<There are plenty of words I could use to describe Elon Musk: power-hungry, transphobic and dangerous are a few that come to mind. But no one can describe him better than his daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who put her estranged father on blast in a special issue of Teen Vogue.

Wilson, a 20-year-old college student studying in Tokyo, has used her social media platform to combat her father’s depiction of her and give voice to her own leftist politics.

The entire interview – Wilson’s second ever – is pure gold. It also shed light on the person Musk is and some of his actions, like the Tesla CEO’s salute during a Trump inauguration event that many believed had some Nazi ties.

“Honey, we're going to call a fig a fig, and we're going to call a Nazi salute what it was,” Wilson said. “That s--- was definitely a Nazi salute.”

It’s telling that one of Musk’s own children – a daughter he repeatedly deadnames and has claimed was “killed by the woke mind virus” as recently as this weekend – is speaking out against her father’s ascent to power within the Trump administration. Sure, parent-child relationships can be complicated (especially for queer youth), but Wilson’s interview is a vital insight into the man taking a chainsaw to the federal government.

She was defiant when asked if she was scared of her father, the richest man in the world.

“He's a pathetic man-child,” Wilson told Teen Vogue. “Why would I feel scared of him? Ohhh, he has so much power. Nah, nah, nah. I don't give a f---.”

In 2024, Wilson publicly responded to her father’s deadnaming her and refusal to see her as a woman in social media posts. On X last year, Musk said that his child was born “gay and slightly autistic,” would pick out clothes for him to wear and loved musical theater.

“This is entirely fake,” Wilson said on Threads, a competitor to X, which Musk owns. “Like, literally none of this ever happened. Ever. I don’t even know where he got this from. My best guess is that he went to the Milo Yiannopoulis school of gay stereotypes, just picked some at random and said ‘eh- good enough’ in a last-ditch attempt to garner sympathy points when he is so obviously in the wrong even in his own f------ story.”

In an interview with NBC News last July following her Threads takedown of him, Wilson explained that Musk was an absent father who berated her for things like speaking with a high-pitched voice.

“He was cold,” she said. “He’s very quick to anger. He is uncaring and narcissistic.”

Wilson isn’t the only person in Musk’s life to stand up to him. Her mother, Musk’s ex-wife Justine, wrote an essay for Marie Claire in 2010 detailing their divorce. In the story, she said she repeatedly had to remind Musk that she was not his employee. She recounted that he'd respond: “If you were my employee, I would fire you.”

Musk has not commented on the claims his daughter and ex-wife have made and did not provide a comment to Teen Vogue. Wilson said she hasn't spoken to her father since 2020.

But doesn’t he seem peachy?>

<....While Musk hasn’t commented on his daughter’s interview, his actions speak for themselves. As Wilson’s cover story dropped last week, he blamed recent vandalism of Tesla dealerships on “trans violence,” claiming that hormone replacement therapy causes “extreme emotional volatility.”

That isn’t just false, it’s dangerous. It paints transgender people as incapable of controlling their emotions and prone to violence, which can open them up to more stigma and harm.

Coinciding with Musk’s rightward shift is his ascent in U.S. politics, as well as a plunging approval rating. On Monday, CNN reported that his favorability among all voters had plunged from +24 to -19 from 2017 to 2025.

Wilson, for her part, shut down the idea that any of Musk’s politics are because of her transition, which began when she was in her teens.

“Him going further on the right, and I'm going to use the word ‘further’ ‒ make sure you put ‘further’ in there ‒ is not because of me,” she said to Teen Vogue. “That's insane.”

Aside from the fact that Wilson is making important points about her estranged father, she also just seems cool – the interview covered everything from "RuPaul’s Drag Race" to "Hunger Games" to the friends she keeps up with on Discord.

It’s another example of teen publications meeting the moment we’re in right now with exceptional journalism that’s thorough, engaging and considerate of all identities. In February, Seventeen launched its rebrand with a cover story on Zaya Wade, 17, the trans daughter of former NBA player Dwyane Wade and stepdaughter to actress Gabrielle Union. In the interview, she talked about dating, her favorite movies and her skincare routine – things that all teenage girls, regardless of gender identity, can relate to.

Clearly, transgender youth are not the villains that the right has made them out to be. These teenagers and young adults are trying to live their lives, just like everyone else their age: applying to colleges, hanging out with friends and obsessing over their passions. The Republican Party wants you to think that these youth are actively harming America with “radical gender ideology.” I think a lot of them are just trying to pass calculus.

The fact that Musk seems incapable of loving his trans daughter for who she is says a lot. A parent’s love should be unconditional; I have learned through my own coming out experience that even if parents don’t always get it right, their vocal support makes a world of difference.

Wilson seems to have this support in her mother, whom she says “pretended to be slightly surprised for 30 seconds” when her daughter first came out as transgender.

It is a scary time for trans people, particularly trans women. Good on Wilson for not letting anyone – even her father – scare her.>

<President Donald Trump issued a fresh round of tariffs on Wednesday as he continues his signature trade policy.

The latest batch, which includes a 25% duty on all cars manufactured outside the U.S., comes ahead of an April 2 deadline for a series of earlier tariffs Trump had delayed.

As the U.S. and its trading partners grapple with the market uncertainty caused by the administration's unorthodox trade policy, budget experts attempt to forecast their impact on the economy and the federal budget. A recent estimate from Congressional Budget Office director Phillip Swagel projects the current tariffs, excluding those set to kick in on April 2, would gross $800 billion in customs duties over the next 10 years.

However, the net impact of that number on the federal budget is harder to gauge. Imposing tariffs in such a hardline manner could have myriad knock-on effects to the economy. Other countries could retaliate against the U.S., thereby hurting U.S. firms that sell their products abroad. U.S. companies could pass along any price increases from sourcing tariffed raw materials to consumers, risking a spike in inflation. And while government revenues would be bolstered by the incoming customs duties, impending tax cuts would lower tax revenue, possibly offsetting those increases.

How exactly this complex web of shifting variables ends up playing out will determine if the U.S. wins the trade war it seems set on undertaking. But that can be a dicey proposition.

The “only way to win a trade war is not to play. There is no victory here,” said Ryan Young at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank.

The new U.S. tariff regime has thrust the country into heightened levels of economic uncertainty, especially as the Trump administration shifts the details of its tariff policy.

“Tariffs is a hard one, because they do change,” CBO director Phillip Swagel said on CNBC Thursday. “Maybe it's not minute by minute, but week by week.”

Since taking office, Trump has twice implemented and then delayed tariffs against Canada and Mexico, two major U.S. trading partners. The on-again, off-again implementation has made it difficult for forecasters to assess the details of upcoming tariffs, or even whether they’ll go into place at all.

There’s also no telling exactly how foreign countries will retaliate to tariffs on their goods. “If you raise tariffs, you can expect retaliation,” Young said.

Several countries hit hardest by U.S. tariffs have already struck back. China slapped U.S. agricultural products like chicken, wheat, and soy beans with tariffs ranging from 10% to 15%. Canada pledged to hit over $100 billion of U.S. goods with tariffs of its own. Mexico also threatened its own round of levies on American products, but has since backed off after the two countries reached an agreement to delay any reciprocal tariffs.

Japanese prime minister Shigeru Ishiba announced “every option” was on the table in order to protect its car industry, which includes Toyota, the world’s largest automaker.

As for the tariffs that have been instituted, they’ll likely have larger macroeconomic impacts beyond just the specific products they hit. The recent auto tariffs could ripple across the economy as U.S. car manufacturers that make their cars abroad would see their costs rise, hiking costs for motorists. It is “unrealistic” to imagine those costs wouldn’t be passed on to consumers, according to Young.

UBS estimates that prices for Ford and GM’s cars could rise between $4,000 to $5,000 per vehicle, according to an analysis published Thursday. For the economy as a whole, rapidly increasing prices, even in just one category, would risk reigniting inflation.

If carmakers were to “face higher costs from tariffs and higher supplier prices, they too would be forced to raise prices which would make vehicles inflationary and push the burden to consumers and businesses,” UBS auto analyst Joseph Spak wrote in a separate note published Wednesday.

Swagel too acknowledged that an increase in the rate of inflation was on the horizon.

Tariffs “reduce the efficiency of the economy, [they] boosts the price level,” Swagel told CNBC. “We don't think it leads to sustained inflation, but there's a period of inflation that has a negative effect on families and on businesses and business investment.”....>

<....Short-term price shocks would hurt consumers and businesses but ultimately leave the broader U.S. economy unharmed over the long run.

"If it was just a one time hit that everyone knew was going to come, and it was done in an orderly fashion, they take the hit and they'd move on," Young said. "They could plan around it, they could adapt."

However, the real danger is if those price hikes were to linger and affect long-term outlooks.

Once the markets start to expect inflation to rise dramatically over a sustained period of time, the economic risks would shift from higher prices to low growth. In essence, businesses and consumers would keep their money parked on the sidelines rather than keeping it circulating in the economy because costs are too high, according to Deutsche Bank senior U.S. economist Brett Ryan. For example, businesses might slow down hiring or struggle with securing new supplier contracts, which are sometimes negotiated years in advance.

That dynamic leads to a “self-fulfilling prophecy,” Young said.

“People [ask themselves] what is inflation going to look like six months from now, a year from now, five years from now,” he said. “And people will sign long-term contracts, make long-term investments based on those expectations…If tariffs provide continuous one-time shocks every time Trump raises one, that's not going to help inflation expectations go down.”

If tariffs lead to lasting price increases the Fed could be forced to scrap its plans for rate cuts. The fact that long term inflation expectations haven’t risen sharply despite the short-term hit to consumer confidence is one of the main reasons the Fed believes the U.S. is not on the verge of a more pronounced economic downturn. Earlier this month Fed chair Jerome Powell said that keeping long-term inflation expectations “anchored,” meaning consistent with current levels, was “at the heart” of the Fed’s current framework for determining its future rate cuts.

Adding to the difficulty is that the Trump administration is currently backing a major Republican tax bill that is currently being negotiated in Congress. That only adds another wrinkle of uncertainty.

“Now if you’re the head of a corporation you're trying to keep up with what the tariff laws are and then on top of that, you don't know what the tax code is going to be,” Ryan said. “So it's like a double whammy of uncertainty that just puts everything on pause. It's hard to act without knowing the rules of the game.”

Ryan pointed out that in Trump’s first administration Congress passed the 2017 tax cuts before it embarked on its tariff regime. This time around the order is reversed.

“It's a very dangerous game to play,” Ryan said.>

<Tesla CEO Elon Musk and political groups he backs are pouring millions of dollars into the race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the electric vehicle company sues to overturn a state law that prevents it from opening dealerships — a case that eventually could make its way to the high court.

Tesla's multiple attempts to open its own dealerships in Wisconsin keep running up against a state law that allows only third parties, not auto manufacturers, to operate them. The company filed a lawsuit in January seeking an exemption, just as two Musk-backed political action committees started supporting the Republican-backed candidate, Brad Schimel, over his opponent, Susan Crawford, who is supported by Democrats.

Musk, who is the world's wealthiest person and is running President Donald Trump's initiative to slash the size of the federal workforce, has given $3 million to the Wisconsin GOP while groups he supports have funneled more than $17 million into the race. The contributions are part of an extraordinary spending spree in the race, making it by far the most expensive judicial race on record in the U.S. Total spending has eclipsed $80 million with days still to go before the final day of voting on April 1.

Schimel's critics have accused Musk of trying to buy a favorable ruling for Tesla should the dealership case make it to the state Supreme Court. Here are details of the law and Musk's lawsuit:

State statutes generally prohibit vehicle manufacturers from owning or operating dealerships in Wisconsin and give that franchise to third parties. The law was intended to prevent manufacturers from undercutting independent dealerships.

Nearly 20 states have similar prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The laws took hold in the 1930s as carmakers started to rely on independent dealerships to sell and service vehicles so they could focus on production. Later, independent dealers wanted to prevent manufacturers from opening their own dealerships and driving them out of business.

Tesla sells its vehicles directly to consumers, who can have their vehicles shipped directly to them or to dealerships in 27 states. Because the company can't set up its own dealerships in Wisconsin, buyers there must have the cars delivered to them or travel to dealerships in neighboring Minnesota or Illinois to pick them up.

Tesla officials have been working for almost a decade to secure an exemption from the law. Republican legislators introduced bills in 2017 and 2021 that would permit Tesla dealerships, but none of those made it out of the Legislature. They inserted an exemption for Tesla dealerships into the 2019-21 state budget, but Democratic Gov. Tony Evers used his partial veto powers to erase the provision.

The Wisconsin Automobile and Truck Dealers Association has been fighting to preserve the law. Bill Sepic, the association's president and CEO, told The Associated Press that Tesla should have to follow the law like any other vehicle manufacturer. He said the statutes exist to enable third parties to act as consumer advocates “in making one of the larger purchases of their life.”

Tesla filed a lawsuit in state court in January seeking permission to open four dealerships in Wisconsin.

The company argues that independent dealers wouldn't meet its standards and says selling vehicles at its own dealerships is in the public interest because unaffiliated dealers' prices are higher and less transparent.

Its lawsuit says that the state law barring manufacturers from running their own dealerships violates economic liberty rights and that the prohibition exists only to protect independent dealers from competition.

The case is pending in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, though no hearings have been scheduled.

The state Justice Department is defending the law. An agency spokesperson declined to comment....>

<....Schimel, the conservative state Supreme Court candidate, is vying with Crawford for an open seat on the high court.

The race is the most significant election nationally since the November presidential contest, providing an early barometer for Republicans and Democrats given the intense interest and outside spending it has generated. It also will determine whether the highest court in the perennial presidential battleground state will flip from liberal to conservative control with major cases involving abortion, union rights and congressional redistricting on the horizon.

Eight days after Tesla filed the Wisconsin dealership lawsuit, Musk tweeted: “Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud!”

To be clear, there has been no evidence of widespread voting fraud in Wisconsin. Democrat Joe Biden's victory in the state over then-President Donald Trump in 2020 was affirmed by a recount and an independent audit. Trump, a Republican, won the state last November and offered no objections then to the voting or ballot-counting.

According to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, Musk-backed groups America PAC and Building America's Future have spent more than $17 million to support Schimel with ads and flyers. The money he donated to the state Republican Party has been used to help Schimel, who has been endorsed by Trump.

Crawford's supporters contend the timing of the contributions show Musk is trying to ensure that Schimel wins and creates a conservative majority on the court that ultimately would rule in Tesla's favor. Crawford said during a debate with Schimel this month that Musk “has basically taken over Brad Schimel's campaign.”

Sepic, president of the state dealership association, said Wisconsin should elect the candidate who enforces the prohibition but declined to comment when asked if he thought Schimel or Crawford would do that.

Schimel has repeatedly said he would treat any case involving Tesla the same as any other when he considers whether to hear it or recuse himself. Schimel also has insisted that the donations from Musk and his groups do not make him beholden to them.

Crawford has said the same thing about billionaires who have donated to her campaign, including George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Soros has contributed $2 million and Pritzker $1.5 million to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which has funneled the money to Crawford’s campaign.>

<Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler shredded Elon Musk on Friday over the billionaire’s since-deleted post claiming he’d give millions of dollars to select voters amid a high-profile state Supreme Court race.

“He knows that that tweet was a crime, and it’s still a crime in Wisconsin law. It is plain as day,” Wikler told Ben Meiselas of the MeidasTouch Network.

“You cannot promise something of value in order to induce someone to vote or refrain from voting. This is Wisconsin statute, and it’s a felony to cross that line.”

Musk took to his X platform, formerly Twitter, early Friday morning to declare that he’d “personally hand over” $1 million each to two people who voted in the state election.

On Friday, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) filed a lawsuit against Musk and his America PAC over the billionaire’s offer, calling it an “egregious attempt to buy votes” and a “blatant attempt” to violate state law.

Earlier this month, his political action committee offered registered Wisconsin voters $100 if they signed a petition against “activist judges.”

The billionaire used a nearly similar tactic to boost voter registration ahead of the 2024 presidential election last year.

Musk’s since-deleted post arrives days before Wisconsin voters head to the polls on Tuesday to vote in what’s been called the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

Musk-supported groups have spent over $20 million to support conservative candidate Brad Schimel, a former state attorney general, against Democratic-backed candidate Dane County Court Judge Susan Crawford.

Musk took to X on Friday afternoon to “clarify” that he was giving $1 million checks to “spokesmen” for his group’s petition.

Wikler called on Musk to be “brought to justice” over his post, adding that Americans shouldn’t accept “vote buying” in a democracy.

“This is not an edge case. This is a central question for whether we’re going to survive as a democracy or whether the richest man in the world will be able to pay people in order to get them to vote,” he said.

“And we need to make absolutely clear that this will not be accepted in Wisconsin or anywhere else across this country.”>

<President Donald Trump has been attacking American universities on a host of fronts, pressuring schools to end their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, cutting National Institutes of Health research grants, and threatening to increase the endowment tax. One thing he hasn’t touched? The deeply troubling practice of legacy preferences, which provide a large admissions boost to the children of alumni. Trump says he stands for “merit,” but he’s done nothing to curb a practice that piles additional advantages on the already advantaged.

Legacy preferences are a sordid business, which began in the early 20th century as an effort to cap Jewish enrollment at selective college. I had a chance to observe closely how these preferences work when I served as an expert witness in lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina for using race in admissions. As I outline in my new book, “Class Matters: The Fight to Get Beyond Race Preferences, Reduce Inequality, and Build Real Diversity at America’s Colleges,” I testified that racial diversity is important for college campuses, and that universities could create that diversity without racial preferences if they eliminated favoritism for wealthy (mostly white) applicants and boosted the admissions chances of working-class students of all races.

Harvard had long claimed that legacy preferences were a mere “tiebreaker” among equally qualified candidates, but an internal study I cited as part of my court report found that legacies received a 40% boost in admissions, meaning a student with a 15% chance of admissions as a nonlegacy had around a 55% chance if he or she were a legacy.

In the lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, the university’s expert, Ruth Simmons, the former president of Brown University, claimed that legacy preferences were necessary to enhance the “enthusiasm” of alumni networks. But she did not explain why it was necessary to bribe alumni with a preference for their children to generate such enthusiasm. Nor did she explain why excellent institutions such as Caltech, UC Berkeley, Oxford, and Cambridge — all of which have been ranked among the best universities in the world — managed to survive without heaping preferences on the children of alumni.

In fact, the empirical evidence mostly ran in the other direction. A 2010 analysis of the top 100 universities in U.S. News & World Report found “no evidence that legacy preference policies themselves exert an influence on giving behavior.” An interesting 2007 study from researchers at Princeton and Stanford found that alumni increased their giving when their children were in high school but then lowered or eliminated donations entirely if the students were rejected. Alumni were outraged to be told that even with a preference, their children were not good enough.

Harvard’s other argument in favor of legacy preferences from the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit was astonishing: that they increase diversity of perspectives. College dean Rakesh Khurana claimed that it was important for Harvard to favor the children of alumni to bring together students who “have more experience with Harvard” with “others who are less familiar with Harvard.” The ability of these different groups to “exchange perspectives, points of view,” he claimed without providing evidence, would make “them more effective citizens and citizen leaders for society.”

Harvard also created a special “dean’s interest list” each year that included applicants who were related to or of interest to big donors. The admission rate was 42% for students on the dean’s admissions list, compared with 6% for those not on it; 67% of these students were white, and around 3% were Black. If a white student had a 10% chance of admission on the merits, those odds shot up to 75% if they were on the dean’s interest list....>

<....Internal emails and testimony introduced at trial showed how the system worked. In one email, with the subject line “My Hero,” David Ellwood, dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School, expressed appreciation to admissions dean Bill Fitzsimmons. “Once again you have done wonders. I am simply thrilled about the folks you were able to admit,” Ellwood said. “[Redacted] and [redacted] are all big wins. [Redacted] has already committed to a building.” All this embarrassing evidence highlighted how Harvard tilted the admissions process toward wealthy white people, undercutting Harvard’s claim that the only possible way it could create racial diversity was through racial preferences.

Given all this positive momentum, it’s startling that every Ivy League college has so far bucked the trend.

When the Harvard and UNC cases made their way to the Supreme Court in 2023, the justices ruled against them and outlawed racial preferences nationwide. In response to the decision, dozens of schools, from Wesleyan to Virginia Tech, said they could no longer justify employing legacy preferences that tend to benefit white students. According to nonprofit Education Reform Now, between 2015 and 2024, the share of colleges employing legacy preferences was cut in half. Virginia, Illinois, Maryland and California passed legislation outlawing legacy preferences. In the U.S. Senate, two sets of bipartisan legislators, Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Todd Young, R-Ind., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ohio and John Kennedy, R-La., introduced legislation to outlaw legacy preferences nationwide.

Given all this positive momentum, it’s startling that every Ivy League college has so far bucked the trend and stubbornly held on to their policy of preferences for legacies. Even Brown University, which saw a major drop in racial diversity after the Supreme Court decision outlawing racial affirmative action, has maintained its legacy preference policy. When state legislation to curb legacy preferences failed in Massachusetts and Connecticut, home to Harvard and Yale, the opposition of “Ivy League institutions” was reportedly part of the reason.

Favoring mostly white and wealthy children of alumni was always very difficult to defend, which is why a 2022 poll found 75% of Americans oppose the practice. But in a post affirmative action world, legacy preferences became, in the words of one college president “obscene.” It is time for this anachronistic practice to go. A U.S. president claiming to support meritocracy should be leading the way.>

Here's hoping:

<Tesla is really starting to feel the hurt — in large part due to Musk's self-inflicted wounds. Despite a share price that's slowly recovering from a disastrous year so far, the company has seen sales fall off a steep cliff in key markets, including Europe, China, and its home turf in the US.

As Forbes reports, the walls are only beginning to close in as Tesla's competitors in China are starting to make significant moves, leapfrogging the company not only in terms of sales and revenue — but technology as well.

Earlier this week, news emerged that Chinese EV maker BYD had crushed Tesla by passing the $100 billion mark in revenue last year. That's in comparison to Tesla's $97.7 billion in revenue over the same period.

BYD is also working on software directly competing with Tesla's misleadingly-named Full Self-Driving system, called "God's Eye." The top-end version of the software will make use of laser and LIDAR sensors, which Tesla infamously ditched in favor of an exclusive reliance on cameras.

And the competition in China is only growing.

"People in the West are starting to pay attention to BYD, but there's this whole gaggle of other [Chinese] EV makers they have no idea about," consultancy Sino Auto Insights managing director Tu Le told Forbes.

"Many have out-Tesla-ed Tesla in software, range and in intelligent driving and are making Tesla look like the laggard," he said. "It’s in serious jeopardy of becoming an EV manufacturer that builds in the three largest passenger vehicle markets while simultaneously each market slowly slips out of its hands due in part to self-inflicted mistakes and laser-focused competition."

All eyes will be on Tesla when the company announces its new quarterly results early next month. And analysts are expecting the worst in light of a surge in anti-Musk sentiment driving the company's sales down, a lack of tempting new product offerings, and a massively damaged brand.

"Tesla sales are going to take a hit in Q1," AutoPacific industry consulting firm chief analyst Ed Kim told Forbes.

"The irony is that the most important company for climate and the environment in the world is now being treated like a pariah because of Elon. It’s crazy," longtime shareholder and wealth management firm executive Ross Gerber told the publication.

"The worst part is that in China they don’t care about the politics," he added. "In China, they’re down because of actual competition.">

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Salomon, Miguel"]
[Black "Katrein, Matthew R"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 Bg4 7.O-O Nfd7 8.Be3 Nc6 9.d5 Bxf3 10.Bxf3 Na5 11.Be2 Bxc3 12.bxc3 e5 13.f4 b6 14.f5 Qh4 15.Rf3 Nf6 16.Rg3 Nxe4 17.Rg4 Qd8 18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Bd3 Nf6 20.Bg5 Nxg4 21.Bxd8 Raxd8 22.Qxg4 Kg7 23.Rf1 Nb7 24.Qg5 Nc5 25.Qf6+ Kg8 26.Rf3 Nd7 27.Qg5 Kg7 28.Rg3 1-0>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Southam, Todd"]
[Black "Rohde, Michael"]
[ECO "E48"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Trammell, George E"]
[Black "Lazzeri, Santos"]
[ECO "C82"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "24th Queen City Open"] [Site "Manchester NH"]
[Date "2000.02.19"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Sansing, Richard"]
[Black "Ivanov, Alexander"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "1995"]
[BlackElo "2635"]

<Republican CNN analyst Scott Jennings blew off the idea that Friday’s feisty town hall event with Indiana Republican Rep. Victoria Spartz on Friday represented anything other than that Democrats are showing up at Republican events specifically to get attention by making trouble.

Members of the audience at the public town hall event took to the microphones on Friday, saying that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth should be fired in the ongoing saga of the top secret war chat that took place on the Signal app with a mainstream media journalist quietly observing.

The view that Hegseth or others should be fired is widespread and loudly shared on the left and in the press, but despite the appearance of the town hall, hasn’t had the same traction on the right. Spartz was also booed over the DOGE government spending cuts that were wildly popular polling issues among Republicans throughout the campaign.

When host Laura Coates asked Jennings and the panel about the town hall during Laura Coates Live on CNN Friday, Jennings was quick to dismiss the idea that the shouts and boos are representative of a sea change within the GOP base.

Coates asked Jennings if the administration is “reading the room” incorrectly in suggesting that the secret discussion in an insecure chat in which the participants somehow didn’t notice a journalist was present is not a big deal.

“Are they reading a room full of unhinged Democrats incorrectly? No, of course not,” Jennings replied. “I mean, that’s obviously who showed up at this crazy town hall meeting. It’s who shows up at all crazy town hall meetings.”

“Despite that Spartz is a Republican — You think that she only had people who are Democrats? Let alone unhinged, as you described them,” Coates interjected.

“Yes, I believe that,” Jennings replied. He said he believes the people showing up “are the angriest Democrats you can possibly imagine, and they would like to show up and yell at any Republican they can get their hands on. It won’t be Trump and it won’t be Elon, so Victoria Spartz will be the closest thing, in this case, that they can get to it.”

COATES: Scott, the White House, as you know, has been downplaying, even saying that the media, President Trump, that was up playing all of this and saying, look, this is not the big deal that they believe the media is making it out to be. But I wonder when you hear that, are they reading the room incorrectly?

JENNINGS: Are they reading a room full of unhinged Democrats incorrectly? No, of course not. I mean, that’s obviously who showed up at this crazy town hall meeting. It’s who shows up at all crazy town hall meetings —

COATES: Despite that Spartz is a Republican —

JENNINGS: I don’t think the White House should give —

COATES: — You think that she only had people who are Democrats? Let alone unhinged, as you described them.

JENNINGS: Yes, I believe that — I believe the people who are showing up at these town hall meetings, just as Lulu said, are the angriest Democrats you can possibly imagine, and they would like to show up and yell at any Republican they can get their hands on. It won’t be Trump and it won’t be Elon, so Victoria Spartz will be the closest thing, in this case, that they can get to it.>

<President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to wade into the fraught legal battle over enforcing the Alien Enemies Act, the wartime authority he used to rapidly deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang.

The emergency appeal, which asks the justices to overturn an order from US District Judge James Boasberg blocking further deportations under the act, further thrusts the Supreme Court into Trump’s whirlwind. It is perhaps the most significant matter now pending on the court’s docket dealing with his second term and it sits at the center of an explosive confrontation between the White House and the judiciary.

“This case presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country – the President, through Article II, or the judiciary,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court. “The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the President. The republic cannot afford a different choice.”

Like other recent appeals, the Trump administration’s argument was heavy on complaints about lower courts standing in his way, handing down temporary orders that – while not resolving the challenges over the president’s power – have at least put some of his agenda on hold temporarily.

“Only this Court can stop rule-by-TRO from further upending the separation of powers – the sooner, the better,” Harris wrote. “Here, the district court’s orders have rebuffed the President’s judgments as to how to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.”

The Department of Justice also asked the Supreme Court for a temporary “administrative stay,” that would put Boasberg’s order on hold for a few days to give the justices time to review the case. Such a stay, if granted, would allow the administration to immediately restart deportations.

The court has asked the individuals challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to respond to the emergency request by Tuesday.

At issue in the case is Trump’s invocation on March 15 of a wartime authority, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives him broad power to target and remove undocumented immigrants. The law grants that authority in times of war or when an enemy attempts an “invasion or predatory incursion.”

Soon after Trump invoked the law, officials loaded up three planes with more than 200 Venezuelan nationals and flew them to El Salvador, where they are being housed in a maximum security prison. The administration has since said that some of those people were deported under authorities other than the 18th Century act. The Trump administration has said the men were affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

The case lands at the high court days after Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare rebuke of Trump’s suggestion that Boasberg be impeached over his handling of the case.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Five Venezuelans still in the country who are being held by the Department of Homeland Security sued the administration, challenging its use of the law. Boasberg, nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama, temporarily blocked the administration from any more deportations under the act while he considers the case – either against the five who sued, or anyone else in their situation.

Notably, Boasberg’s order didn’t block the administration from deporting those same people under other laws, nor did it stop the administration from apprehending immigrants under the act.

Trump nevertheless quickly appealed....>

<....The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 on Wednesday that Boasberg’s orders blocking Trump’s use of the sweeping wartime authority could stand while the legal challenge plays out. The majority included one judge nominated by President George H.W. Bush and another by Obama. It is that decision that Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court.

US Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, in a lengthy concurrence, offered the kind of textualist analysis that may find resonance with many of the court’s conservatives. She tore through Trump’s arguments that courts could not review the law’s enforcement and the notion that the flow of migrants over the US-Mexico border represents an invasion.

“The term ‘invasion’ was well known to the Fifth Congress and the American public circa 1798,” she wrote. “The phrase echoes throughout the Constitution ratified by the people just nine years before. And in every instance, it is used in a military sense.”

Boasberg on Friday extended his temporary block on Trump’s ability to use the Alien Enemies Act for the deportations through April 12. That extension gives him additional time to hear arguments over whether to issue a preliminary injunction – a more fulsome ruling on Trump’s use of the AEA that would help speed up the larger legal fight over his invocation of the law.

Attorneys representing the Venezuelans who brought the lawsuit vowed later Friday to vigorously oppose the administration’s request before the Supreme Court.

“This was never about immigration policy. This is about the president’s flagrant violation of the law, and his Justice Department’s search for a court that will rubber stamp it,” said Skye Perryman, an attorney with Democracy Forward. “We will continue to meet this administration in court to protect people and our democratic values.”

When the Supreme Court last considered the Alien Enemies Act, in 1948, it gave President Harry Truman broad deference to decide when the law could be invoked. Truman had sought to remove a German national and the appeal arrived at the Supreme Court three years after the end of World War II.

War, the court reasoned at that time, isn’t necessarily over “when the shooting stops.” It was the president, the Supreme Court said, that determined when a war was over.

Stephen Miller, who is Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, and others in the administration appear to have interpreted that decision as disallowing any court review of how a president implements the law. But Henderson shot down that reading in her concurrence on Wednesday.

“The elected branches – not the unelected bench – decide when a war has terminated. That is a question of fact for elected leaders,” she wrote. “That does not mean that courts cannot pass on the legal meaning of statutory terms.”

The emergency appeal is the third pending on the high court’s emergency docket from the second Trump administration. The Department of Justice has also asked the court to limit the scope of an order temporarily barring Trump from enforcing his effort to end birthright citizenship. And, more recently, administration asked the court to allow it to freeze millions of dollars in grants to states for addressing teacher shortages.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Weerakoon, Ishan"]
[Black "Bauza Mercere, Eduardo C"]
[ECO "C82"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]