Not-Breaking News: Trump Threatens Obama

Donald Trump went on a bit of a bender on social media last night - as is the case more often these days. This is one of the themes that emerged: 

President Donald Trump shared and reposted a series of messages via Truth Social after midnight on Friday (April 24), accusing former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton of treason, while appearing to once again suggest Obama should be arrested.

As an example, Trump reposted someone who wrote: "Hillary Clinton funded, approved, and created the Steele Dossier, Barack Obama called the shots, and Brennan's CIA did the dirty work. The evidence is clear, TREASON was committed, and now they must pay or they will do it again. Americans demand it."

It's been nine months since Trump threatened to arrest Obama. So it's worth asking what sparked this renewed interest in the former president. There are two possibilities - which aren't mutually exclusive.

First of all, the video of Obama and Mamdani visiting a child care center went viral. It reminded a lot of people what it was like to have a president who enjoyed the presence of children while lifting them up. We've all seen how Obama lives rent-free in Trump's head as the biggest irritant to his narcissistic ego. The more people remember how much they admire the former president, the more the current occupant of the White House is likely to lash out in anger.

Recent events in the Justice Department have also riled up the president and his MAGA base. Prosecutors in Miami have been attempting to pull together a case charging people in the Obama administration over their involvement in the so-called "Russia hoax." Last week, the lead federal prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, who was overseeing the criminal investigation of John Brennan, was pulled off the case. Sources familiar with the matter said it was because she informed her superiors that there was not enough evidence to make the case.

The next day it was announced that Joe DiGenova would be in charge of leading the investigation. In case you've forgotten, DiGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing were deeply involved in Rudolph Giuliani's extortion racket that led to Trump's first impeachment. Part of their work involved feeding lies to John Solomon, who was then working as a "reporter" for The Hill. It shouldn't come as surprise that Solomon immediately jumped on the bandwagon by forecasting a "grand conspiracy case" against Obama administration officials. 

None of these conmen/women have ever had anything but lies - which they use to juice up a delusional president and his MAGA enablers. When they fail, they'll do what they've always done: blame the "deep state," corrupt judges, and/or the "radical left." 

The facts remain: Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump and the lot of them tried to extort Zelensky to fabricate dirt against Biden in the 2020 election. In the end, as Nancy Pelosi once said, "With Trump, all roads lead to Putin."

- The US leaving NATO
- Zelenskyy being humiliated in the Oval Office
- The US turning on Europe

Is it Donald Trump’s foreign policy or Vladimir Putin’s 'Christmas wishlist'? James O’Brien can’t tell. pic.twitter.com/anW8AYupSc

— LBC (@LBC) April 24, 2026

A question for Vance about morality

Given Viktor Orban's loss in Hungary and the failed negotiations with Iran, it's clear that J.D. Vance had a bad week. But as an avowed Catholic, he's also having to justify his boss's attack on the Pope. 

One of the things he said in that context stood out to me. During an interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, the vice president said that "it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality."

That struck me because conservative Christians have typically narrowed the definition of "morals" to rules about sexual behavior. I suspect that is how Vance was using the term in this context. 

But I'd challenge him to answer whether the Bible's 10 commandments address "matters of morality." If so, I'd like to talk about two of them: (1) you shall not kill, and (2) you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (ie, you shall not lie). 

In light of those, I'd ask the vice president whether his rhetoric/actions on immigration are "matters of morality." For example, is it moral to justify the murder of two American citizens by ICE officers? How about the  46 people who have died in ICE custody during this administration. Do their deaths raise a moral question?

Of course, Vance admitted that he lied about Haitian immigrants eating our cats and dogs. But pretty much every time he opens his mouth about immigration he lies - accusing immigrants of causing all of our problems with health care, housing, education, etc. According to the Bible, lying is a matter of morality. 

In the end, the Pope is doing exactly as Vance has suggested. He regularly calls out those who behave immorally when it comes to the way they treat immigrants. Even as a non-Catholic, I understand that's his job.

Right wing influencers try to convince MAGA that the glass is half full

Trump approval among 2024 voters from The Economist 

While the entire MAGA movement is motivated by fear, I have always been fascinated that - when it comes to electoral politics - Republicans have consistently promoted a message that "the glass is half full." For example, even as it is clear that they'll lose the 2026 midterms, right wing commentators regularly celebrate the fact that voters in blue states are migrating to red states, demonstrating that they're desperate to promote good news to the troops.

Recently I've seen two examples of this:

"Democrats 'lost the plot.' Now they're losing voters" by Ingrid Jacques, and

"5.4 Million People Have Migrated To Pro-Trump Counties Since 2020 As The Great Divorce Continues" by the Editorial Board at Issues and Insights.

The conclusion from the folks at Issues and Insights is simply absurd.

We keep hearing how unpopular Trump and his policies are....While that might be what people tell pollsters, their own actions – picking up and moving to a new county or a different state – speak much louder.

Millions of Americans would rather live among Trump supporters than those voting for the likes of Kamala Harris.

The reasons people move from one state to another are complex. But I doubt that anyone ever said that it was primarily because "I don't want to live among people who voted for Kamala Harris." 

It's also quite likely that these commentators are badly misinterpreting the data. Jacques points out that the "red states" people are moving to include Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. Georgia is already a "purple state," while North Carolina and Texas have been (albeit slowly) moving in that direction. To give your some idea of how MAGA is doing in those states right now, Trump's job approval among 2024 voters is -5 points in Texas, -9 in North Carolina, and a whopping -17 in Georgia. 

The question I would have for these commentators is whether they've considered the possibility that perhaps the voters who are moving to those states are bringing their "blue values" with them.

Instead of analyzing data from states, the editors at Issues and Insights researched county data. Of the ten counties experiencing the largest influx, five of them are in Texas, and all of those are suburban counties in the metro areas of Dallas, Houston, or Austin. While cities have consistently been blue and rural areas red, over the last decade or so, suburban counties are increasingly moving from Republican to Democratic. It's at least worth wondering if that trend is being impacted by migrants from blue states.

I am reminded of a story a friend of mine told about her white parents moving from Minnesota to North Carolina for retirement. When her mother went in to get a driver's license, she registered to vote. The African American clerk asked whether she wanted to register as a Republican or Democrat. When the answer was the latter, the clerk put her hands together, looked up, and mouthed "thank you."

If you're a MAGA influencer watching people move from blue states to red states, you just might want to consider if the glass is half empty (and draining fast).

The lesson Trump is incapable of learning

On Easter morning the current President of the United States posted this on social media:

Trump followed that up by telling a Fox News correspondent that he'll "take Iranian oil if they are unwilling to make an agreement." By Tuesday morning. the president was posting that "a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" if they don't agree to his demands.

Much of the discussion about this escalation has focused on how it demonstrates that Trump's mental health is decompensating. I agree. But he's doing so in a way that simply amplifies the mental health disorders that have been evident for decades.

Trump has always believed that the only way to exert power is via dominance over someone he perceives to be weak. In other words, the only tool in his toolbox is bullying. In that world, there's no such thing as negotiations. The only outcome is capitulation. 

I was reminded of this when I listened to a discussion on NPR about why the Witkoff/Kushner negotiations with Iran failed prior to Trump's decision to start this war. Much has been made of the fact that Witkoff/Kushner went into those negotiations without any expertise in nuclear power and might not have even understood the offer put on the table by Iran. 

But towards the end of the discussion someone mentioned that, going into the negotiations, the only outcome acceptable to the Trump administration was Iran's total capitulation. Given that wasn't going to happen, the talks were doomed from the start. War was inevitable. 

Now - much like Trump and his enablers were baffled by the fact that the people of Minnesota refused to back down - they seem confused about why Iran isn't capitulating to their demands in light of the threats the president is unleashing. They actually think that sh*t works. 

All of this reminds me of why the Obama administration was able to be successful in negotiating a nuclear agreement with Iran. It was a highly complex effort, but here are a few high points:

1. They were able to get not only our allies, but Russia and China to join the U.S. in applying sanctions to Iran.

2. The sanctions worked. In 2013, Iran came to the table to negotiate.

3. Negotiations weren't conducted bilaterally between the U.S. and Iran. They also included China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the European Union.

4. Obama knew the importance of understanding our history with Iran, telling Thomas Friedman that, "part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past."

Those were all critical elements to the success of negotiations, demonstrating what President Obama pointed out during his 2009 speech in Cairo.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.

Unfortunately, that is a lesson that Donald Trump is incapable of learning. 

A question for Trump: Why are you celebrating the death of the man that supposedly exonerated you?

Shortly after the news broke that Robert Mueller had died, President Trump went on his social media platform to post the following: 

On Meet the Press, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked whether it was appropriate for a POTUS to celebrate the death of a Bronze Star recipient. He responded by saying, "Neither one of us can understand what's been done to the president and his family. We should have empathy for the president." The implication was, of course, that the president's celebration was excusable because the "innocent" person Mueller hurt was Donald Trump. 

I recognize that it's a fool's errand to assume we can make sense out of the continual lies being told by this president, but let's take a look at what Trump said when the Mueller report was released.

Trump declared victory and said that Mueller had completely exonerated him. That's the consistent message we've heard from both he and his enablers. If that were true, you'd expect the president to be honoring the patriot who cleared him of all wrongdoing in the so-called "Russia hoax." 

And yet, of all the grudges Trump holds against people who've crossed him, he appears to hold the biggest one against Robert Mueller - going so far as to publicly celebrate his death. 

Let's remind ourselves of what we actually learned from the Mueller report:

• Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump and damage Hillary Clinton.
• Several members of Trump's campaign had meetings/ties with Russian agents - indicating collusion with Moscow's attempt to interfere in the election, but not enough to prove a conspiracy.
• The Trump campaign engaged in ten documented incidents of obstruction of justice.

So which is it President Trump? Did Mueller totally exonerate you? Or did he provide evidence that you colluded with Russia and obstructed justice - which is why you are celebrating his death?

The abuse in women's sports that this MAGA anti-trans activist wants you to ignore

I hope that by now you've heard Alysa Liu's story. After winning two world championships by the time she was 14 years old, she quit figure skating because she had come to hate it. When she returned to the sport two years later, she had figured out that it wasn't the sport she hated, but the way it had been used to control her life. So she laid down some new ground rules. They boiled down to "I'm in charge now." And it wasn't all about what happened on the ice. She said, "No one's going to starve me, or tell me what I can and can't eat."

While it's clear that Alysa doesn't want to wallow in the past, she was literally told that she couldn't drink water. As she said during an interview with Rolling Stone, "They were like, ‘Oh water weight, you shouldn’t drink water. You should gargle it.'" That's crazy!

Huge kudos to Alysa for breaking out of that kind of abuse. But it brings up the reality of what seems to happen a lot in women's sports. 

Due to MAGA and their media outlets, you'd think that the most important topic in women's sports is the one about getting rid of trans women  - who they claim pose a threat. The leader of that charge is a young woman named Riley Gaines, who tied for 5th place in an NCAA swim meet against a trans woman. 

Riley started her campaign against trans athletes by suggesting that they shouldn't compete in women's sports. That's something we could have a discussion about. But it eventually moved into a claim that merely sharing a locker room with a trans woman amounted to sexual abuse. She even had the gall to compare her experience to the abuse suffered by Simone Biles at the hands of Larry Nassar.

Simone Biles when she had to endure a predatory man

Vs

Simone Biles when other girls have to endure predatory men pic.twitter.com/8p9D51seYr

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) June 7, 2025

In defending that tweet, Riley said this about her experience with a trans woman in the locker room, "What me and my teammates had to go through was certainly sexual abuse.” 

What you might not know is that Riley's coach at the time was a man named Lars Jorgensen. He was initially suspended from coaching for "exceeding maximum practice hours for nearly three years, including not providing required weekly days off or required flex days off." But here's how Riley's teammates described a deeper issue.

Swimmers say Jorgensen mocked teammates’ weight and pressured them to lower their body fat percentage to extremes. “Lars is the biggest reason that an alarming number of the Women’s Swim Team suffers from Eating Disorders,” one former swimmer wrote to UK officials. “The damage from Lars’ words and remarks about female bodies last long beyond the four years of collegiate swimming.”

But it gets worse. Jorgensen is also facing civil suits by at least two former staff members who have accused him of rape. This was all happening while Riley Gaines was on Jorgensen's swim team. She obviously knew about his practice schedule and the way he treated her teammates. It's unclear whether, at the time, she knew about the sexual abuse. But she does now. 

Rather than speaking out against coaches who starve female athletes or rape them, Riley is still suggesting that protecting women in sports is all about denying trans women the right to compete. A cynical person might question whether she's a tool being used to distract us from the real abuse that's going on. 

The blind spot in David French's column about James Talarico

David French is one of those conservative evangelicals that I admire. While standing firm in his conservative positions, he's been consistently critical of MAGA Christian nationalists. That's why, when he wrote about James Talarico - the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas - I was interested in hearing what he had to say. 

After reading French's piece, I recommend it - even though I disagree with some of the things he said. I also see a giant hole in his reasoning. This is how he opens his argument:

Put simply, if the primary American divide is between right and left, then Talarico isn’t that interesting...

Yet if the primary American divide is between decent and indecent, then the equation changes. Talarico shines.

Or, to put it another way, Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians in the United States who acts like a Christian...

Here's what French means when he says that Talarico "acts like a Christian."

For example, when Talarico won his Senate primary, he said, “I am tired of being pitted against my neighbor. I’m tired of being told to hate my neighbor. It’s been more than 10 years of this kind of politics. Politics as blood sport, politics as trolling and owning, politics as total war. It tears families apart. It ends friendships, and it leaves us all feeling terrible all the time.”...   

One reason politics has been so exhausting — and even so frightening — is that we often know that opposing politicians don’t just disagree with us, but that they hate us. And if a politician hates us, then we know they won’t listen to us, they won’t care about us, and they may well actively try to harm us when they’re in office.  

This is what MAGA Christianity has become. In that world, cruelty in the name of Trumpism is no vice, and kindness in the name of progressivism is no virtue. 

I agree. "Politics as blood sport" is not only exhausting, it is both dangerous and unproductive. But French isn't looking very hard if he thinks that Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians who acts like a Christian. One that comes to mind is Senator Raphael Warnock - an actual minister.

But when reading French's column about Talarico, my mind immediately went to former President Barack Obama - who openly talked about being a "born again Christian." There was a theme that almost always ran through Obama's speeches. Here is what that sounded like during his 2016 State of the Union speech when the top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination were Ted Cruz and Donald Trump:

The future we want - opportunity and security for our families; a rising standard of living and a sustainable, peaceful planet for our kids - all that is within our reach. But it will only happen if we work together. It will only happen if we can have rational, constructive debates...

A better politics doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything. This is a big country, with different regions and attitudes and interests. That’s one of our strengths, too. Our Founders distributed power between states and branches of government, and expected us to argue, just as they did, over the size and shape of government, over commerce and foreign relations, over the meaning of liberty and the imperatives of security.

But democracy does require basic bonds of trust between its citizens. It doesn’t work if we think the people who disagree with us are all motivated by malice, or that our political opponents are unpatriotic. Democracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us. Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention. Most of all, democracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn’t matter; that the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.

Obama went on to express his optimism about the future. But it wasn't based on politicians. He found it elsewhere and said, "I see you."

Voices that help us see ourselves not first and foremost as black or white or Asian or Latino, not as gay or straight, immigrant or native born; not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans first, bound by a common creed. Voices Dr. King believed would have the final word - voices of unarmed truth and unconditional love.

They’re out there, those voices. They don’t get a lot of attention, nor do they seek it, but they are busy doing the work this country needs doing.

I see them everywhere I travel in this incredible country of ours. I see you. I know you’re there. You’re the reason why I have such incredible confidence in our future. Because I see your quiet, sturdy citizenship all the time.

I have to admit that, when I read those words today, I wept. The tears are about my grief at where I thought this country was going back then compared to where we are today. But then I had to remind myself that, when it comes to the people Obama was talking about - they're still at it.

But back to French's column. The giant hole I saw is that he completely ignores one of the main themes of Obama's presidency. Perhaps that's because the MAGA era has taught him to look a little more deeply at what it means to be a Christian. But given the fact that he loosely compares Talarico to Jimmy Carter, it's hard not to question whether race has something to do with it. 

The truth is that French never bought into the fact that Obama is a Christian. Back in 2015, he wrote about those doubts. I have no way of knowing if French still agrees with that, but his portrayal of Talarico as somehow unique is telling. 

The Republican Party spent eight years demonizing President Obama. Now a lot of the never-Trumpers from the GOP are beginning to sound a lot like the former president. When they can embrace that, we'll know that they've confronted their blind spots - regardless of whether they're the result of racism or ideology.