May 21, 2026, 2:57 pm

Here’s a story you should pay close attention to. You may have heard of the “Broadview Six” (later reduced to “Four”). It was a case focused on prominent local Democrats protesting at a Chicago-area ICE facility. (One was congressional candidate and influencer Kat Abughazaleh, who lost her primary this spring.) It was a classic over-charging case: A brief chaotic moment around the vehicle of an ICE employee ratcheted up to be a federal felony conspiracy charge. The case has been moving toward trial for like eight months and it was scheduled to go to trial next week.

For the last month, however, questions about the underlying grand jury proceeding have been roiling the case. First that prompted the government to drop the felony conspiracy charge rather than show the judge the grand jury testimony. (It thus went from a felony trial to a federal trial on one misdemeanor charge.) The judge finally saw those transcripts Tuesday night. That led to a closed-door emergency hearing this morning. In rapid succession today, the remaining charges were dropped and Chicago U.S. Attorney Andrew S. Boutros appeared in court personally to apologize to the judge and deny all knowledge of what had happened.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 21, 2026, 2:06 pm

This has been implicit in various points I’ve made in recent Editors’ Blog posts. I want to make it more explicit. What’s occupying Donald Trump’s time right now? The big items are the Ballroom, the Deserving Fascists Slush Fund, the revenge tour against merely 95% loyal members of Congress. We could add Trump’s Iran War which is keeping gas prices sky high and creating other shortages. But that’s kind of baked in from a decision Trump made more than two months ago. It’s damaging him but it’s a tar pit he’s already stuck in. The things he’s most focused on, the obsessions are things that are either irrelevant to the midterm elections or are playing central roles driving down his public support. The plane is losing altitude fast but he’s in the cockpit grabbing the controls and trying to steepen the descent.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 21, 2026, 12:25 pm

The most important thing to know about the DNC “autopsy” report on the 2024 election is, who cares? Most of the commentary on this document gives the impression that this is some meaningful disclosure of the inside dope, what really happened, etc. But it’s not. It just the take of the guys they chose to write a report. No more significant or revealing than the million other takes on the 2024 election we’ve all read.

-Josh Marshall
May 21, 2026, 11:28 am

Todd Blanche is basically just making 30-second ads, whether he knows it or not. When asked whether he’s okay with cash bonanzas for people convicted of attacking police officers was his reply, the acting attorney general replied, “Just to be clear, people who hurt police get money all the time …”

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 21, 2026, 11:24 am

Semafor and Punchbowl both have items today reporting that the Senate is about to buck President Trump on both his ballroom and his deserving fascists slush fund (DFSF). They want to cut funding for the ballroom and at least greatly restrict the DFSF. You can see the details here. As the authors point out, there’s the standard pattern that the senators willing to speak freely are the ones who’s severed heads are already on pikes: Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), perhaps John Cornyn (R-TX) in the near future. But the silent ones, according to these reports, are going to vote the same way. Or at least enough of them.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 21, 2026, 10:56 am

Be sure to check out and follow our new YouTube page where you can find video episodes of both The TPM Show and The TPM Social Club. Following our channel helps improve visibility, plus we have lots of fun things in the works you won’t want to miss!

-Jackie Wilhelm
May 20, 2026, 6:52 pm

From TPM Reader JH

Thanks for publishing so much back and forth.  Apparently we’re all elite lawyers who read TPM!  I’m not sure where I fall in that – practiced at an “elite” DC firm in my younger years, then stopped practicing for a bit working in government, and then have been a GC or in-house at a handful of small-ish tech firms in the bay area.

Anyway – this stood out to me in one of the replies you posted: “A category difference in simply manufacturing new constitutional law in cases where the constitution is simply as clear as it can be.”

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 20, 2026, 1:41 pm

From TPM Reader BM

I’m not a legal academic, but I was a pretty fancy pants lawyer – Harvard Law magna cum laude, federal clerkship, DOJ Civil Rights Division, AUSA for a decade doing public corruption cases, litigation partner, university general counsel’s office, etc.

I’m not sure I can describe the level of despair among many of my contemporaries.

I was discussing this last night with a retired ACLU lawyer and a retired big firm litigation leader.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 20, 2026, 1:29 pm

From TPM Reader AC …

As someone who almost certainly falls into your “elite academic” category, I have some thoughts about the current discussion.

A while back, many people thought that the law was deterministic.  Enter a set of facts, and the law will immediately spit out an answer, one that is replicable regardless of who the judge is.  I think that most now understand that the judge’s identity matters.  This does not mean that the process is necessarily corrupt.  Rather people approach interpretive questions and understand facts differently, with those differences often being based on life experiences.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
May 20, 2026, 1:25 pm

From TPM Reader JH

I’ve read with interest some of your posts about the legal academy, and wanted to weigh in briefly. 

I have a somewhat unique perspective here, in that I’ve been adjacent to some of the more elite legal world, but I am not a part of it: I have an Ivy League law degree, and know plenty of people who got fancy clerkships, but I am a lowly practicing lawyer in Minneapolis.   

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
x

SessionsWire

Zero Recall: Sessions Punts Questions On Trump, Comey, Russia Probe

Attorney General Jeff Sessions removes his glasses as he speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey, his Russian contacts during the campaign and his decision to recuse from an investigation into possible ties between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In an often-contentious Tuesday hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, an indignant Attorney General Jeff Sessions made clear that he was upset that allegations that he knew of collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives during the election were impugning his “honor.” But in nearly three hours of testimony, he failed to answer many of the key questions that prompted the panel to invite him to testify in open session.

[Read More]

Dem Senator: ‘Hard To See’ How Sessions Can Be AG After Senate Hearing

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Tuesday said it is “hard to see” how Attorney General Jeff Sessions can remain in his position after refusing to answer questions during an open session of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Attorney General Sessions has recused himself from the investigation of Russian interference in our election, recommended the dismissal of the Director of the FBI, reportedly offered his resignation to the President, and refused to answer questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee,” Durbin said in a statement. “It is hard to see how he can continue to serve.”

Sessions cited executive privilege several times while testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, though he acknowledged that President Donald Trump has not in fact invoked it yet.

“So what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions?” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) pressed him.

“I’m protecting the right of the President to assert it if he chooses,” Sessions replied.

RNC’s Funding Plea Attributed To Trump After Sessions Hearing: ‘WITCH-HUNT!’

President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Monday, June 12, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The Republican National Committee sent out a fundraising email on Tuesday attributed to President Donald Trump and warning of a “WITCH-HUNT” after Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“There is an effort to SABOTAGE us,” the email attributed to Trump reads.

It accused Democrats of “using a conspiracy theory” to “DERAIL” Trump’s presidency.

“We MUST keep fighting,” the email reads. “WITCH-HUNT!”

Trump did not offer any comment on Sessions’ testimony via Twitter, his favored medium for rapid response.

No Republicans (So Far) Will Go On CNN To Respond To Sessions Testimony

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer said after Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Republicans hadn’t yet committed to responding to Sessions’ testimony on the network.

“I just want to alert our viewers that we’ve invited Republicans to join us as well,” Blitzer said, before an interview Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). “Hopefully they will. So far we’ve received certain maybes down the road.”

McCain To Sessions: ‘I Don’t Recall You’ Being Interested In Russia As A Senator

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Tuesday said he did not recall Attorney General Jeff Sessions taking any interest in Russia as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, though Sessions claimed he met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in that capacity.

Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that he pressed Kislyak on Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

“I remember pushing back on it and it was testy on that subject,” Sessions said.

“Knowing you on the committee, I can’t imagine that,” McCain replied.

He asked Sessions whether he talked to Kislyak about Russian interference in elections held by U.S. allies.

“I don’t recall that being discussed,” Sessions said.

“If you spoke with Ambassador Kislyak in your capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee, you presumably talked with him about Russia-related security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee,” McCain said.

“Did I discuss security issues?” Sessions repeated in apparent confusion.

“I don’t recall you as being particularly vocal on such issues,” McCain said. “In your capacity as the chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, what Russia-related security issues did you hold hearings on or otherwise demonstrate a keen interest in?”

“We may have discussed that,” Sessions said, apparently responding to McCain’s earlier question. “I just don’t have a real recall of the meeting. I was not making a report about it to anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed.”

“And his response was?” McCain pressed.

“I don’t recall,” Sessions said.

Sen. Reed Confronts Sessions With Flip-Flops On Comey Handling Of Clinton Emails

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was confronted with his flip-flops on then-FBI Director James Comey’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server Tuesday.

During a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) quoted Sessions’ responses to then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement in July 2016 that he would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Sessions signed onto a memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that cited Comey’s handling of the case as unprofessional, and one justification for his firing.

On July 7, Reed said, Sessions said the email investigation dismissal “was not his problem, it’s Hillary Clinton’s problem,” referring to Comey.

[Read More]

Sessions Snaps At Harris: ‘If I Don’t Qualify’ My Answers, ‘You’ll Accuse Me Of Lying’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions snapped at Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) during a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday, saying the pace of her questioning made him nervous, and that she would accuse him of lying if he was not given time to qualify his answers.

“As it relates to your knowledge, Did you have any communication with any Russian businessmen or any Russian nationals?” Harris asked Sessions.

“I don’t believe I had any conversation with Russian businessmen or Russian nationals—” Sessions began in response.

Harris interjected: “Are you aware of any communications — 

“— although a lot of people were at the convention it’s conceivable that somebody —” Sessions continued, before Harris spoke again

“Sir, I have just a few—” she began.

“Will you let me qualify it!” Sessions said, voice raised. “If I don’t qualify it, you’ll accuse me of lying. So I need to be as correct as best I can—”

“I do want you to be honest,” Harris said

“—and I’m not able to be rushed this fast. It makes me nervous,” Sessions said.

Watch below via ABC News:

Sessions: Accusations Against Me Are ‘Just Like Through The Looking Glass’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday said suggestions he met with Russian officials to influence the 2016 election are like a story written by Lewis Carroll.

Sessions’ simile was perhaps prompted by Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) remark that Democrats went “down lots of other rabbit trails” in their lines of questioning as Sessions testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“It’s just like through the looking glass. I mean, what is this?” Sessions said.

Sessions said he “explained how in good faith” he claimed he had not met with Russian officials.

“They were suggesting I as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with Russians,” Sessions said. “I said I didn’t meet with them. And now, the next thing you know, I’m accused of some reception, plotting some sort of influence campaign for the American election. It’s just beyond my capability to understand.”

Sessions: All I Know About Russian Meddling ‘I’ve Read In The Paper’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, June 13, 2017, prior to testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about his role in the firing of James Comey, his Russian contacts during the campaign and his decision to recuse from an investigation into possible ties between Moscow and associates of President Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday that all he knew about Russian meddling in the 2016 election he had learned from press reports.

Earlier in the hearing, Sessions said he had “in effect” recused himself from campaign-related matters the day after he was sworn in as attorney general, and not after later reports he had had undisclosed meetings with the Russian ambassador — at which point he publicly announced a recusal for the first time.

“Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 election?” Sen. Angus King (I-ME) asked Sessions.

“It appears so,” Sessions said. “The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Sen. King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”

“There was a memorandum from the intelligence community on Oct. 9 that detailed what the Russians were doing,” King said. “After the election, before the inauguration, you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country?”

“No,” Sessions replied.

“You never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports?” King asked.

“You might have been very critical of me if I, as an active part of the campaign, was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign,” Sessions said. “I’m not sure that would be —”

“I’m not talking about the campaign,” King interjected. “I’m talking about what the Russians did. You received no briefing on the Russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election?”

“No, I don’t believe I ever did,” Sessions said.