In case you forgot, Bill Pulte is the Federal Housing Finance Agency head who proved his loyalty to the president by combing through the mortgages of Trump’s enemies, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James and Fed Governor Lisa Cook, for things that the DOJ might be able to prosecute. It’s unclear what intelligence community credentials he has, though, given the way he used his power at FHFA and as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that question is probably missing the point.

Though the role is acting, acting heads can end up serving for quite a while. Pulte is replacing Tulsi Gabbard.

One feature of the current moment is that there are so many things going on, so much corruption and wrongdoing that it is hard to focus on any one thing. What would otherwise be historic scandals blow by almost unnoticed. Today I wanted to zero in on a couple storylines we should all be following. 

One comes from the Broadview Six/Four case. I explained the outlines of the story here. It’s now being referenced in numerous federal cases to persuade judges to deny prosecutors the presumption of “regularity,” i.e. the foundational assumption that the government is following the rules and operating in good faith in its prosecutions. The end of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is getting similar treatment. But there’s clearly a deeper scandal brewing here, especially with grand juries. It’s not clear to me how much of this is coming from explicit instructions from the DOJ to violate the rules or simply a climate of permissive lawlessness in which prosecutors start breaking the rules because they see their superiors doing the same. 

TPM Reader TB dropped me a note this afternoon about today’s second post. He liked it. Then he wrote this: “You’ve pretty much conclusively won the argument on SCOTUS reform, starting with immediate unilateral expansion.  You’ve written comparatively much less about the filibuster and I’m among those unconvinced that just nuking it is the best way forward or that that’s a win as a platform plank. Not passionately against it, just not clear on how concretely that plays out as a long-term win.”

I’ve written pretty extensively about abolishing the filibuster. But I haven’t done so in quite some time. So I welcome the opportunity to do so again.

I’d put the matter in three related arguments: 1) It’s bad on the merits and defies if not violates the Constitution. 2) It hurts Democrats disproportionately. 3) The existence of the modern filibuster is a major driver of the loss of confidence in public institutions.

Yesterday The Bulwark’s Lauren Egan ran an “exclusive” with an advance look at Project 2029 and its policy recommendations going into the 2028 election. TPM Alum Brian Beutler looks at it and concludes, in so many words, this ain’t it. I read the piece last night and that was exactly my conclusion.

First, a few points of context. Attitudinally and analytically I blanche at most things Egan writes. That’s not a criticism precisely. There’s nothing wrong with not sharing my viewpoints or outlook. I think it’s fair for me to share that background. I would also say that there’s a lot of hunger for a Project 2029. I had someone pitch me a few days ago on leading one up. But there doesn’t need to be just one. At least for now, we should be in a let 100 Flowers Bloom mode. There can also be different kinds. With that said though, what Egan published didn’t seem like anything like what I and I imagine others are talking about. It seems like a mix of positioning statement and policy portfolio. And some of those policies are good ones. It talks about affordability; it talks about breaking up monopolies, etc. That may have some role. But that’s an entirely different exercise.