the post-tabulation retention of those ballots,” the court said. “The district court correctly dismissed the operative complaint for lack of Article III standing.”>

<Republican Representative Byron Donalds admitted that the "pressure campaign" waged by some in the GOP aiming to install Congressman Jim Jordan as House speaker has "backfired."

The House GOP has been wrangling over a speaker nominee since Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, was ousted from the speakership in a historic 216-210 vote on October 3 after Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida spearheaded an effort to remove him.

While House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Jordan of Ohio decided to run for speaker, Scalise withdrew from consideration on Thursday, leaving Jordan to be chosen as the new nominee, with 152 votes. However, on Tuesday during the first round of voting, Jordan garnered only 200 votes—17 shy of the required 217 to win the gavel—after 20 Republicans and every Democrat rejected him.

In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Donalds acknowledged that a pressure campaign mounted by other Republicans may have backfired, while answering a question about whether the push for Jordan discouraged some representatives.

"I believe it was, I talked to a couple of members where they felt that was just not what they needed. I don't think that's what we should be doing right now ... I think some of the pressure campaigns have backfired, they have not worked," Donalds said.

Before Jordan's defeat, Donalds took to X, formerly Twitter, to share his endorsement of Jordan.

This comes after it was recently reported that some of Jordan's allies had been trying to intimidate GOP lawmakers who aren't backing the Ohio congressman's bid for speaker.

It was also revealed on Monday that Fox News' Sean Hannity and his team had been emailing House Republicans who aren't supporting Jordan to ask their reasons, while outlining the need to urgently fill the position.

Axios reporter Juliegrace Brufke shared the reported email on X, while adding that some moderate Republicans are "growing increasingly irritated" with allies of Jordan trying to "pressure them" into voting for him.

Donalds' acknowledgement followed statements from Indiana Representative Victoria Spartz and Florida Representative Mario Diaz-Balart condemning Jordan's strong-arm tactics, despite not having the clear backing of the party.

"I truly believe these intimidation techniques ... are not acceptable," Spartz said, via Roll Call. "I didn't like what Kevin [McCarthy] did last time. And I hope Jim [Jordan] is going to change his views on that."

Diaz-Balart told reporters at the Capitol on Monday, "If anybody's trying to get my vote, the last thing you want to do is try to intimidate or pressure me because then I close out entirely."

Newsweek on Tuesday reached out to Donalds and Jordan via email for further comment.>

<Addressing the 1960 Republican Convention after Vice President Richard Nixon acceded to New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s demands to adopt more liberal positions in the party’s platform, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz) addressed his disappointed supporters:

“Let’s grow up conservatives! If we want to take this party back — as I think we can someday — let’s get to work!” To that end, Goldwater articulated a conservative philosophy and built an organization that reached its pinnacle of success during the Reagan years.

But if Barry Goldwater were to be resurrected from the dead, he would be aghast at today’s Republican Party. This month, a querulous group of eight Republicans ended the 269-day speakership of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Instead of acting like grown-ups, who understand that compromising with Democrats who control both the White House and the Senate is essential, this Gang of Eight, in the words of Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa), acted as “chaos agents.”

The childishness of today’s Republican Party is an outcome of our performative politics where outrageous statements generate social media clicks and campaign donations from aggrieved base voters. A recent example came from Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) who emblazoned a large scarlet A on her white shirt after she petulantly voted to oust McCarthy. MSNBC host and legal contributor Katie Phang called Mace’s publicity stunt “performative nonsense.”

The politics of outrage, as perfected by Donald Trump and practiced by would-be Trump imitators, is augmented by general election outcomes that are often predetermined. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), the leader of the anti-McCarthy coup, is in a +19 percent Republican district which provides him with a reelection insurance policy. Taken together, the eight Republicans who ousted McCarthy represent just 1.8 percent of the U.S. population. For them, satisfying the id of their Republican base voters is paramount, while producing successful legislative outcomes and seeking compromise often takes a backseat.

McCarthy’s get along, go along persona is often cited as a reason for what Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) derisively called his “incredibly shrinking Speakership.” In May, McCarthy broke his promise to President Biden to keep discretionary spending “roughly flat” for the coming fiscal year, rescinded COVID spending and imposed new work requirements for SNAP recipients — all in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. The Biden-McCarthy compromise would have avoided a government shutdown and the GOP’s present-day drama over McCarthy’s speakership had the California Republican stuck with it.

Following his decision to keep the government open until Nov. 17, McCarthy told reporters, “There has to be an adult in the room.” And every member of the Democratic minority save one acted as a responsible adult and supported McCarthy’s measure....>

<.....Inexplicably, the next day after calling the vote to keep the government open, McCarthy blamed House Democrats for wanting to shut down the government. Had McCarthy simply lived up to the deal he negotiated with Biden, it is likely that some Democrats would have voted present on the motion to vacate, allowing McCarthy to keep his job. Honoring deals may not be popular with Republican base voters, but it is the coin of the realm in Washington, D.C. To most Democrats and many Republicans, McCarthy’s backtracking meant that he could not be trusted.

The childishness of many House Republicans is only half the problem. Handing control of the party to Donald Trump, and all of the hucksterism and showmanship that came with that decision, has created its own ideological incoherence. Trump’s policy somersaults — and the willingness of most Republicans to go along with them — are mindboggling.

Consider that:

In 1999, Trump declared, “I am totally pro-choice,” only to reverse himself in 2011 telling the Conservative Political Action Conference, “I am pro-life.” Today, Trump is stepping back from his ardent pro-life position, calling a six-week ban on abortion “a terrible mistake.” In 2016, Trump called NATO “a good thing,” only to reverse himself six days later, saying, “I think NATO is obsolete.”

Trump once strongly supported a ban on assault-style weapons only to later call himself “the strongest person running in favor of the Second Amendment.” As Trump revealingly stated at the time, “I’m very capable of changing to anything I want to change to.” Instead of making any pretense at ideological coherence, the governing philosophy of the Republican Party seems to be whatever is good for Donald Trump.

Republican subservience to Trump’s whims and outrageous statements is stupefying. For example, when Trump called for the “execution” of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, the response was muted. Asked if Trump’s comment should be disqualifying, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley meekly answered, “You don’t need to say things like that.” Although President Biden noted that “a majority of Republicans” don’t believe Milley should be executed, he said the party’s silence on the subject was “deafening.”

In many respects, Donald Trump’s Republican Party is undergoing something akin to the primal scream therapy of the late psychologist Arthur Janov. The unhinged cries from distraught Republicans are loud and clear and threaten the stability of our democracy. At a time when the world is in crisis and challenges are mounting at home, House Republicans cannot even perform the mandated tasks of governing.

Taking note of yet another “we’ve never been here before” situation, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wisc.) said: “It does seem like we’ve opened the Pandora’s Box of unrestrained ambition. People feel no loyalty to this institution.”

This is what happens when a major party becomes dysfunctional and cannot govern.>

<Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case are reportedly trying to pollute the jury pool ahead of their impending trial.

The former president's campaign lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro are slated to stand trial this month in Atlanta, with jury selection starting Friday and expected to drag out for weeks because their legal defense team is expected to focus on a paralyzing question, reported The Daily Beast.

"Prosecutors and defense lawyers are trying to settle a fundamental question: How do you agree on a dozen fair-minded jurors when the Fulton County District Attorney claims that every Georgian was victimized by a plot to deny their vote?" wrote investigative reporter Jose Pagliery.

A pretrial hearing Monday demonstrated how difficult answering that question might be, and the pair's attorneys want to conduct a highly irregular "Gallup poll" to survey how potential jurors "feel" about all the individuals who took part in Trump's effort to overturn his election loss in the state, and they want to measure emotional reactions to the ex-president and his allies.

“These are attitudinal type questions," said Powell's attorney Brian Rafferty. "We would be able to use to test if they can in fact be fair and impartial."

However, as Fulton Superior Court judge Scott McAfee reminded them, long-standing rules prohibit lawyers from essentially asking jurors how they would judge a case before they hear any evidence.

“We always had a hard line in the sand... we don’t tell jurors to tell us how you’ll vote,” McAfee said. “Part of the role a questionnaire does is... to hone in on what matters… that doesn’t throw out the general standards you’re allowed to ask jurors, period.”

“We’re not supposed to be asking jurors to give their opinions up front,” the judge added.

The hearing signaled that Trump's co-defendants plan to employ the same disruptive strategies as the former president in his growing number of legal battles.

"I think it would be a mistake for any of us to treat this like a normal case," said Chesebro's attorney Scott Grubman. "I think the realities are really going to have to start sinking in here. This is not an ordinary case. It’s not because of anything we did. It’s because of how they charged it."

However, assistant district attorney Alex Bernick argued that the case's unusual parameters were even more of a reason to stick to the rules and precedent.

“He wants you to disregard the case law just because it’s a high-profile case," Bernick said. "We have to follow the law here.">

<I think I finally understand George Carlin.

He said that when he finally came to a certain awareness about humanity it freed him to make observations as an outsider which made his comedy more relevant.

“I sort of gave up on the human race,” he once said on Charlie Rose’s show. “I gave up caring about the outcome. ... I watch it with a combination of wonder and pity.”

I don’t know about all that, but last week’s activities in the House and the coming week of expected insanity have sent me into regions I never thought I’d visit. I’m right there with Carlin on the “I don’t give a s**t” meter.

The U.S. government stands as a mockery to its intentions, and the disease that was formerly in the White House now runs wild in Congress. This iteration of insanity is harder to handle because there are literally dozens of morons running loose, unfettered, without hope or prayer of finding a sane moment.

When Trump was president, we focused on the disease in one human. Now, we have to deal with the likes of George Santos running down the hallway screaming at imaginary foes. It’s Kevin McCarthy unable to grasp his own irrelevance. It’s Jim Jordan pretending to be an adult male. And it’s so much more.

In order to survive the ongoing dysfunction, I must either stick to a stiff regimen of hallucinogenic psychosis made possible via whatever pharmacological concoction is obtainable — or I can turn it all off.

Divorcing yourself from humanity has some added perks that overdosing on your favorite drug doesn’t — including survival, the ability to maintain rational thought (if you previously possessed it, that is) and the ability to discern and disseminate sarcasm.

You have to wonder if President Biden has come to the same conclusion. When asked by Fox News reporter Peter Doocy last Friday night what worried him most about Israel’s impending ground invasion in Gaza, the president replied in deadpan tones, “Death.”

And some of you folks think this guy has lost it?

Compare that to the rolling peptic tide that spewed from Donald Trump over the past week or so. His claim that Hezbollah was “smart” was only the tip of the iceberg. His trip from relevance to irrelevance is being measured in nanoseconds by the majority of the world. His MAGA maggots haven’t changed; they are what they are.

Late on Friday, the seditionists cornered themselves in the House. Donald Trump squirmed as his last hold on government slowly dissolved in his tiny hands.

Then came a guttural scream. Trump wailed in distress, both hunted and haunted by his own actions. Along with millions of his followers, Trump was holding out for his last hope: the election of loyal sycophant Jim Jordan as speaker.

Beyond here be dragons.

House Republicans have apparently lashed themselves to the mooring of their sinking ship, floundering in a storm of their own making. They are not unlike toddlers sloshing back and forth in the bathtub and crying about the results.

The rambunctious, impetuous and chronically underachieving Republicans, eager to blame everyone else for everything while accepting responsibility for nothing, are busy destroying themselves in public for at least the third time since they took over the House barely nine months ago. The first time was in the ridiculously long and painful election of Kevin McCarthy and the set of rules he had to swallow, which in turn brought about the second GOP self-immolation, when Matt “Zoltan” Gaetz pulled the trigger that booted McCarthy from the job he’d fought so hard to get. Gaetz frolicked in the pungent aroma of his own stench like a dog admiring its flatulence.

But they say “three’s a charm,” so some are crossing their fingers and praying to a big old statue that the GOP gets it right this time. Even so, the only people convinced that the Republicans can or will accomplish anything before next November are also waiting for tickets to Elvis’ next performance.

This is truly crazy, folks. It’s not politics. It’s just self-mutilation and destruction on a larger stage than the Jim Jones electric Kool Aid cyanide test.

Jim Jordan hasn’t passed one single bill through Congress in 16 years. He’s supposed to shepherd legislation? I’m not sure he’s ever read any. Should he become speaker, the government will most likely shut down in mid-November and Ukraine will most likely lose U.S. funding....>

<.....UPDATE: Jordan failed to win the speakership in the first House vote on Tuesday, with 20 Republicans voting against him — far more than anyone expected. He has to win back at least 16 of those renegade votes, so his prospects remain cloudy, to put it mildly.

Of course, that’s exactly what Jordan wants. He didn’t come to town to build anything. He came in a foul stench to tear it all down and piss on it, wearing a tie but no jacket, a perpetual sneer and the general demeanor of a waiter in a cheap diner surviving three-day shifts on speed and coffee.

Any “deals” he makes to get the speakership are irrelevant. The GOP’s so-called “moderates” may fall in line to elect Jordan, giving up their votes both to overt threats from Jordan and to promises that he’ll keep the government open — but trust Jim Jordan at your own risk, guys. He’s not a trustworthy man. His deals mean nothing.

Meanwhile, sources were telling me Friday night that Democrats and Republicans “were actually talking” — but, for God’s sake, about what? Who knows? It was probably about where the nearest weed dispensary was. Twenty milligrams of sativa in a gummy works wonders on most members of Congress, and certainly helps get a staff party started. Those guys need a laugh more than the rest of us — they’re right in the middle of chaos in a blender. And they turned on the blender.

I don’t buy it: I suspect that little actual talk across the aisle is taking place. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said all he needed to say on Friday afternoon, when he spoke about Jordan’s lack of production and overabundance of obstruction.

If a dozen or so Republicans actually wanted to join the Democrats and elect Jeffries as speaker, the Democrats would nod and concede little, while smiling like Cheshire cats.

But if Republicans want any Democrats to support a GOP nominee for speaker, they will have to guarantee funding the government after Nov. 17 and also continued funding for Ukraine’s war effort. The menu of possible Republican speakers doesn’t include much of that, even as a side dish. You don’t see anybody smiling on the Republican side of the aisle.

So there’s considerable incentive for the Republicans to elect Jordan quickly, rather than face a degree of stagnation that offers the Democrats more leverage. It says something that some Republicans who have swallowed as much political sewage as they have in the last few years finally find themselves choking on Jim Jordan. That’s a bitter pill to add to the daily congressional swill. Imagine how low Jordan must be that the other primitive life forms in the GOP have trouble accepting him.

Racism, idolatry, violence, perversion, ignorance and vindictiveness are heavy on the menu at the GOP and like a sounder of swine they lap up the fetid slop with gusto and a hearty cheer that’s humorous to watch — if you can divorce yourself from the sheer human anguish of all this. Apparently that’s also the preferred course of action for many Republican officeholders. They aren’t serving their constituents, only appealing to their fans or, in Jim Jordan’s case, playing to a mirror that says “Caution, objects may be smaller than they appear.” I’m talking about his heart and his head; any other interpretation is on you.

Our system isn’t broken, necessarily. But many people in elected office definitely are, and a lot of those are gathered in the GOP, a party that collects broken people and maniacs much as a landfill collects refuse.

Make no mistake, the Republicans’ inability to govern is apparent to most people — including Republicans themselves.

It’s no huge surprise that Kevin McCarthy is a little slow on the uptake. When CNN’s Manu Raju cornered McCarthy last Friday, he asked the former speaker, “What does this do to your swing district Republicans?”

McCarthy claimed not to grasp the question, asking, “That all the Democrats voted to try to bring chaos?”

Raju corrected him: “That you guys can’t govern.”

That’s it precisely. Even if Republicans somehow came together over the last three days and decided to elect a new speaker, the problems inside the GOP and the House remain deep desert canyons in American politics. And a great many people both in government and among those who observe it closely can see no path through the desert.

The House has been without a speaker for close to two weeks. That’s never happened before in our history.

But the work still has to be done. The rest of us go about our business, trying to take care of our families, working our jobs and paying our bills. Members of Congress refuse to do their jobs, still get paid and pander to trolls to stay in power while loudly slip-sliding away.

If that isn’t a comedy, it’s a tragedy.

You know, a funny thing happened on the way to the Forum ...