OK, So. On The One Hand,

I really don’t care to dignify or even acknowledge that last night’s spectacle was an actual State Of The Union address, but it was what we get. I thought I’d simply ignore all of it and all surrounding it, but of course I read this article in The Guardian because old civic duties habits die hard (this one’s not dead yet!), and I thought I’d bring it here because it’s not sharp or negative. It’s simply what happened. (And what, no doubt, we all expected, though I’m certain some expected far less from the Democrats in attendance.)

Why the longest-ever State of the Union address was the most inconsequential

Amid Trump’s lies and xenophobic rants, people struggling to pay bills and make ends meet are unlikely to be moved

He wanted to give the king’s speech. Donald Trump entered the US House chamber on Tuesday like a medieval monarch, with Republicans lined up eager to touch his royal robes (or, in two cases, grab a selfie with him). But within moments, the illusion was shattered.

As the US president strolled by, soaking up adulation, Democratic representative Al Green of Texas held aloft a handwritten sign: “Black people aren’t apes!” – a reference to Trump recently sharing a racist video depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama.

When the first State of the Union address of Trump’s second term got under way, Republicans moved in on Green menacingly and tried to tear the sign away. But he persisted until being escorted out for the second year in a row. As he departed, there were more acrimonious exchanges with Republicans, a few of whom tried to start a chant of “USA! USA!”

(snip-embedded 3 minute video, on the page: “Donald Trump’s two-hour State of the Union address in 3 minutes – video”)

It was the first but not the last time that a person of color would take a stand during the wannabe autocrat’s record 107-minute speech while others remained silent or raucously egged him on. It was a night where Trump again sought to poison US politics and divide Americans along various fault lines, none more inflammatory than race.

The great salesman, sporting his familiar red tie and orange hue, began with a predictable pitch: “Our nation is back – bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.” In his telling, inflation, mortgage rates and gas prices are falling, while the stock market, oil production and foreign direct investment are booming along with construction and factory jobs.

Luckily for Trump’s speechwriter, the US men’s hockey team won Olympic gold two days earlier. The reality TV president hailed them in the press gallery, prompting applause and roars from both Democrats and Republicans. But while Republicans chanted “USA! USA!” with gusto, barely any Democrats did.

“We’re winning so much that we really don’t know what to do about it,” Trump declared. While he didn’t mention his gilded ballroom, it was still a Pollyannish version of America that will not be recognized by people struggling to pay bills and make ends meet. Trump is not the man to offer: “I feel your pain.”

Republicans ritually stood and clapped and cheered all the same. Democrats, who last year waved protest signs that looked like Marty Supreme’s table tennis paddle, this time remained bolted to their seats and grunted, rolled their eyes, dropped their jaws, shook their heads, waved their hands or got bored and studied their phones.

Trump moved on to his beloved tariffs, calling the supreme court decision to kill his pet project “very unfortunate” and “disappointing” as four black-robed justices wore inscrutable expressions on the front row. Compared with last week’s White House tantrum, when he threw all toys and decorum out of the pram, this was Trump showing self-restraint worthy of a child refusing a second ice cream.

It didn’t last. As Trump riffed on crime, election integrity and transgender issues, he turned his fire on Democrats: “These people are crazy, I’m telling ya, they’re crazy. Boy, oh, boy, we’re lucky we have a country with people like this. Democrats are destroying our country, but we’ve stopped it just in the nick of time.”

He soon reminded everyone that, since the day he came down the golden escalator a decade ago and ranted about immigrants, race has always been at the heart of the Trumpist project. He gazed out at a chamber where Democrats – including the late Jesse Jackson’s son, Jonathan Jackson – somewhat resembled America in their diversity while Republicans presented a sea of white faces with only a handful of exceptions.

Trump announced a “war on fraud” led by vice-president JD Vance, citing a social services scam in Minnesota that he mendaciously and absurdly estimated to have cost $19bn. Ilhan Omar, a Somali-born representative from Minnesota, and Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian American from Michigan, shouted: “That’s a lie!” and “You’re a liar!”

The president was just warming up. He went on a xenophobic rant: “The Somali pirates who ransacked Minnesota remind us that there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception. Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here, to the USA.”

Omar shook her head, perhaps more in sorrow than in anger.

Trump challenged Democrats: “If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Democrats remained seated. Trump retorted: “You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up.”

It was rich from the man who sent a goon squad into Minneapolis that resulted in the needless deaths of two US citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who went unmentioned by the president (as did survivors of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein).

Omar, raising a hand to the side of her mouth to project her voice, yelled with piercing moral clarity: “You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans! You have killed Americans!”

Helpfully, Omar and Tlaib had set up a real-time factchecking service for the chamber. Trump boasted that he ended eight wars. Tlaib shouted: “It’s a lie! What are you talking about?”

Trump said: “No one cares more about protecting America’s youth – .” Tlaib interjected: “Then release the Epstein files!”

Trump vowed to halt insider trading by members of Congress. Mark Takano of California yelled: “How about you first!” Tlaib called out: “You’re the most corrupt president!”

The more Trump talked, the less he said. He had gone into the address with an approval rating of 39% positive and 60% negative, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll, lower than any past president delivering his first State of the Union address. Over an hour and 47 minutes, he offered little to change that equation. The longest State of the Union speech in history was also one of the most inconsequential.

It was small wonder that Omar, Tlaib and several other Democrats walked out before the end. As for Green, his seat remained empty too save for a handwritten cardboard sign that simply and defiantly said: “Al Green.”

From W. Kamau Bell In Minneapolis:

Listen, read, or both; click through to hear it.

ICE Created a Restaurant That is 100% Free (And They Aren’t Allowed to Eat There)

Episode 4 of I SPENT THREE DAYS IN MINNEAPOLIS!

W. Kamau Bell

In the days after federal agents killed ICU nurse Alex Pretti (only days after other federal agents killed Renee Good), I saw a video of a haggard Minneapolis restaurant owner saying that he was going to give food away until the federal government’s occupation of Minnesota ends. His restaurant, Modern Times Cafe, was going to be 100% free… for everyone. It wasn’t just going to be free for people who proved they needed free food or for folks who asked for free food. It was going to be FREE. FOR. EVERYONE. Dylan Alverson, owner of the now-renamed Post Modern Times Cafe, was mad as hell, and he was not going to charge for pancakes anymore!

(Full Instagram bit on the page; above is a photo)

Actor and singer Mandy Patinkin’s son Gideon had shared Dylan’s video with me. Gideon runs Mandy’s verified Instagram account. The Patinkins’ IG page is filled with hopeful political messages, righteous leftist anger, and—most importantly—ways to help. At some point our Internet paths crossed, and we have tagged each other in posts ever since. Seeing Dylan’s video was yet another battery in my back that gave me the juice to go to Minneapolis. I saw the video on Monday, January 26, and by that Thursday, January 29 I was on a Zoom with the McKnight Foundation to figure out how we could work together to get me to the Twin Cities. Once we decided that I would go, I quickly put a visit to Post Modern Times on the agenda. I didn’t go there for McKnight. I went there for me. I really wanted to meet Dylan. He reminded me of people I met in Berkeley, back in the day. True believers who are more than excited to go against the grain. Luckily, Dylan was down to talk. As we discuss in the episode, he is not one for attention. He just wants to help his neighbors. I also found out that since he shared that initial video, he has decided that having a free restaurant feels so good that he wants to keep Post Modern Times Cafe free, even after Trump’s government leaves (which they finally announced they are going to do).

(Snip)

Dylan plans to turn his restaurant into a nonprofit organization. This just shows, yet again, that the effect this occupation has had on Minnesota is permanent. It doesn’t matter if the feds leave today, they have:

  • killed two people,
  • shot at least one more,
  • made schoolchildren afraid to go to school,
  • made some people (especially Latino restaurant workers) afraid to go to work,
  • hurt local business across Minnesota, because consumers are afraid to shop (or are too broke shop because they aren’t working), and
  • generally traumatized the state.

None of that gets erased, fixed, or healed just because the goons get gone. I truly hope that more people are able to sue the federal government like the teachers union, Education Minnesota, did. The only thing that has stopped the people of the Twin Cities and beyond from folding completely is that there are many, many, MANY people like Dylan Alverson who are committed to community. Like Dylan, they are committed above and beyond their own self-interest… or even their own commonsense.

While Dylan’s free restaurant may seem like a gimmick or a naive idea, Dylan sees it as part of a larger way to fight back against our authoritarian government. Dylan put it best in our interview:

“The world is watching, and they should. This could be the start of a revolution. We don’t know. But to me, it feels like it. And I’m willing to go as far as I need to if I can make that happen.”

Post Modern Times will only be able to keep up its anti-capitalistic “gamble” (gamble is Dylan’s word for what they are doing) if they also have community support. If you can, donate or spread the word about Post Modern Times Cafe’s bold plan.

(snip-MORE, including a podcast with Mandy Patinkin & Katherine Grody, helping MN teachers, and yet more!)

And So Now It Goes To Court

a-gain. And again. Possibly yet again, though it shouldn’t need to go past the state Supreme Court. But still. Statements within.

‘This bill spits on basic human decency’: Kansas Legislature passes bathroom ban without hearing

House Majority Leader Chris Croft suspended rules to force an emergency vote immediately after the Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bathroom bill forcing people to use facilities aligned with their biological sex at birth. The move pushed the bill through immediately instead of waiting one day as is usually required. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — The GOP-led Kansas House and Senate on Wednesday approved a “bathroom bill” targeting transgender people after House Democrats delayed passage by six hours, proposing multiple amendments to set the stage for a possible legal challenge. 

House Majority Leader Chris Croft, an Overland Park Republican, called for emergency action to take the vote immediately after debating the bill instead of waiting a day as rules require. House Substitute for Senate Bill 244 passed on an 87-36 vote along party lines, with one Republican opposed.

The Senate concurred with the bill Wednesday evening, voting 30 to 9, also along party lines. The bill will go to Gov. Laura Kelly, who is expected to veto the legislation. It passed both chambers with the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. 

Democrats fought the bill’s passage in the House, basing their arguments on two primary concepts — that the bill was rushed through the legislative process, giving little time for public input, and that it is an inhumane attack on transgender people. 

“This bill spits on basic human decency, and I’m embarrassed we had to spend the entire day trying to defeat this thing,” said Rep. Susan Ruiz, D-Shawnee.

Ruiz also said she believed the bill was targeted at a specific legislator, referring to Rep. Abi Boatman, a Wichita Democrat who is a transgender woman. Boatman was selected to fill a vacant seat in early January.

“I have sat here for five and a half hours and listened to this entire room debate my humanity and my ability to participate in the most basic functions of society,” Boatman said at the close of debate. “From the bottom of my heart, I hope none of you have to ever sit through something like that.”

The legislation would require people to use the bathroom in government buildings that matches their biological sex at birth, rather than their gender, and requires governments to enforce the rule. Both the governmental body and individuals could face steep fines for violating the law.

The bill also requires that the sex listed on a driver’s license and birth certificate match the person’s biological sex at birth.

House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard, D-Lenexa, said in an interview after the House adjourned that the amendments and testimony presented by Democrats throughout the day “gave a lot of fodder” to Kansas courts to make a decision when the case is revived.

During debate, Democrats repeatedly referenced Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach failed attempt in court to ban gender marker changes on driver’s licenses. Woodard said he didn’t think this bill would hold up in court, either.

“As long as Kris Kobach’s our attorney general, I think he’s going to continue to lose in court,” he said.

Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, talks about her experience with sexual assault during a Jan. 28, 2026, House debate on a bill to regulate who can use a bathroom in a government building. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

Emotional testimony

It was a long debate full of emotion, sometimes anger, often frustration. Several times legislators were accused of impugning another legislator, and loud exclamations resonated from both sides of the chamber, including emphatic shouts of “oh, baloney.”

Rep. Alexis Simmons, D-Topeka, said she hadn’t planned to talk about a personal trauma but felt compelled to speak up when she heard others testify about how difficult it would be for women who have been raped to share a bathroom with a man.

She referred to testimony by Rep. Charlotte Esau, R-Olathe, who said the bill protected the “silent” women who are unwilling to speak up about being assaulted and who need women-only spaces to feel safe.

“I’m a victim of a sexual assault and never once did I think it was somebody else’s responsibility to manage my trauma,” Simmons said. “I feel enormous sympathy for victims of trauma, that goes without saying, but I do not appreciate my trauma being used to justify legislation that we know will cause harm to people.”

Simmons said she felt more threatened by men than she had ever felt by a transgender person. 

“Here in this building, as an intern, as a committee assistant, as staff and as a legislator, I have been sexually harassed more than you would believe,” she said. “If we’re going to talk about women’s safety, we should address the real trauma, which is how women are treated, not putting the spotlight on one new member of our Legislature.” 

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, rejected claims made by Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, and Rep. Bob Lewis, R-Garden City, who argued the bill would protect women.

The bill instead will force transgender men, who live as and look like men, to use a woman’s restroom, Carmichael said. 

“He is going to sit down at the stall next to your granddaughter,” Carmichael said. “Is that what you really want? Not only that, there are other facilities which have locker rooms or the like. That hairy-faced man will be standing naked, showering next to your daughter. That’s what this bill requires.”

Other legislators spoke about concerns that the bill would embolden people to attack transgender individuals.

Rabbi Moti Rieber, with Kansas Interfaith Action, watched all six hours of debate, his face often grim.

“This bill is a combination of a culture war-obsessed supermajority and a broken legislative process, using every process trick in the book to get unnecessary and harmful legislation into law with no public input,” he said.

Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, opposes a bathroom bill during a six-hour House debate on Jan. 28, 2026. The bill forces people to use the bathroom that matches their sex at birth. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

Process problems

Throughout the day, Democrats pointed to process problems surrounding the bill. The Judiciary Committee revealed a hearing on House Bill 2426 with less than 24-hour notice. At a later hearing, the bathroom portion of the bill was added with no advance notice and no chance for public input.

Then, in a procedure referred to as “gut and go,” the committee dumped the contents of HB 2426 into Senate Bill 244, which allowed the Senate to simply concur without ever holding a hearing on the overwritten bill.

“Procedurally, it is the absolute worst bill I have ever heard in the Kansas Legislature,” said Rep. Dan Osman, D-Overland Park, who also serves on the Judiciary Committee. “It was done with one purpose and one purpose only — to ensure that the absolute least number of people were available as opponents to this bill and that they were unaware that there would even be a hearing.”

Additionally, there is no fiscal note — a formal notice provided by budget analysts and researchers about how much a bill will cost — for the bathroom provision. That means it is unclear how much local governments could have to pay to ensure they are complying with the law.

Rep. Kirk Haskins, D-Topeka, said he was upset about the rushed schedule and the lack of a fiscal note.

“It upsets me when we rush things through that deal with my constituents, and my constituents, they don’t get a say. That’s what happened here,” he said. “This is a trend. I don’t know what’s going on. Yesterday, we had committee meetings without information. We heard a bill, we didn’t have a proponent, just because we have the power to do it.”

Some legislators focused on details, such as how enforcement would be handled and what would happen if someone violated the bathroom restrictions. Humphries, the Wichita Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said complaints would be made to the governing body if someone suspected a person was using a bathroom that didn’t match their sex at birth. 

The bill outlines fines for individuals and also that governing bodies could be held accountable — to fines as high as $25,000 — if they don’t require people to use bathrooms as outlined.

In an interview after the House adjourned, Haskins said he would be comfortable seeing Boatman, as a transgender woman, in the men’s restroom at the Statehouse.

“I’m comfortable with anybody in the restroom,” he said. “I think the bill is based upon fearmongering on issues that are not critical to Kansas, and wherever she wants to go, Rep. Boatman, I’ve got her back.”

This story was originally published by the Kansas Reflector

Democrats Successfully Strip All Anti-Trans Riders From Final Appropriations Bills

I really like the reporting of this person.  I strongly suggest everyone subscribe to her substack and support her efforts if you can.  But even though this is 7 days old it is really important as it shows how feelings are changing on protecting trans people.  Hate won’t win if we and our politicians fight back.  When they had the right takes advantage to attack the rights of the LGBTQ+.  Hugs


https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/democrats-successfully-strip-all?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=994764&post_id=185215126&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2r5nx6&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The HHS and Education bills once contained the most sweeping anti-trans provisions in congressional history. Now they contain none.

Another Ethical Candidate

from Florida, too! I’m not sure how liberal he’ll be, but there’s a lot of work to get done before worrying about that, and we know this guy can do the work.

Whistleblower Alexander Vindman to seek Florida Democratic nomination for Senate

He is the third major Democrat to enter the contest to challenge GOP incumbent Ashley Moody in November.

By:Mitch Perry-January 27, 20266:00 am

==========================

A Fine Candidate For Office Here:

There are several young, great candidates running for federal offices, but I think this one may be my favorite! I’ve tried to help support each of them, mostly by sharing. State Sen. McMorrow does lots of great work like this, but many of the others don’t have the resources as yet. I hope everyone searches out a new candidate or two, and shares. It can only help the candidates, and definitely getting them elected will be good for we the people!

Some Bernie Sanders clips from The Late Show. This is how democrats need to get air time

 

 

 

 

Whew-Breathe Again, For A Bit

Democrats Successfully Strip All Anti-Trans Riders From Final Appropriations Bills

The HHS and Education bills once contained the most sweeping anti-trans provisions in congressional history. Now they contain none.

Erin Reed Jan 20, 2026

Early Tuesday morning, final appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education—and related agencies—were released, marking the last major funding measures to be negotiated in the aftermath of the record-breaking government shutdown fight in 2025. That standoff featured multiple appropriations bills loaded with anti-transgender riders and poison pills for Democrats, ultimately ending in a short-term continuing resolution that punted many of those provisions to the end of January. While other “minibus” packages funding individual agencies moved forward, the Education and HHS bills were conspicuously absent, as they contained some of the most sweeping and consequential anti-trans riders ever proposed in Congress. Now, with the final bills released, it is clear that no anti-transgender riders were included—meaning transgender people will largely be spared new congressional attacks through most of 2026 should they pass as-is.

As the government shut down on Oct. 1, the state of appropriations bills needed to reopen the federal government for any extended period was extraordinarily dire for transgender people. Dozens of anti-transgender riders were embedded across House appropriations bills, even as those provisions were largely absent from the Senate’s versions. The riders appeared throughout nearly every funding measure, from Commerce, Justice, and Science to Financial Services and General Government. The most extreme provisions, however, were concentrated in the House HHS and Education bills, including language barring “any federal funds” from supporting gender-affirming care at any age and threatening funding for schools that support transgender students. Taken together, those measures would have posed a sweeping threat to transgender people’s access to education and health care nationwide.

Those fears eased somewhat when the government reopened under a short-term continuing resolution funding operations through the end of January. In the months that followed, Democrats notched a series of incremental victories for transgender people, advancing multiple appropriations “minibus” packages that stripped out anti-trans riders as the government was funded piece by piece. As amendment after amendment fell away, those wins grew more substantial, including the removal of a proposed ban on gender-affirming medical care from the NDAA—even after it had passed both the House and Senate. Still, the most consequential question remained unresolved: what would ultimately happen to the high-impact anti-trans provisions embedded in the HHS and Education bills.

Now, the package has been released—and for the moment, transgender people can breathe again. The final HHS and Education bills contain no anti-transgender provisions: no ban on hospitals providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, no threats to strip funding from schools that support transgender students or allow them to use the bathroom, and no mandate forcing colleges to exclude transgender students from sports or activities like chess or esports. The bills are strikingly clean. As such, they avert yet another protracted shutdown fight in which transgender people are once again turned into political bargaining chips—and, at least for now, remove Congress as the immediate vehicle for new federal attacks, should they pass as-is.

When asked about the successful stripping of anti-trans provisions, a staffer for Representative Sarah McBride tells Erin In The Morning, “Rep. McBride works closely with her colleagues every day to defend the rights of all her constituents, including LGBTQ people across Delaware. In the face of efforts by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress to roll back health care and civil rights, she was proud to work relentlessly with her colleagues in ensuring these funding bills did not include anti-LGBTQ provisions. It takes strong allies in leadership and on committees to rein in the worst excesses of this Republican trifecta, Rep. McBride remains grateful to Ranking Members DeLauro, Murray, and Democratic leadership for prioritizing the removal of these harmful riders.”

This does not mean that transgender people will not be targeted with policies and rules that affect them in all areas of life. The Trump administration has acted without regard to law in forcing bans on sports, pulling funding from schools and hospitals, and banning passport gender marker updates. The Supreme Court has been increasingly willing to let the office of the presidency under Trump do whatever it would like to transgender people. However, the lack of passage of bills targeting transgender people means that these attacks will only last for as long as we have Trump in the White House, and a future president should hopefully be easily able to reverse the attacks.

Better Than Republicans Now!

Links within, and everything. Give it a read-especially the letter!-you’ll enjoy it. -A.

Hillary Clinton May Finally Get Lock-Her-Upped For Refusing Stupid Subpoena From Dipsh*t James Comer

Hell yes, and welcome to the resistance, guys.

Doktor Zoom

So far, the Justice Department has released only about one percent of the files it has on Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump’s involvement with the serial child molester, and the government’s failure to hold Epstein accountable. It’s the sort of thing Congress should be demanding action on, but the House Oversight Committee was instead planning to spend this week grilling Bill and Hillary Clinton about their long-ago contacts with Epstein, because that would take the spotlight off Trump.

Yesterday, the Clintons sent a scathing four-page letter (New York Times archive link) to committee chair James Comer (R-Kentucky) telling him why they wouldn’t be playing along, arguing that instead of demanding the Justice Department comply with the law requiring release of the Epstein Files, Comer and the Oversight Committee “have prevented progress in discovering the facts about the government’s role.”

You should definitely give the full Clinton letter a read, because it lays out not just why the Clintons won’t go along with Comer’s attempt to shift attention away from Trump and the DOJ’s foot-dragging, but also why this government’s corruption must be resisted wherever possible, from the streets to closed-door hearing rooms. The letter, not from their attorneys but from the Clintons themselves, starts by laying out the unprecedented attacks on the rule of law by Trump’s government, and sums up:

Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences.

For us, now is that time.

The letter also notes, again, that Bill Clinton has repeatedly called for the DOJ to release every last bit of information about him from the Epstein Files, which isn’t exactly what somebody trying to hide something would say. As opposed to, let’s say, a president who has fought every single attempt to release everything.

Separately, the Clintons’ attorneys sent Comer a more conventional letter explaining why they consider the committee’s subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable,” which may be useful if Comer follows through on his threat to charge the Clintons with contempt of Congress. But the Clintons’ letter, like Comer’s attempt to drag them before the committee for show, is openly and unabashedly political.

In what may have been a deliberate throwback, the Clinton letter is in good old-fashioned typewriter text (or a digital recreation of it), not a more obvious laser-printed Times New Roman or Arial, as if to suggest that in contrast to a clumsy Twitter message or a random email blast, the IBM Selectric is an elegant communications device for a more civilized age:

Screenshot of the Clintons' letter to James Comer, with stylized presidential seal embossed in gold above the names 'WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON / HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON' printed on letterhead. Text: 'January 13, 2026 Chairman Comer, We want to take a moment, given everything, to address you directly. This past year has seen our Government engage in unprecedented acts, including against our own citizens. People have been seized by masked federal agents from their homes, their workplaces, and the streets of their communities. Students and scientists with visas permitting them to study and work here have been deported without due process. The people who laid siege to the U.S. Capitol have been pardoned and called heroes. Agencies vital to the country's national security have been dismantled. Universities, media companies, and law firms have been subjected to threats to their funding, access, and licensing unless they made concessions and surrendered their right to constitutionally protected free speech. American troops have been deployed on the streets of our towns and cities. The Justice Department has been used as a weapon, at the direction of the President, to pursue political opponents. And most recently and searingly, an ICE agent killed an unarmed mother only days ago. Every person has to decide when they have seen or had enough and are ready to fight for this country, its principles and its people, no matter the consequences. For us, now is that time.'

While Comer accepted sworn, written declarations from eight other people the committee subpoenaed, he’s only demanded that the Clintons show up in person to be grilled behind closed doors. But no thanks, they write, we aren’t going to help you create a sideshow that detracts from the administration’s stonewalling on releasing the files:

We have tried to give you the little information that we have. We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.

Predictably, Comer is now rattling on about charging Bill Clinton with contempt of Congress for not appearing Tuesday, and Hillary as well, since there was little chance she’d show up for her scheduled deposition today. Anticipating that, they basically tell him in the letter, BRING IT:

Despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves.

Indeed, bringing the Republicans’ cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness.

If that’s the direction Comer goes, the letter warns, get ready, because while they’re still willing to testify in a public hearing, the Clintons will also “defend ourselves in the public arena and ensure this country knows exactly why you are doing so, instead of helping the American people who need this Congress’s work and protection.”

The letter closes with another warning, with a nice jab at MAGA obsessions with the perfectly legal and cromulent use of autopens on official documents, which is fun to read in a letter that looks as if it came from a typewriter. (Are the signatures here digital or handwritten, and does anyone care?)

Screenshot of Clinton letter: 'Continue to mislead Americans about what is truly at stake, and you will learn that Americans are better at finding the truth than you are at burying it. Continue to pursue autopens instead of penning laws Americans need, and you will learn that you are signing away any remaining chance of being on the right side of history. Continue to abet the dismantling of America, and you will learn that it takes more than a wrecking ball to demolish what Americans have built over 250 years. Sincerely,  [signatures] Bill Clinton / Hillary Rodham Clinton'

It’s a hell of a read, and it matters because unlike all the ways Trump and his sycophants have thrown norms (and the law) under the bus, this letter makes clear that the Clintons are defying the subpoenas not out of contempt, but to highlight that the GOP “investigation” is itself a political act aimed at intimidating Trump’s enemies. This isn’t an attempt to escape answering tough questions — they’ll happily do that in the open and in a sworn written statement. It’s civil disobedience, because this is a goddamned emergency.

Rebecca Solnit writes that we need to see more of this from people whose privilege usually protects them. They could testify in private and ride out the political screeching (neither would be at any risk) but they’re instead saying hell no and courting a contempt charge because it would bring attention to Trump’s crimes:

It’s significant that they’ve come out fighting. This is specifically about James Comer’s attempt to force them to testify about all things Epstein, even as this administration covers up for Epstein’s best friend, refuses to release 95% of the Epstein files, etc. What’s striking here is that the Clintons articulate it’s all of a piece with all the other appalling and lawless things the Trumpists are doing. That these supremely status quo/high status people see themselves as under attack in illegitimate ways and are now fighting back with broad accusations matters, not least because it may shake up some other people with high status/status quo positions, including high up in the Democratic Party.

We also wholeheartedly endorse Solnit’s caution that “I don’t really want or need to hear about why you don’t like the Clintons,” because yes, that conversation has been ongoing for 35 years, but this is something new, and because hey, did you notice the whole building is on fire?

A Great Info & Opinion Piece About The Rich, The Poor, Capitalism, & Socialism

A good explainer written with a sense of humor. Nice things are not always bad things. -A.

We Regret To Infomrm You Zohran Mamdani’s Wife Wore Nice Boots.

Ready, Boots? Start walking!

Robyn Pennacchia Jan 05, 2026

Since returning to office, Donald Trump’s personal wealth has nearly doubled, from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7.3 billion this past September, which includes $2 billion from his cryptocurrency ventures that no one had been buying into prior to his reelection. Donald Trump Jr. is now worth six times what he was in 2024, also due in part to the family crypto scam.

But did you hear? Zohran Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, wore some cute boots to his inauguration like a common Imelda Marcos! Quelle horreur!

The New York Post breathlessly reported:

Their “affordability” agenda got off on the wrong foot.

New York City’s first lady Rama Duwaji appeared to wear $630 “artisan” leather boots from a high-end designer to her Democratic socialist husband Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral swearing-in ceremony — a luxury look that flew in the face of the politician’s “everyman” image, eagle-eyed critics said Thursday.

Duwaji, a 28-year-old artist, gave more socialite than socialist on New Year’s Day as she apparently rocked one of the fashion house Miista’s pricey boot designs — one which is said to be crafted from “vegetable tan cow leather” and feature an “ultra-cushioned memory foam insole.”

Not “vegetable tan cow leather”! NOT A MEMORY FOAM INSOLE!

Not that it matters, really, but $630 for boots is not “luxury.” I mean that technically. Obviously $630 is a good amount of money, but it’s not luxury. It’s what’s called “bridge” — meaning that it’s high quality and expensive, but not at the same level as actual luxury brands, which cost at least twice that. It’s not Chanel or Versace or Alexander McQueen or Louis.

Now, it turns out that the boots (and the entire outfit) were actually rented/loaned for the occasion, as her stylist Gabriella Karefa-Johnson explained in a blog post about the event:

Rama wore a vintage Balenciaga coat from Albright Fashion Library and archival earrings from New York Vintage, both rented during a single marathon day spent diving into the racks and cupboards of the city’s best small, circular fashion businesses. […]

C’mon formal shorts!! Those are from The Frankie Shop, and the boots are *ON LOAN* from Miista.

I’m just going to have to get comfortable with the fact that people on the internet do not understand what being lent a SAMPLE that has been borrowed before and will be borrowed again means but, you know what, that’s okay.

This is a big part of what stylists do. Most of the time, when you see a celebrity wearing something fancy on the red carpet or at an event like this, it’s not something from their own closet, it’s on loan from a designer (because cheap advertising) or something like the Albright Fashion Library. This is also how a lot of wardrobing for television and movies works.

But even if they weren’t on loan, the idea that “it’s hypocrisy for a Democratic socialist or even a regular liberal to wear nice boots!” is absurd. It only seems like “hypocrisy” to people who think socialism means everyone should be poor and miserable and standing in bread lines all day wearing cardboard boxes on their feet instead of shoes.

The reality is … that’s capitalism. Like, for most people, that is capitalism, except you don’t even get any free bread out of it. Indeed, most of the people in the comments on the Post’s tweet for the article were talking about how they, the proud capitalists that capitalism is definitely working out really well for, only spend $40 on boots at Walmart or Amazon. Actually, buying shoes that will only last a season (and will fuck up your feet) because that’s all you can afford, instead of boots that cost a lot up front but last forever, is a perfect example of why it costs more to be poor than it does to be rich. (This is not to say that you can’t get decent boots for a not-crazy price — I do very well at Nordstrom Rack and Marshalls, thank you very much — but you get my point.)

What we want is for people to not have to spend $2,000 a month on health insurance or on rent so that they can have nice things, so that they can buy a nice pair of boots or a warm winter coat. So that they can go out to dinner sometimes without worrying about breaking the bank. That is the whole damn point! That’s the “hearts starve as well as bodies; give us bread, but give us roses too” of it all.

Right now, 60 percent of Americans cannot afford $1,000 for an emergency expense. That’s not socialism that did that, that’s capitalism as practiced in the United States of America. Our economy literally has poverty built into the system. We literally cannot function without people to work the kind of jobs that currently do not pay enough for survival. Austerity is a way of life for a very large percentage of us, which also means that those whose income is dependent on other people having expendable income are also screwed.

New NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s affordability plans don’t just benefit the poor, they benefit everyone. If people aren’t taking certain jobs because transportation costs too much to make it worth their while or they can’t afford to live in the city, everyone’s quality of life goes down. A city where only rich people can afford to live is a city where rich people have absolutely nothing to do, which kind of defeats the whole point of being rich in the first place.

The commenters complaining about all the people they could supposedly feed with the $630 those boots cost are also missing the point. Besides clearly not being how socialism is supposed to work, caring for the poor by way of charity and philanthropy is lovely, but it’s not the most effective and efficient way of doing so. Taxes are. Social programs are. GoFundMe raises about $650 million a year for medical causes, with some people getting far more than they could ever need and others getting nothing. That is a stupid way of doing things. You want to spend less on healthcare? Make the entire United States one giant insurance group with a shit ton of leverage and bulk buying power, make medical school free and invest tax money into creating more internship programs. That is how you take care of people, not by not buying a pair of shoes.

Capitalists want philanthropy to replace taxation. Right-wing libertarians frequently argue that if you just didn’t tax the rich, they would happily give huge chunks of their fortunes away to the poor, which is patently ridiculous (and, again, not effective or efficient even if things did shake out that way).

Champagne socialists are good, actually. Why on earth would it be better to be a miserly rich person than a rich person who actually believes they should be taxed at a fair rate because they want to see everyone living well? The idea that the Left wants a world in which everyone lives like they’ve taken a vow of poverty and no one gets to be “successful” is a fantasy created by rich assholes who don’t want to share and don’t care if they live in a society where everyone has at least their basic needs met.

We actually love success, which is why we want more of it for more people, rather than just one percent of one percent of people. We love people, which is why we want a safety net that keeps them from falling so far they can’t get back up again. We love ingenuity, which is why we want people to be able to go into business for themselves without having to worry about what will happen to their kids if they can’t afford good health insurance on their own right away. We want their kids to feel like it’s not hopeless to try their best in school because they don’t think they’ll be able to afford to go to college without being in debt the rest of their lives. We don’t think it’s enough that people can “dream” of being billionaires but factually never be able to afford their own home.

And yes, we even want some people to be able to afford to actually buy $630 shoes, so that other people can get paid a fair wage for designing, making and selling those $630 shoes.

Hope that clears things up!