"There was no attack on America, as required by the War Powers Resolution. There wasn’t even a serious possibility of an attack on America"

 

Operation Epstein Fury — with a bonus to help Bibi get re-elected so he doesn’t have to face charges for his criminal behavior — is rolling on as Trump ignores the constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war.

He’s also violating the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that dictates the president, if he reacts to an actual attack on America like Pearl Harbor, must notify Congress within 48 hours and have authorization within 60 days. In this case there was no actual or even imminent attack against America.

To further confuse things, Trump is throwing the Iranian protestors under the bus by saying that he’s willing to talk with the Iranian regime now that Kahmenei is dead, much like he crapped on pro-democracy voters and protestors in Venezuela when he kept that repressive regime intact after illegally removing Maduro and promising democracy.

This conflict is also now spreading. Kahmenei was to many Shias Muslims around the world something akin to what the Pope is to Catholics (there’s no equivalent among the Sunni Muslims). Imagine the Catholic world’s fury if a country had assassinated Pope Leo XIV: we’re now seeing Shia protests and outrage from Bangladesh to Pakistan to Lebanon.

And here at home Trump is musing about using Iranian interference in our 2020 election as an excuse to issue an emergency executive order to seize control of the upcoming November midterm election. Which is particularly ironic, given that the well-documented Iranian intervention that year was designed to help get Trump reelected (after all, he’d just torn up the JCPOA nuclear deal) and avoid a Biden administration from coming into power.

Four Americans are dead and five in critical condition because of Iranian retaliatory strikes, as are civilians in several other US-aligned countries in the region. Along with around 200 young people in Iran after we bombed a girl’s school and a gymnasium.

And it’s early days. As Winston Churchill famously said in 1936 about war: “Once the signal is given, no one can predict how far events will go.”

America’s Founders and the Framers of our Constitution not only would have agreed with Churchill but saw a president seizing war powers from Congress as an existential threat to the republic. On April 20, 1795, James Madison, who had just helped shepherd through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and would become President of the United States in the following decade, wrote: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

Reflecting on the ability of a president to use war as an excuse to become a virtual dictator, Madison continued his letter: “In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation,” our fourth President and the Father of the Constitution concluded, “could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” 

Since Madison’s warning, “continual warfare” has been used both in fiction and in the real world. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the way a seemingly democratic president kept his nation in a continual state of repression was by having a continuous war.

The lesson wasn’t lost on Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, who both extended the Vietnam war, so it coincidentally ran over election cycles, knowing that a wartime President’s party is more likely to be reelected and has more power than a President in peacetime.

And, as George W. Bush told his biographer in 1999: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as commander in chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”

Every Republican president since Reagan has had his own “little war.” Now it’s Trump’s turn, after all the times over the years he warned that if Obama was ever in trouble, he’d start a war with Iran to distract us:

“In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.” (2011)
“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak and he’s ineffective…” (2011)
“@BarackObama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election.” (2012)
“Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin — watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.” (2012)
“I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!” (2013)
“Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election…” (2012)

Given that Baron, Don Jr, and Eric Trump all apparently suffer from hereditary bone spurs and no Trump has ever served as a “loser” or “sucker” in our military (and his grandfather came to America as a German draft-dodger), it’s unlikely this war will mean anything other than profit-making opportunities for the Trump children.

But it compounds his constant ignoring of constitutional limits on presidential power ranging from gutting federal agencies without authorization to having ICE routinely ignore court orders, flagrantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and daily lie to the American people. Nobody invested in peace or democracy is mourning the death of the Iranian dictator or the possible unraveling of its theocracy. But must we do it in a way that breaks both US and international law?

Trump apparently thinks so; not only will it distract from the news reports that he raped at least one and maybe more 13-year-olds and his naked corruption and bribe-taking, but it also carves another “screwed Congress” notch in his belt.

There was no attack on America, as required by the War Powers Resolution. There wasn’t even a serious possibility of an attack on America.

Madison and the Founders of his generation had it right: this is a naked crime by Trump and Hegseth against our Constitution and our laws and requires a strong congressional response such as impeachment.

-Thom Hartmann

Gordon Lightfoot, March 3, 1966

 

        

Gordon Lightfoot sat alone in the dim Ottawa studio on March 3, 1966, strumming a battered Martin D-28 and scribbling in a notebook yellowed at the edges — the song that would become Canadian Railroad Trilogy was taking shape, and with it, the weight of a nation’s history pressed on his shoulders.    

   

To the world, Lightfoot was the gentle, unassuming folk singer with a golden voice; behind the microphone, he wrestled with the responsibility of telling stories that could make Canada weep, reflect, and remember — and the pressure of doing it with nothing but chords, words, and conviction.

The stakes were concrete. CBC executives offered him a one-time $150 recording session, warning that a full album would be “too regional, too slow” to sell. Lightfoot refused shortcuts. “If I’m telling our history, I want it honest,” he said, fingers pausing on the fretboard. That honesty meant working long nights translating the suffering of Irish and Scottish immigrants into melodies, condensing decades of labor, death, and resilience into twelve poignant minutes of song.

In the winter of 1967, Lightfoot performed Canadian Railroad Trilogy at Massey Hall, standing beneath the glare of stage lights while the orchestra behind him struggled with timing. He had fractured a rib the day before in a skiing accident but refused to cancel. He leaned into the microphone, voice raw, conveying the peril of frostbitten workers and the clang of iron rails, and the audience held its breath. “He made you feel every swing of the hammer and every footstep on the track,” recalled journalist Peter Goddard, “and yet he barely moved from the mic.”

The creation of If You Could Read My Mind in 1970 came with a different kind of risk: vulnerability. Lightfoot poured his recent divorce into the lyrics, exposing his private heartbreak to a global audience. Studio engineer Jack Feeney later revealed, “He’d play a verse, stop, and just stare at the ceiling for minutes. You could hear his heart in every note.” Columbia Records predicted modest Canadian sales, but the single skyrocketed, reaching No. 5 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100, proving that emotional honesty could transcend borders.

Touring wasn’t glamorous. Lightfoot navigated winter roads across Canada and the northern United States, performing for small-town audiences while wrestling with chronic tendinitis that made playing guitar excruciating. In 1976, he famously walked 10 kilometers through a snowstorm to a tiny Manitoba hall when buses were canceled, guitar in hand, because the show “had to go on for those people waiting.”

His craft extended to meticulous songwriting rituals. Every chord, every pause, every line had to capture a human moment. He once spent three hours trying to perfect the opening line of Sundown in a Montreal hotel room, listening to the city hum outside, until the tension in the song mirrored the story of obsession and distrust he sought to convey.

By the 1980s, Lightfoot was a global folk icon, yet he remained quietly disciplined: traveling with only a notebook, a guitar, and a pocket recorder, refusing grand entourage or publicity stunts. Behind his calm demeanor was a relentless pursuit of narrative truth, one song at a time.

Gordon Lightfoot didn’t just write songs — he carried Canada’s soul in a guitar case and a notebook, reminding the world that music can preserve history, convey emotion, and bind listeners across time and distance.

FB

Iran will respond to US‑Israeli strikes as existential threats to the regime

 

After U.S. and Israeli missiles struck Iran’s nuclear sites in June 2025, Tehran responded with a limited attack on the American airbase in Qatar. Five years before that, a U.S. drone strike against Qasem Soleimani, head of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, was followed by an attack on two American bases in Iraq shortly thereafter.

Expect none of that restraint by Iran’s leaders following the latest U.S. and Israeli military operation currently playing out in the Gulf nation. In the early hours of Feb. 28, 2026, hundreds of missiles struck multiple sites in Iran, including a compound housing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who Iranian state media later confirmed had died in the attack.

“Operation Epic Fury,” as the U.S. Department of Defense has called the strikes, follows months of U.S. military buildup in the region. But it also come after apparent diplomatic efforts, in the shape of a series of nuclear talks in Oman and Geneva aimed at a peaceful resolution. Any such deal is surely now completely off the table. In scale and scope, the U.S. and Israel attack goes far beyond any previous strikes on the Gulf nation.

In response, Iran has said it will use “crushing” force. As an expert on Middle East affairs and a former senior official at the National Security Council during the first Trump administration, I believe the calculus both in Washington and more so in Tehran is very different from earlier confrontations: Iran’s leaders almost certainly see this as an existential threat given President Donald Trump’s statement and the military campaign already underway. And there appears to be no obvious off-ramp to avoid further escalation.

What we should expect now is a response from Tehran that utilizes all of its capabilities – even though they have been significantly degraded. And that should be a worry for all nations in the region and beyond.

The apparent aims of the US operation

It is important to note that we are in the early stages of this conflict – much is unknown. As of Feb. 28, it is unclear who has been killed among Iran’s leadership and to what extent Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities have been degraded. The fact that ballistic missiles have been launched at regional states that host U.S. military bases suggest that, at a minimum, Iran’s military capabilities have not been entirely wiped out.

Iran fired over 600 missiles against Israel last June during their 12-day war, but media reporting and Iranian statements over the past month suggested that Iran managed to replenish some of its missile inventory, which it is now using.

Clearly Washington is intent on crippling Iran’s ballistic program, as it is that capability that allows Iran to threaten the region most directly. A sticking point in the negotiations in Geneva and Oman was U.S. officials’ insistence that both Iran’s ballistic missiles and its funneling of support to proxy groups in the region be on the table, along with the longstanding condition that Tehran ends all uranium enrichment. Tehran has long resisted attempts to have limits on its ballistic missiles as part of any negotiated nuclear deal given their importance in Iran’s national security doctrine.

This explains why some U.S. and Israeli strikes appear to be aimed at taking out Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile launch sites and production facilities and storage locations for such weapons.

With no nuclear weapon, Iran’s ballistic missiles have been the country’s go-to method for responding to any threat. And so far in the current conflict, they have been used on nations including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain.

‘It will be yours to take’

But the Trump administration appears to have expanded its aims beyond removing Iran’s nuclear and non-nuclear military threat. The latest strikes have gone after leadership, too, taking out Khamenei alongside other key members of the regime.

It is clear that the U.S. administration hopes that regime change will follow Operation Epic Fury. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” Trump told Iranians via a video message recorded during the early hours of the attack.

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed the nation on Iran strikes. US President Trump Via Truth Social/Anadolu via Getty Images

Regime change carries risks for Trump

Signaling a regime change operation may encourage Iranians unhappy with decades of repressive rule and economic woes to continue where they left off in January – when hundreds of thousands took to the street to protest.

But it carries risks for the U.S. and its interests. Iran’s leaders will no longer feel constrained, as they did after the Soleimani assassination and the June 2025 conflict. On those occasions, Iran responded in a way that was not even proportionate to its losses – limited strikes on American military bases in the region.

Now the gloves are off, and each side will be trying to land a knockout blow. But what does that constitute? The U.S. administration appears to be set on regime change. Iran’s leadership will be looking for something that goes beyond its previous retaliatory strikes – and that likely means American deaths. That eventuality has been anticipated by Trump, who warned that there might be American casualties.

So why is Trump willing to risk that now? It is clear to me that despite talk of progress in the rounds of diplomatic talks, Trump has lost his patience with the process.

On Feb. 26, after the latest round of talks in Geneva, we didn’t hear much from the U.S. side. Trump’s calculus may have been that Iran wasn’t taking the hint – made clear by adding a second carrier strike group to the other warships and hundreds of fighter aircraft sent to the region over the past several weeks – that Tehran had no option other than agreeing to the U.S. demands.

 AP Photo

What happens next

What we don’t know is whether the U.S. strategy is now to pause and see if an initial round of strikes has forced Iran to sue for peace – or whether the initial strikes are just a prelude to more to come. For now, the diplomatic ship appears to have sailed. Trump seems to have no appetite for a deal now – he just wants Iran’s regime gone.

In order to do that, he has made a number of calculated gambles. First politically and legally: Trump did not go through Congress before ordering Operation Epic Fury. Unlike 23 years ago when President George W. Bush took the U.S. into Iraq, there is no war authorization giving the president cover.

Instead, White House lawyers must have assessed that Trump can carry out this operation under his Article 2 powers to act as commander in chief. Even so, the 1973 War Powers Act will mean the clock is now ticking. If the attacks are not concluded in 60 days, the administration will have to go back to Congress and say the operation is complete, or work with Congress for an authorization to use force or a formal declaration of war.

The second gamble is whether Iranians will heed his call to remove a regime that many have long wanted gone. Given the ferocity of the regime’s response to the protests in January, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iranians, are Iranians willing to face down Iran’s internal security forces and drive what remains of the regime from power?

Third, the U.S. administration has made a bet that the Iranian regime – even confronted with an existential threat – does not have the capability to drag the U.S. into a lengthy conflict to inflict massive casualties. And this last point is crucial. Experts know Tehran has no nuclear bomb and only has a limited stockpile of drones and cruise and ballistic missiles.

But it can lean on unconventional capabilities. Terrorism is a real concern – either through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, which coordinates Iran’s unconventional warfare, or through its partnership with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or actors like the Houthis in Yemen or Shia militias in Iraq may seek to conduct attacks against U.S. interests in solidarity with Iran or directed to do so by the regime.

A mass casualty event may put political pressure on Trump, but I cannot see it leading to U.S. boots on ground in Iran. The American public doesn’t have the appetite for such an eventuality, and that would necessitate Trump gaining Congressional approval, which for now has not yet materialized.

No one has a crystal ball, and it is early in an operation that will likely go on for days, if not longer. But one thing is clear: Iran’s regime is facing an existential threat. Do not expect it to show restraint.

This article was updated on Feb 28, 2026, to include confirmation of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei death. -Javed Ali, Associate Professor of Practice of Public Policy, University of Michigan

The Conversation

Allowing a few MAGA billionaires to control our news

 

Donald Trump launched another illegal war over the weekend, throwing out patently false justifications for a war of choice. Fortunately, CNN was among those with swift, accurate, and aggressive coverage.

But what if CNN were reduced to a captive of Trump’s billionaire buddy, David Ellison? That’s what lies ahead, unless Ellison’s proposed takeover of Warner Bros. is stopped. And it can be.

Media industry coverage at the end of last week by and large treated the announced Paramount/CBS takeover of Warner Bros. as a done deal. Reports too often seemed to skip past the significant legal barriers to the merger, preferring to go straight to the panic. 

Certainly, if the merger goes through, the new mega-conglomerate will further consolidate an industry already overly consolidated. Even more ominous for democracy, the merger would put another news outlet known for exacting coverage of breaking foreign events, CNN, in the hands of a Trump-friendly billionaire.

However, the deal is not done. Defenders of democracy and advocates of competitive markets are already digging in, and they deserve public support from Americans rightly concerned about the growing power of unaccountable oligarchs who control an increasing slice of our economy and dominate our politics.

No doubt, the fix is likely already in with Trump’s corrupt Justice Department to rubber stamp the merger, but DOJ is not the only hurdle. Most importantly, our federal system provides another avenue to contest the deal. (UK and EU regulators will also get to weigh in.)

Fortunately, within hours of Ellison’s announcement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a statement released on a platform ingested by another Trump billionaire pal (Elon Musk), wrote: “Paramount/Warner Bros. is not a done deal.” He added, “These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny — the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review.”

State antitrust litigation has become a robust, viable alternative to the feds. George Mason Law Review in 2022 explained: “State antitrust regulators have brought dozens of large cases over the last twenty years in areas from telecom mergers to complex pharmaceutical cases.” The article continued that while individual cases used to be the norm, “many cases are now brought as multistate actions incorporating large groups of attorneys general joined into one litigation that is filed in federal court under the Sherman or Clayton Act.”

Bonta, as he has in a host of other cases brought against the Trump regime, may well find partners among other active Democratic attorneys general. Bonta was hardly alone in expressing concern. 

Former FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya added, “One family is about to control CBS, CNN, HBO, and TikTok. They’ll buy WBD with $24 billion in money from the Saudis, Qatar, and Abu Dhabi. To win over Trump, they canceled Colbert, blocked a CECOT investigation, and blocked [James] Talarico. Much more will follow. Block this rotten deal.” Consider how an outlet with heavy investment from Middle East countries might be less than independent in its coverage of nuanced wars involving those very countries.

Democrats on Capitol Hill also have a role to play. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was exactly right to lay down a marker and elevate the merger to a critical election issue. “Paramount should enjoy its growing news monopoly while they have it because when Democrats win back power we are going to break up these anti-democratic information conglomerates,” Murphy said. “All of them.”

Antitrust is not usually a sexy subject, but given public animosity against big business and big tech specifically, this issue’s time may have come. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) all blasted the proposed deal.

Warren, a longtime antitrust warrior, questioned whether the bidding for Warner Bros. was rigged: A Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. merger is an antitrust disaster threatening higher prices and fewer choices for American families. What did Trump officials tell the Netflix CEO today at the White House? A handful of Trump-aligned billionaires are trying to seize control of what you watch and charge you whatever price they want. With the cloud of corruption looming over Trump’s Department of Justice, it’ll be up to the American people to speak up and state attorneys general to enforce the law.

If Democrats win control of one or both houses, they will be able to subpoena records, conduct hearings, and propose legislation to slow down or block merger mania.

The head-snapping consolidation of entertainment and news, coupled with billionaire Trump-suck ups’ acquisition of news properties, has transformed the media landscape. This did not begin with Trump, but the added ingredient of oligarch capture now poses an existential threat to entertainment diversity and news independence — while introducing the potential for foreign interference and manipulation of our news and entertainment.

As disturbing as entertainment monopolies may be (fewer outlets will pay lower wages, charge higher prices, and neglect markets deemed “too niche”), the gravest danger to democracy is allowing corporations and oligarchs beholden to the president (i.e., friendly or compromised by fear of regulation or retaliation) to have a stranglehold on news coverage. (Strongmen in Italy and Hungary took precisely this path.)

CNN soon may be cheerleading every regime-change war, putting MAGA toady Scott Jennings in the anchor chair, and canning legitimate news people (e.g., Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer, Dana Bash). You don’t even have to use your imagination. CBS head Bari Weiss’s blocking 60 Minutes’ CECOT report and her cringeworthy tweet sneering at New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his critique of the illegal war tells you how far CBS has fallen — and likely where CNN is headed.

How long before tenacious Kaitlan Collins gets yanked from the White House beat or every guest and panelist is an inveterate MAGA liar? If CNN recently has been too accommodating to Trump (e.g., the ridiculed town hall, a presidential debate without factchecking), that coverage many soon seem like aggressive journalism by comparison to oligarch news.

Of course, Ellison could decide to shutter either CNN or CBS entirely. But even if CNN survives in some form, Ellison/Weiss control would quickly destroy its credibility, leaving viewers outside the MAGA cult with few choices. Creating a national news desert may be autocrats’ goal.

Major news events — including complex wars — highlight the danger in allowing a few MAGA billionaires to control our news. Voters should support political leaders with adequate legal and legislative tools who are determined to halt media consolidation. 

Unless they reverse this ominous trend, the oligarchs’ grip on America will tighten, disinformation will dominate our mainstream media environment, foreign leaders will shape our news, and democracy will wither.

---

Jennifer Rubin, The Contrarian is reader-supported. To enable our work, help with litigation efforts, and be a part of a community unafraid to oppose unjust wars, join the fight by becoming a paid subscriber.

 

MAGA Christian Nationalism

 

MAGA Christian Nationalism is an ideology merging conservative Christian beliefs with American national identity, acting as a pillar of the Donald Trump movement. It posits that the U.S. is a Christian nation whose, laws should reflect those values, often advocating for a "reawakening" that erodes the separation of church and state. 

Key details:

Core Beliefs: Adherents often believe that being American is inseparable from being Christian, and that the country is facing a crisis requiring a return to a "Christian foundation".

Relationship to MAGA: The movement, rooted in a white evangelical subculture, grew from the Tea Party and found a powerful vehicle in Donald Trump’s political rise.

Political Goal: Critics and scholars describe it as a movement aiming to remake America in a specific, often white, religious, and conservative, image, sometimes linking it to a "cosmic war" narrative.

Debate: While some view it as a threat to pluralistic democracy, others argue it is a legitimate expression of Christian politics.

Composition: Although often linked with white evangelicalism, research shows that a portion of those holding Christian nationalist sentiments are from other races or, paradoxically, are non-Christian or secular. 

This ideology has been characterized by some as a form of "imposter Christianity" that blends the faith with political, and sometimes racial, goals. 

 

Trump's Violation of a "Just War"

 

“The principles of a just war are commonly held to be: 1. Having a just cause; 2. Being the last resort; 3. Being declared by proper authority; 4. Possessing the right intentions; 5. Having a reasonable chance of success, and 6. The end is proportional to the means used…

“Possessing just cause is the first and arguably the most important condition of jus ad bellum… War should always be a last resort… The notion of proper authority seems to be resolved for most of the theorists, who claim it obviously resides in the [congressional] power of the state… The possession of right intention is ostensibly less problematic… The next principle is that of reasonable success… The final guide of jus ad bellum is that the desired end should be proportional to the means used…” 

-Glen Brown

The Week Ahead by Joyce Vance

 

The Week Ahead: With the State of the Union looming, we started the week with a look at that along with other important legal developments including the death of Ruben Ray Martinez, a U.S. citizen, at the hands of federal agents in Texas during a traffic stop last March, only coming to light now due to a FOIA request; ongoing reports of deaths at ICE-run facilities in Texas; the likely ongoing legal battle over tariffs; Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling barring the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s special counsel report involving classified documents; and more.

Live with Miles Taylor: Counterprogramming SOTU: Miles Taylor of Defiance.org joined me to talk about the organization’s “State of the Swamp,” a rebuttal to SOTU with real-time factchecking, Portland frogs, and more. Our conversation touched on working across party and ideology differences protect democratic principles and on embracing joyful defiance and lighthearted humor to combat the absurdity of this moment.

If DOJ is Trump’s Law Firm, Aileen Cannon is His Judge: Judge Aileen Cannon’s order barring the release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s special counsel report is only the latest development in the long history of the case. We deep dive into that history of (very) questionable rulings and their pattern of favoring Trump.

How to Watch the State of the Union Address: We touched on Miles Taylor’s SOTU counterprogramming and then we all connected on Substack Notes as we watched (or didn’t watch) the address, which made it more tolerable for me.

SOTU: I watched in case you just couldn’t. Read here for my in-the-moment analysis and a few hot takes.

The Other Red Hat: We turned our focus to two of my favorite things—knitting and craftivism, to learn how knitters in Minneapolis have begun a new red hat movement called Melt the ICE, inspired by citizens of Norway who wore red knitted caps as an act of resistance during the Nazi occupation of their country. With links to a pattern (or to finished products for non-knitters), you can get involved too. MAGA does not own the color red.

The SAVE Act Is Dead, Fulton County Is Fighting Back; So, Of Course, Trump Wants To Seize Control Of The Election: The good news of the day was the legislative failure of the SAVE Act, along with a significant order from Judge J.P. Boulee in the Georgia case in which Fulton County election officials want their election records back from DOJ. Meanwhile, reports of a draft executive order declaring an “emergency” (read: opportunity for Trump power grab) based on the false claim that China interfered in the 2020 elections is very concerning.

Substack Live with Former Senator John Tester and Journalist Maritsa Georgiou: I joined John Tester and his podcast co-host Maritsa Georgiou to discuss my book and the news of the day. And we had fun. It’s hard to believe because it’s been such a serious, somber week. But we agreed Trump can’t be permitted to take the fun out of our lives, even as we’re forced to fight for democracy.

Five Questions with Alabama Journalist Kyle Whitmire: Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kyle Whitmire joined us to discuss the evolution of journalism, the war on dumb, the war on truth, and how Alabama can be a Rosetta Stone for developments nationwide. And if you collect stories of Republican hypocrisy around voter fraud, this one is for you, with Kyle’s brilliant reporting on an Alabama Republican candidate to be lieutenant governor.

Live with Ruth Ben-Ghiat: No one speaks more eloquently about the art of resistance and why we shouldn’t give up than historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat. If you need a shot of encouragement, watch our conversation, and make sure you stay to the end, where she provides precisely the encouragement I needed.

The Law of War: In light of the strikes on Iran, we revisit some bedrock principles—why the rule of law exists, why it restrains all of us (especially the powerful), and why “doing whatever feels good in the moment” has never been a substitute for constitutional order, especially when it comes to, especially when it comes to war.

-Joyce Vance