December 10, 2025, 2:23 pm

In case you missed it, we kicked off Golden Duke 2025 voting last week and the competition is heating up. Some of you have reached out with your complaints about the exclusion of ne’er-do-wells such as President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL) from this year’s awards. We hear you! They suck! They can re-earn their places in the Duke competition when they start sucking in a less demonic and more lighthearted way ❤️

If you haven’t had a chance to participate in selecting 2025’s most admirable vermin please follow this link and vote before time runs out! As you’ll see, we’ve added some new categories this year to meet our uniquely maniacal moment 🙃 Early voting shows that Trump’s $300 Million White House Ballroom might easily take the cake for Best Scandal but the competition to win a Meritorious Achievement in Grifting or Best Supporting Hatchet Man remains tight.

Vote here!

P.S. If you submitted the nomination we ended up publishing for Lindsey Halligan, Tom “Cashbag” Homan or Signalgate, please reach out! We don’t have your email address and want to send your complimentary TPM merch.

-Nicole LaFond
December 10, 2025, 12:30 pm

I’ve noted many times the central role of Supreme Court reform to any civic democratic future. If you’re a regular reader, you know my arguments. So I won’t recapitulate them here. I’ve also noted how very few Democratic officials seem at all ready for this and a huge amount of work is required to get them here. Luckily there’s time: The first chance to do anything like this is 2029. But there’s another, even more critical, underlying need. A lot of the Democratic public still sees the idea as disconcerting or extreme. And we shouldn’t run away from this perception. Because it is extreme. It is a remedy only justified and really necessitated by a basically unprecedented development in American history which is robbing the public of its right to self-government. (The question is whether there is any precedent is complicated. There are arguably two similar instances in American history. But we can return to that later.) The point is that there is a lot of work to do. Inherently resistant Democratic politicians certainly aren’t going to be brought along if a substantial number of their own voters, perhaps a majority of them, are spooked by the idea.

So this requires a substantial campaign of public education — activist/political groups dedicated specifically and focusedly to the issue, ones that are political activist in nature, ones that draw from the elite legal world. An entire language of explanation is required.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
December 9, 2025, 3:23 pm

A friend of mine ran an analogy by me which really resonated. Perhaps others have drawn the comparison. I don’t know.

In the late 18th century what would later evolve into the British Raj was coalescing into full British domination of the Indian subcontinent — especially after two key battles in 1757 and 1764 waged not by Britain but a private company called the British East India Company. That made it possible for what were often British men of relatively modest origins to build almost unimaginably large fortunes. Life in India was a matter of extremes for British operatives of the East India Company, a joint stock company which owned what were in effect or sorta Britain’s Indian colonies. Countless young Brits went out to India and died in short order. But if they could avoid dying in a relatively few years they could build these unimaginable fortunes. None of them wanted to stay. Virtually no Britons died of old age in India at the time. The whole point was to make as much money as possible in as little time as possible and get back to Great Britain while they were still alive. Then they would pour that money into an estate and land.

They were called “nabobs,” a corruption of “nawab,” a title in the Mughal Empire which originally referred to a provincial governor but evolved into something more like a hereditary lord as Mughal rule disintegrated.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
December 8, 2025, 11:48 am

Simply extraordinary stuff coming out this morning about the battle over what used to be Time Warner and now goes by the name Warner Bros Discovery (which includes CNN in addition to the more lucrative media stuff). The company had agreed to be acquired by Netflix. So Paramount — now the vehicle of the Ellison family successor and a Trump state media entity-in-the-making — has launched a hostile takeover effort to swoop in and gobble up WBD for itself. In its public pitch, it has openly advertised to shareholders that it is the better acquirer because the Ellisons are tight with Trump, and the White House will never let a Netflix deal go through. Trump, in comments yesterday, as much as agreed. Trump has refashioned antitrust oversight to be little more than a personal veto for the Trump family. Friends can do mergers; foes can’t. Indeed, the indifferent and uncommitted can’t either. You need to get right with the Trump family.

When you ask why so much of corporate America is beholden to Trump now, this is why. A big diversified corporation simply cannot compete and thus, in practice, can’t exist with a determinedly hostile administration.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
December 8, 2025, 11:31 am

I’ve written a number of times over the years about the fact that Americans mostly believe that the post-World War II world order is the normal state of things. Of course, it is not. The last 80 years are unparalleled in global history for their general prosperity, lack of great power wars, a fairly predictable system of global rules. One has to say the obligatory caveats about all the ways the United States honored its values and rules in the breach, the slow run of proxy conflicts it participated in or fomented around the world. But these caveats only serve to illustrate the larger point in a paradoxical way. Things can always get worse and getting worse — conflict, instability, mass death — are the normal order of things in world history. Even a thin appraisal of the American ascendency shows its close to uniqueness in this regard.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
December 8, 2025, 8:25 am

I’ve become something of a broken record on this. But repetition sometimes serves a critical purpose. Supreme Court reform is now the sine qua non of any reformist program in the United States, any program to re-implant/re-secure civic democracy in the United States. Filibuster reform, abolition of the filibuster, is comparably important. In fact, the two are interwoven with each other in such a way as to be almost indistinguishably joined together.

But a lot of people know the filibuster has to go. Reforming the Supreme Court, which involves one of several ways of breaking the power of the six corrupt Republican appointees, is a much harder lift. It’s not a harder lift in voting terms. It can be done by passing an ordinary law (once you’ve done away with the filibuster) and having a president to sign it. But for many in the political class, for many elected officials, it remains unthinkable. On the plus side, Democratic voters and opinion leaders have some time to lay the groundwork. The soonest anything can happen is January 2029. (You need Congress and the White House.) But there’s a huge amount of work to do. Because my sense is that Democratic officeholders, party elites, aren’t even close to being there. And there’s really no future without it.

-Josh Marshall
December 5, 2025, 10:34 am

Kate goes deeper on the new definition of “eve” the Court promulgated to help Republicans hold the House next year. (I don’t think it’ll be enough, but that’s another matter.) They take a principle that has some logic in extreme cases: there needs to be some balance between the merits of a case and potential disruption to an election. But given that we have House elections every two years, one year out cannot be the “eve” of an election. In any case, it’s more evidence of what we already know: we’re dealing with a corrupt Court at war with the Constitution. They do what they need to do to get the result they want. Read Kate.

-Josh Marshall
December 4, 2025, 6:44 pm

SCOTUS rescues Texas gerrymander, says lower court erred by rejecting the map on “eve” of election.

-Josh Marshall
December 4, 2025, 4:39 pm

Rep. Elise Stefanik, last seen lighting her political career on fire in a run for New York governor, has declared war on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA). Why exactly I’m not entirely sure, other than she simply doesn’t like him. It sparked this deliciously petty but not inapt reply from what appears to have been one of Johnson’s top deputies.

Mr. Johnson declined to comment, as well. But a senior Republican congressional aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of prolonging an intraparty feud, said that after Mr. Johnson had provided Ms. Stefanik with office space and a budget for what the aide described as “a fake job and a fake title,” he would have expected her to be more gracious.

[Read More]

-Josh Marshall
December 4, 2025, 2:32 pm

Kate and Josh talk the Tennessee special election, a new Dem running for Chuy Garcia’s gifted seat and the Nuzzi-Lizza-RFK trainwreck.

You can listen to the new episode of The Josh Marshall Podcast here.

-Jackie Wilhelm
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.