BTrump's former lawyer reportedly lost a fifty million dollar contract because Trump called it obnoxious.
BThe New York Times is reporting Alina Habba Mildon was fired by Concord Partners days after Trump went public about the deal.
BNot just went public— he called the contract "not acceptable." That's the president torpedoing a private deal.
BThe company fired her. Trump didn't sign an order. And the details? She reportedly still keeps an eight million dollar bonus and another six and a half million already paid.
BSo she walks away with fourteen and a half million and we're supposed to feel bad?
BI'm not saying feel bad. I'm saying this is a pattern: Trump turns on allies, they get punished financially, and nobody asks if that's how power should work.
BOh come on. If a former lawyer uses proximity to the president to land a fifty million dollar contract, the president calling that obnoxious is the system working, not corruption.
BBut that's exactly the problem— we don't know the inside story. The company chose her.
BThe company is reportedly owned by a well-connected family. Trump calling it out might look like integrity.
BOr it might be revenge because she's no longer in the inner circle. We've seen this movie.
BHold on— the Times story itself says he became enraged. He didn't quietly fix it. He said it publicly. That's accountability.
BIt's public pressure from the most powerful man in the country to punish an individual. If you're a small government conservative, that should bother you.
BIt doesn't bother me when the individual, if reports are right, got paid millions to do nothing. If anything, the company should be embarrassed.
BThen say that. But celebrating a president using his platform to kill a private contract— that's a dangerous precedent.
BA dangerous precedent? The precedent that presidents can have opinions on fifty million dollar deals with their former lawyers? I'll take it.
BNo, the precedent that loyalty to Trump is priced into your business. One day you're his lawyer, next day you're unemployable because you fell out of favor.
BShe's not unemployable. On paper she's fourteen million dollars richer. This isn't a victim story.
BI never said she's a victim. I said the President shouldn't be in the business of getting people fired from private companies.
BHe didn't fire her. The company made a choice after hearing what their biggest political ally thought.
BThat's a distinction without a difference and you know it.
BFine. I'll concede it's ugly. But some ugliness is just sunlight.
BSpeaking of power fights— Reuters reports the House clerk has read impeachment charges against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
BNo official confirmation yet from the House, but if true, that's a formal step, not a press release.
BWhich means it's real enough to force a floor vote. The question is whether Republicans break ranks.
BImpeaching a sitting cabinet secretary over what? Policy fights? That's a huge escalation.
BThe House can impeach for what it considers high crimes; the Senate won't convict. This is theater.
BTheater with real consequences. It ties up the House, embarrasses the administration, and sets a precedent.
BA precedent that the opposition party can use impeachment as protest. We saw that with Mayorkas.
BYes, and I hated it then too. But now both sides are normalizing impeachment as a messaging tool.
BMaybe that's the point: if the Senate is a dead end, impeachment becomes a statement.
BA statement that makes Washington look even more broken.
BAnd it's not going to get less noisy.
BAnd the brokenness isn't just across the aisle. Politico is reporting Bernie Sanders won't support Chuck Schumer as majority leader.
BThat's a real crack in Democratic leadership, and not just from the usual left flank.
BSchumer's been the Democratic leader for years. If Sanders publicly breaks, it signals a fight over what the party should be.
BMeanwhile, Jim Jordan is telling House Republicans: when Democrats offer more government, we'll offer more freedom.
BThat's a clean message, but it's also the same message they had when they were in the minority.
BRight, and Massie said it best— "I think it's ironic that we control the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and the White House, and we're yelling 'election fraud'? I mean, we won all the damn elections."
BOne reply on X put it even simpler: But you controlled the White House, Senate, House, and Supreme Court.
BMassie's point is the one Republicans need to hear: stop campaigning against an election you won.
BExcept the base is primed to think the system is rigged. You can't just switch that off.
BYou can try. You won. Now govern like it.
BThen the Habba story, the Hegseth impeachment, the internal fights— it's all about whether power is being used to settle scores or to actually fix things.
BAnd that's the question voters will answer next time.
BSo far, the score-settling is winning.