In a way, it’s understandable. It must seem like forever to them that he’s been in office. Not only does he tweak and poke and tease them, but he was first elected ten years ago. I suspect that those four years of Biden between Trump’s two terms has only served to make it seem as though Trump’s been in charge much longer than he actually has.

They would dearly like it to end ASAP:

We polled five routes for Trump to leave office before the end of his term. A plurality of Dems support four of them, including a military coup and death by natural causes. The only one underwater, an assassination, is still supported by 29%. pic.twitter.com/C3qb2H0R8j

— Center for Strategic Politics (@StratPolitics) September 21, 2026

That 29% for the assassination seems a trifle low, by the way – I get 32% when I add the figures up.

If you can’t access X and can’t see the chart, the five routes are the following:

(1) Impeached and convicted, which draws 87%, 75% of them very strongly. For what would he be impeached? Who cares, really?

(2) Declared unfit under the 25th Amendment, which draws 84%, 70% of them very strongly.

(3) Died overnight in his sleep, which draws 55%, 45% of them very strongly. Well, at least they don’t want him to suffer.

(4) Removed by military coup, which draws 59%, 43% of them very strongly. Nothing like a little “our democracy” action.

(5) Assassinated while speaking at a rally, which draws 32%, 23% of them very strongly. That’s about a third of respondents. What’s more, another 25% would be indifferent/neutral if that happened.

Rather astounding, except for the fact that I’ve known many people to voice a wish that Trump would die. They seem otherwise normal, living normal and even kindly lives. TDS is very very real.

The post Nevertheless, Democrats don’t think they’re the bad guys appeared first on The New Neo.

The Trump administration has been saying for a while that as many as nine million barrels of oil a day are traversing the Strait of Hormuz. That claim has been “fact checked” and derided by just about everyone. …

Only–oops–it turns out that President Trump and Secretary Wright, one of his cabinet’s most impressive members, were right all along, as Kpler now confirms:

“An average of 8.6 million barrels of oil a day have been flowing through the Strait of Hormuz — more than previously reported, maritime analyst firm Kpler confirmed in a new update that matches estimates from the Trump administration.
***
“Kpler and other trackers had initially put the number closer to 5 million, but new data includes “dark transits,” where ships turn off their transponders and secret ship-to-ship transfers, which the group wasn’t previously tracking.

“The nature of the transits left Kpler and other analysts to report only a handful of crossings every day, figures that were picked up by media outlets and used to point out the discrepancy between what was being reported and what the Trump administration was claiming.

“The White House has long-maintained that the data firms were missing a chunk of the exports due to the dark transits, with Kpler now confirming the fact as the dark ships start reappearing and painting a clearer picture of the oil flow.”

I seem to recall a considerable amount of discussion on this blog in the past about this topic.

The post The Strait of Hormuz appeared first on The New Neo.

According to whistleblower Daniel Wiesenfeld, a former Brooklyn prosecutor who works in the Investor Protection Bureau, James produced her chosen defendant and ordered her staff to find a crime, any crime.

Wiesenfeld sent an email to call on fellow lawyers not to assist James further in weaponizing her office. He recounted his own experience as a prosecutor in her office and how Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe allegedly directed him to target “Trump himself, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard (DOJ approved merger) . . . without having a credible reason for targeting the organizations and individuals.”

He added that “If you believe Trump is using the [Department of Justice] attorneys to prosecute his enemies and further his political interests, you should find it equally troubling that Tish [James] is doing exactly the same thing.”

In his blistering email, Wiesenfeld reminded his colleagues that they have other things to do than hunt down James’ enemies. While she wastes “significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient public enemies,” Wiesenfeld reminded them that there is “rampant nonprofit homeless shelter fraud and antisemitic crimes in and around synagogues.”

Instead, James concentrated on an absurd civil case against Trump where the “victims” made money, lost nothing, and wanted more business from the Trump corporation.

We’ve known this for a long long time. The basic idea is not new and in fact, James campaigned on it. She had identified the criminal and all she had to do was find the crime. The one she and her underlings found was absurd, underscoring how difficult it was to come up with a crime for which to prosecute Trump. They had to essentially make one up.

So, what is new about this? The details are being fleshed out via a whistleblower.

Turley points out, correctly I believe, that most on the left still applaud her:

James is unlikely to be deterred by Wiesenfeld’s email. She knows that the far left still prefers performative lawfare to actual enforcement of fraud and other laws. Some voters would willingly watch billions stolen in program fraud in exchange for just one more trophy Trump conviction.

In fairness to James, she has always been open about what she is and what she was offering.

Absolutely.

Not only that, but some of the left are recipients of the largesse of that fraud. So of course they don’t mind – it’s a win/win situation for them.

[NOTE: I recently heard a bunch of very garden-variety non-DSA Democrats talk with relish about wanting to impeach Trump. Again. For what, they didn’t say; it was just assumed this would be a good thing.]

The post Letitia James was out to get Trump appeared first on The New Neo.

“At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority US control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer,” the president wrote.

“This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward Tremendous Success and Great Prosperity,” he added.

This was not on my bingo card when I voted for Trump in 2024. But if it’s actually true, it’s quite a development.

From Rubio:

“For the Venezuelan people, this deal will bring nearly $100 billion in private investment, support thousands of high-paying jobs, and drive the reconstruction of Venezuela’s economy,” the secretary of state said.

Win/win? Too good to be true?

I had a college roommate who was an American born in Venezuela, whose father worked in the oil industry there. That’s how I learned, long ago, that the US had been instrumental in developing that country’s oil production, although the Venezuelans always owned the oil fields. You might say it was a mutually beneficial relationship, but Chavez ended it and also instituted other changes that deeply harmed the industry. The blows came from many decisions of Chavez’s; you can find much of the history here.

As for “Highly Respected” Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, she seems to be willing to deal.

The post Is it really the biggest oil deal in recorded history? appeared first on The New Neo.

“We are low-keying it,” Trump said during a brief phone call.

“We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”

He stressed that Iran “is in very bad shape” economically and has no money to pay its troops. The U.S. naval blockade has exacerbated the Iranian regime’s economic crisis, Trump said.

At the same time, Trump said that with oil down to slightly over $75 a barrel, U.S. consumers are feeling less pain from the war.

“It will work out. It always works out. It’s like a chess game,” Trump said of the back-and-forth with Iran.

I had long thought that it was the Iranians (Persians) who invented chess, but that’s not exactly true:

The history of chess can be traced back nearly 1,500 years to its earliest known predecessor, called chaturanga, in India; its prehistory is the subject of speculation. From India it spread to Persia, where it was modified in terms of shapes and rules and developed into shatranj. Following the Arab invasion and conquest of Persia, chess was taken up by the Muslim world and subsequently spread to Europe via Spain (Al Andalus) and Italy (Emirate of Sicily). The game evolved roughly into its current form by about 1500 CE.

How is Iran actually doing economically and politically?

U.S. officials also say there are growing disagreements inside the Iranian regime. One camp, led by President Masoud Pezeshkian, is extremely worried about an economic collapse and believes Iran needs to reach a deal with the U.S. Another led by the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmad Vahidi, rejects any concessions.

“Good cop, bad cop”? I very much doubt that either is actually a good cop.

I don’t especially trust any predictions on Iran, so I’ll skip them.

There’s also this:

After months of conflict, Iranian officials decided the United States should compensate them for damages tied to the war. …

[Trump replied]:

“It is an interesting idea because now I am likewise demanding compensation from Iran, for all of the people that they have killed and gravely wounded with their roadside bombs and many conflicts,” Trump countered.

He went on to mention the USS Cole bombing from nearly 26 years ago and suggested compensation to America should include consideration of “thousands of others killed in combat.”

“Additionally, compensation should be paid to the families of the hundreds of thousands of innocent protestors that Iran has killed over the last 50 years, not to mention the 52,000 that have been killed in the last five months,” he added.

Trump said he has instructed his representatives to include the compensation demand into “any, and all, future negotiations.”

I don’t think negotiations have much of a future. But then, I never did think so.

The post Trump seems to have decided to take the economic pressure route on Iran for now appeared first on The New Neo.

President Trump is signing two Executive Orders to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship after Trump v. Barbara:

The executive orders,Continuing to Protect the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship and Ending Birth Tourism, limit the scope, targeting future births in four categories:

– Either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include any member of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.
– Either parent is a foreign government employee working on behalf of a foreign government.
– Person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.
– The entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil or any effort by any foreign national to facilitate the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil.

I haven’t a clue how this would fare in a Court challenge. Legislation would do better, I think, but is probably impossible to pass at this point. Jonathan Turley gives his opinion here:

I will add that I believe that part of the goal is to simply discourage birth tourism, to maker it an iffier, more difficult, and more costly process. This might make the numbers go down significantly.

The post Trump gives limiting birthright citizenship another try appeared first on The New Neo.

The FBI opened a criminal probe specifically targeting Donald Trump in May 2017, alleging the newly elected president may have been acting as a Russian asset when he fired then-Director James Comey even though the bureau’s own evidence overwhelmingly showed at the time there was no collusion with the Kremlin.

Internal memos newly declassified by the White House show the investigation – codenamed “Oxferd Comma” – was launched in the immediate aftermath of Comey’s May 9, 2017, firing and was predicated on an allegation that previously released memos show the bureau’s own agents had mostly dismissed. …

… [T]hat decision proved anything but nonintrusive: it prompted the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Rosenstein and a nearly two-year probe that hampered the start of the Trump presidency even though Mueller’s team, like the FBI before it, was unable to substantiate any collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election. …

The memos are being released as federal prosecutors in Fort Pierce, Fla., reportedly investigate whether the FBI, DOJ and intelligence agencies engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Trump and his supporters through repeated criminal investigations that lacked evidence of wrongdoing.

So this is about possible charges against the investigators. That raises the question we often ask: will anything come of it? It would be a very difficult thing to prove, although note that this investigation is currently not in Washington DC but in Florida. That may give it at least a fighting chance.

I have little doubt that such a conspiracy existed and that it did much damage. But I also think that many Americans don’t think that happened; in a sense, the conspiracy was rather successful in the court of public opinion. And some of those who do think it happened are happy that it happened. They belief it’s necessary to “cut down every law” in order to get the nefarious Trump.

[NOTE: What is this “Oxferd comma” thing? I know what the Oxford comma is, although I don’t use it. But Oxferd? Here’s an explanation:

Former acting Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark alleged the code name was deliberately altered to make records of the investigation harder to find.

“The FBI under James Comey and Christopher Wray was hopelessly corrupt. To penalize President Trump’s firing of Comey, they created a ridiculous investigation into Trump on the theory he was a witting or unwitting Russian agent,” Clark, who serves as vice president of litigation at the Oversight Project, told Fox News Digital.

“They called it OXFERD C0MMA (note the zero for the second ‘o’ and the misspelling of the University). The FBI managers thought this was clever. They imagined themselves as Blofeld in a James Bond movie deviously defeating the Freedom of Information Act,” Clark added, referring to the James Bond supervillain.

I hadn’t even noticed that zero for the O in “comma.” It appears only as “comma” in the first article I linked.]

The post You may be tired of Russiagate, but Russiagate isn’t tired of you appeared first on The New Neo.

We have become used to these things, and that’s not good.

What will be the effect of what Trump revealed, and the documents that have been put on the White House website? I obviously don’t know, but if previous experience is any guide, not all that much. It’s incredibly difficult to prosecute these things and in particular to get convictions in DC courts, if DC ends up being the venue for any trials.

For people already inclined to hate Trump – and that’s about half of the country – none of this will convince them in the least. Trump could say that two plus two equals four, and they would say he’s wrong and/or lying. Already the MSM is proclaiming that this is all the same old stuff that Trump’s been peddling since November of 2020, and in a way they’re correct (except for some of the details). But just because he’s been saying it all that time doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

And what have I been saying for those years? Pretty much the following:

– Whatever really happened in 2020 or any other election, it is exceptionally difficult to prove fraud once it has occurred. Therefore election security must be tighter than it has been, in order to prevent fraud or the perception of the strong possibility of fraud. Trust in elections must be restored. That is extremely basic, and yet difficult to do. Not only is the SAVE Act meeting significant opposition in the Senate from a few Republicans in addition to all Democrats, but even if the SAVE Act were to pass and be successfully implemented, half of America would say it excluded many Democrat voters who are qualified to vote but couldn’t prove it by the new rules. Whether or not that is the case, it would be the argument.

– Universal automatic mail-in voting has to end, because it’s too susceptible to fraud. We need to go back to the old system in which absentee voting is only available for good reason, and require that a voter wanting an absentee ballot make a special request ahead of time. Filled-in ballots must arrive back by Election Day, because late-arriving ballots are the reason for long drawn-out vote-counting.

– Voting should all occur on the same day, or at the most a very short number of days such as a week.

– To register to vote, a person must prove citizenship. There are many ways to do that, and there needs to be special consideration for people who lack birth certificates for bona fide reasons. After that initial proof of citizenship, regular ID would do.

– Computer voting needs to end. Paper ballots are preferable although not perfect.

– Ballot harvesting needs to be more limited as well.

Over the next few weeks, I’m fairly certain that much will be written about the evidence on the White House website. For now, I’ll just add that Trump looked understandably tired during his speech. It’s astounding to me how much work he does at the age of eighty, and how much stress he carries.

The post Trump’s speech on securing elections appeared first on The New Neo.

The post Trump’s speech this evening appeared first on The New Neo.

In a way it’s old news, but Trump promises something new. You can see some of the rumors at Ace’s (see this), but what Trump has actually said so far is this:

Speaking in the Oval Office two days ahead of the planned address, Trump affirmed the speech would focus on elections and a “couple of other things.” …

… Trump framed the elections portion of his Thursday speech as the centerpiece. Two sources said he is expected to focus on voting machine security and alleged efforts by foreign nations to influence elections.

“It’s really, really big news, and our country has to shape up,” Trump said during a meeting with Iraq’s prime minister.

“It doesn’t get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don’t have a country,” the president added. “We’ll be discussing other things too, but it’s going to be a very big announcement.”

It could be about the SAVE Act. It could be about nearly anything related to elections. But I am convinced that, whatever he says – for example, if he produced what ordinarily would be considered ironclad evidence of fraud in previous elections – at least half the nation would not believe it. They don’t believe anything he says or anything his confederates say. They believe that everything and anything that comes from the GOP is fabricated, fake, false.

NOTE: Speaking of which, Chuck Grassley writes on X that he has evidence about prosecutor Jack Smith:

I received records frm DOJ confirming Jack Smith’s investigative team reviewed the contents of text msgs sent by 44 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Im 1 of the 44

Im alerting my colleagues who were impacted and will release the records w Sen Johnson so American ppl can see the evidence.

Most of the responses on X are from angry people saying they’re tired of this sort of thing without any prosecutions of high-up perpetrators such as Smith.

The post Rumors about Trump’s talk tomorrow night appeared first on The New Neo.