The lawless no man’s land between the holidays and the New Year are an apt time to announce the winners of the 17th Annual Golden Duke Awards, TPM’s yearly toast to the toads who took venality and nonsense to new heights.

In 2025, the first year of Donald Trump’s second term, those who specialize in political corruption, shameless capitulation and unabashed betrayals of public trust had ample opportunity to shine. And shine they did.

It’s coming to the surface now. But it’s a marvel in itself that it has taken as long as it has. AI is really, really unpopular with the American people — even more unpopular than I’d realized, as I noted a week ago. And yet for most of the last couple years, in elite discourse, on TV and in the big news publications, you would feel very backwards and Luddite expressing more than a general caution that rogue AI intentionally blowing up the world would be a bad thing. Because it’s the new thing and who doesn’t like the new and innovation and all the good stuff? We remain, meanwhile, in an economic moment in which vast, almost unprecedented amounts of economic resources are being directed toward AI rollout. Public messaging in advertising and product development are filled with reminders of how many awesome things AI can do for you. And yet everyone basically hates it.

Chris Geidner flags today an appearance by CBS News’ Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford’s attacking Supreme Court critics who call the Court and its current jurisprudence “corrupt.”

“There is a narrative the Supreme Court is corrupt,” she told Face The Nation. “We saw that emerge in the wake of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and now we see it that they’re in the tank for Trump. Not only is that narrative over-reported, it is patently false, and it is dangerous for the institution and the public’s faith and confidence in the rule of law.”

Chris has more of Crawford’s quotes. And he makes clear the most telling thing about Crawford’s defense is that she doesn’t even address the arguments against the Court’s practices and behavior. She just asserts it in a ‘the King can do no wrong because he’s the King’ kind of fashion. But this one passage is enough to make the point. Not only is the Court demonstrably not corrupt, Crawford claims, it is also dangerous for the Court to have itself be called “corrupt”. And, she claims, what is dangerous or threatening to this Court threatens the rule of law itself. In other words, you might say, the danger to the state is that child in the third row saying the King is naked.