Thereby proving that they should have been fired in the first place

/

The first time around, Trump left too many swamp denizens in place, free to actively work to undermine tha man and his policies. He learned from that mistake, and the cockroaches having been exposed, they’ve scuttled away, but not far.

Biden DOJ Attorneys Find New Home In Swamp

Droves of former Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) officials are joining left-wing litigation firms to pursue lawsuits against the Trump administration.

The lawsuits, many brought by organizations now staffed by members of the prior administration, have slowed aspects of Trump’s agenda and contributed to the administration’s escalating frustration with the judiciary.

While some Biden administration attorneys have gone to established groups like Democracy Forward, others are starting their own firms with an explicit mission of obstructing President Donald Trump’s efforts.

“Democrat lawyers at Democrat law firms illegally conspired with Democrat government officials to violate the constitutional rights of President Trump, his top aides, and his supporters before November’s election,” Mike Davis, founder of the Article III project, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And now that they’re out of power, they’re trying to interfere from the outside. This is yet another reason why the Senate must get to work and confirm President Trump’s nominees to ensure the will of the American people is respected and implemented.”

In April, numerous former DOJ attorneys joined Democracy Forward, a left-wing firm involved in dozens of current lawsuits against the administration, including cases challenging federal worker firings, grant terminations and plans to deport illegal migrants to El Salvador.

Biden DOJ officials who joined the firm include former Deputy Associate Attorney General Jodie Morse, who played a key role in the Biden DOJ’s task force dedicated to abortion, and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Netter, who opposed several states pro-life laws in court, along with three other senior attorneys.

Netter’s name already appears in several cases against Trump enacting his policies. He worked on a lawsuit challenging Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s appointment as acting librarian of Congress, as well as the case before Judge James Boasberg challenging removal of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, according to court records.

Democracy Forward brought four other former DOJ attorneys on board in May, as well as Biden’s former Deputy Associate Attorney General Paul Wolfson, the group announced.

Rachel Rossi, who served as director of the Office for Access to Justice at the Biden DOJ, became the president of Alliance for Justice (AFJ) in April. AFJ most recently came out against all of Trump’s new judicial nominees, the first picks of his second term.

Omar Noureldin, who was senior counsel in the Biden DOJ’s Civil Rights Division run by Kristen Clarke, joined Common Cause as senior vice president of the Policy & Litigation Department in May. Common Cause backed initiatives to remove Trump from the ballot during the 2024 election and has opposed Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

“As our lead policy and legal expert, Omar will continue our fight to keep power where it belongs—in the hands of the people—not the politicians,” Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomón told the DCNF. “An experienced attorney, he will help us put an end to the rampant corruption in Washington, stop the hostile takeover of the media, and get big money out of politics. He goes to work every day to make sure the government works for us, not just the wealthy and well-connected like Elon Musk.”

Former Attorney General Merrick Garland moved in May to global giant Arnold & Porter, which has multiple pending cases against the Trump administration….

“It is an honor to return to Arnold & Porter, where I first learned how to be a lawyer and about the important role lawyers can play in ensuring the rule of law,” Garland said in a press release.

Former Assistant Attorney General for National Security Matthew Olsen announced on LinkedIn in May he would be joining WilmerHale, which sued the Trump administration in March after Trump issued an executive order limiting the firm’s government contracts and security clearances. Wilmer Hale is represented by leading conservative attorney and President George W. Bush’s former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement in the case challenging Trump, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Trump slammed WilmerHale for “welcoming” former special counsel Robert Mueller and his aides after their probe that ultimately did not find collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, writing in the order that WilmerHale is “bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice.

‘Ways To Combat The Trump Administration’ 

Former civil rights division attorney Stacey Young, who ran an internal DOJ advocacy group that pushed diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, launched a group called Justice Connection to support fired employees in February.

Justice Connection is now starting a pro bono legal network for DOJ employees who believe they are “targeted” by employment actions or investigations, the group announced Tuesday. Volunteers for the pro bono network are themselves former DOJ employees.

Peter Carr, who was fired from the DOJ in April but previously served as the spokesman for special counsels Robert Mueller and Jack Smith, is now running communications for Justice Connection. He directed the DCNF to the group’s press release.

“Since taking office, this administration has torn through DOJ’s workforce with recklessness and retribution — firing, threatening, and demoting hundreds of career civil servants simply for doing their jobs,” Young said in a statement. “Attorneys in the Justice Connection Legal Network are now helping those employees determine the best path forward when facing a crossroad and representing them throughout the process when they’re unfairly targeted.”

Another Biden DOJ trial attorney who left the department in February, Clayton Bailey, announced in May his new firm, The Civil Service Law Center, to represent fired federal workers. The firm filed a class action lawsuit June 3 against the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on behalf of employees who were terminated.

“Since leaving DOJ, I’ve been thinking a lot about ways to combat the Trump Administration’s unprecedented efforts to dismantle the federal government,” Bailey wrote on LinkedIn. “To that end, I am excited to announce Civil Service Law Center LLP, a new public service oriented law firm focused on representing displaced federal workers in federal court.”

The firm “is committed to defending the dedicated federal employees who go to work every day to serve the American people,” Bailey told the DCNF.

Former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) attorney Daniel Jacobson is supporting at least five cases seeking to re-animate Biden-era grants terminated by the Trump administration, the DCNF previously reported. He launched his own new firm shortly after leaving the government in January to help those “impacted by the Administration’s funding actions.”

Several members of his new firm, like John Robinson and Kyla Snow, worked for the Biden DOJ. Snow defended the administration’s efforts to pressure social media platforms to censor content in the free speech case Missouri v. Biden.

Panic at the DOJ: Lawyers ready to flee as Trump loyalists are set to commandeer the agency

“Many federal employees are terrified that we’ll be replaced with partisan loyalists – not just because our jobs are on the line, but because we know that our democracy and country depend on a government supported by a merit-based, apolitical civil service,” Stacey Young, a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told Politico.

Another former DOJ official said they believed Trump’s second term would be “worse” than the first. “It’s just a question of how much worse it’s going to be,” they told the outlet.

Bonus Material:

Cry Us a River: Julie Kelly DESTROYS Fired J6 Prosecutor for Her Fake Crocodile Tears

Sara Levine was a temporary assistant US attorney under the Biden administration. In February, Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin gave her an unceremonious pink slip for her role in prosecuting the January 6 show trials. 

Naturally, Levine's next move was to find any microphone she could, including in front of Congress, to protest her dismissal. Unfortunately for her, Julie Kelly, one of the most outspoken critics of those January 6 prosecutions, was paying attention, and she lit Levine up for her fake crocodile tears. 

Kelly posted a thread on X that includes Levine's tearful testimony. Watch: 

What would we do without experts?

/

Shot: ABC “News” March 31 2025: Trump's tariffs could cause a recession, experts say.

Stocks slide as Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs loom

…. The market rollercoaster came a day after Goldman Sachs raised its odds of a recession within the next year from 20% to 35%, citing the tariffs. The move marked the latest in an upsurge of recession fears on Wall Street in recent weeks.

A policy of wide-ranging levies on foreign goods could tip the U.S. into a recession, experts said. They pointed to risks of a slowdown for businesses mired in higher tax costs, as well as a shopping slump as consumers curtail spending to pad their savings to help weather price increases and a possible economic downturn.

The degree and duration of Trump’s forthcoming tariffs remains unknown, experts added, but they pointed to such uncertainty as another reason the economy could fall into a recession.

“If both businesses and consumers start to worry and pull back their spending, that is what can tip the U.S. over into a recession,” Kara Reynolds, an economist at American University, told ABC News.

Tariffs could threaten economic growth and employment since duties slapped on imports risk increasing costs for businesses that rely on raw materials from abroad, some experts told ABC News.

Experts widely expect importers to pass along a share of the tariff burden to consumers in the form of higher prices, which could make the firms less competitive as they may struggle to retain customers who suffer sticker shock.

If business performance suffers, firms will likely freeze or reduce investment, threatening economic growth.

“As business investment goes down, that can trigger a recession,” Anne Villamil, a professor of economics at the University of Iowa, told ABC News.

Even the looming risk of tariffs can make shoppers uneasy, potentially sinking the economy further, experts said.

Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. In March, consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level since 2021, according to a survey conducted by The Conference Board.

As consumer attitudes sour, shoppers could encounter tariff-induced price increases, leaving buyers even more frustrated.


"It's already showing up in consumer confidence," Jeffrey Frankel, a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University. "There is chaos and uncertainty around the tariff policy."


Chaser: GM to Invest $4 Billion in U.S.-Based Manufacturing Plants As Auto Tariffs Hit Mexico

In a big win for the Trump administration's tariff strategy, General Motors (GM) announced plans to invest $4 billion in three new U.S. assembly plants, including the production lines for the Chevrolet Blazer and Chevrolet Equinox, which the company currently builds in Mexico.

This move comes amid President Donald Trump's imposition of 25% tariffs earlier this year on imported vehicles and auto parts, to encourage more production in the United States. The automotive tariffs took effect for imported vehicles in April and for foreign-made auto parts in May.

…. The U.S.-based automaker stated in a June 10 press release that the new domestic plants will boost production of gas-powered vehicles and some electric models over the next two years.

…. Plans to construct three plants in Michigan, Kansas, and Ohio are underway and are expected to add between 3,000 and 4,000 U.S. jobs once all production is in place. The Detroit manufacturer said that the largely idle Orion Assembly Plant, Orion, Mich., which was formerly set up to build all-electric trucks like the Chevrolet Bolt, will now produce gas-powered full-size SUVs and light-duty pickup trucks starting in early 2027.

Meanwhile, the Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kan., will start producing the gas-powered Chevrolet Equinox in mid-2027 and the 2027 Chevrolet Bolt EV by the end of 2025, while the Spring Hill Manufacturing Plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., will make the gas-powered Chevrolet Blazer, Cadillac Lyriq, and Vistiq EVs, as well as the Cadillac XT5.

According to GM, the investment in these three plants is expected to give it the ability to assemble more than two million vehicles per year domestically.

(And here’s another win, this one for consumers)

GM has been reassessing its production footprint in North America since the tariff policy was announced and will pull back from further additional spending on electric vehicles, after putting a heavy emphasis on those models over the past few years.

Company executives stated that they would take a “wait and see” approach until they had more clarity on the regulatory environment, including the auto levies, before making any decisions.

And now …

Double Chaser, because two are better than one.

Salena Zito March 25 2025:

Trump Makes the Deal of a Lifetime for U.S. Steel

WEST MIFFLIN, Pennsylvania — Local steelworkers, community leaders and economic experts said President Donald Trump's announcement Friday that a deal was struck between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel will go down in American history as the most enduring economic "big, beautiful deal" the 47th president has made.

It is a deal robustly supported by the rank-and-file steelworkers from the three plants that make up the Mon Valley Works. The deal is believed to reverse the decline of steel that began under former President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s.

"I am proud to announce that, after much consideration and negotiation, U.S. Steel will REMAIN in America and keep its headquarters in the Great City of Pittsburgh," said Trump, who had been engaged in intense negotiations over a sale between the iconic American company and Nippon Steel.

"This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel ... and the largest investment in the history of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania," he said.

….

USW Local 2227 President Jack Maskil, Vice President Jason Zugai and safety chairman Gary Picketts, who have all clocked into their jobs at the Irvin Works mill for decades, said they were thrilled and relieved the deal would save not just their jobs but the jobs of men and women in the surrounding communities who will now be able to work here for generations.

"We had faith in the president from the very beginning," Zugai said from the West Mifflin plant. "I never doubted he would come through for us."

"This is huge for Western Pennsylvania workers, families, communities, and, of course, the U.S. Steel family," said plant manager Don German, who has worked side by side with the local union, the community and upper management to get the word out that they supported it wholeheartedly.

"I'm so happy for those employees, both management and union, that have just started their careers at U.S. Steel. This is a huge weight lifted and a huge opportunity to keep steel in the Steel City," German said.

A person familiar with the deal said the benefits include $14 billion in capital investment projects at U.S. Steel, with approximately $11 billion of the $14 billion invested by 2028. These are investments that U.S. Steel could not make as a standalone company.

Those new capital investments include $2.2 billion to revitalize the only remaining blast furnace mill in Pittsburgh, $200 million for a new research and development center in Pennsylvania to bring world-leading technology to U.S. Steel, $1 billion invested by 2028 in a new Greenfield steel mill, and $3.1 billion in Indiana to transform the historic Gary Works mill.

There will also be a $3 billion investment in the Arkansas plant, including $1.8 billion for advanced electrical steel production for power grid transformers, $800 million in Minnesota to enhance iron ore mining, and $500 million in Alabama for tubular upgrades to supply American oil and gas dominance.

The investments and technology transfer will protect and create 100,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, according to an independent analysis by Parker Strategy Group. The analysis estimated that the investment would protect 11,400 jobs and create and support 14,000 new jobs, including over 10,200 in construction.

The deal preserves U.S. Steel's headquarters in the iconic Pittsburgh skyscraper, the tallest building in Appalachia, and the company will maintain its production locations and capacity in the United States. As part of the agreement, American jobs are protected and cannot be offshored.

The deal also guarantees that the majority of U.S. Steel's board must be U.S. citizens, and key management, including the CEO, will also all be U.S. citizens. The deal outlines that U.S. Steel's trade actions will be determined solely by U.S. citizens, with oversight from the U.S. government, and free from any interference.

As outlined, the deal will improve domestic supply chains in the trucking and rail industries, increase the production of American automobiles, and boost energy production in the natural gas and coal industries, as well as boost the building of pipelines and power grid transformers.

The deal maintains U.S. Steel's stature as an American icon, as well as stabilizes economic development in the Mon Valley, where three of the plants — the Edgar Thomson plant in Braddock, the Clairton Mill Works in Clairton, and the Irvin Works in West Mifflin — are located.

Hudson Institute fellow Paul Sracic said that while Trump is considered headstrong by his critics, this deal shows Trump was willing to look past his own preconceived ideas of what U.S. Steel should look like and toward the reality that billions of dollars of investment in well-paying steel jobs in the Rust Belt was too much to pass up. [FWIW — Unlike Biden’s handlers, who blocked the deal]

"Instead of just killing the deal, he used his opposition as leverage to get even more investment dollars than Nippon Steel had originally offered," Sracic said.

"In every way now, Trump can take credit for this investment. It was his application of steel tariffs during his first term which led Nippon Steel to seek out the purchase in the first place," Sracic continued.

It's important to realize that Nippon Steel wants U.S. Steel's production to allow it to compete better with Chinese steelmakers, such as the state-owned Baowu Steel, which has been accused of stealing technology from the U.S.

"Through his application of tariffs, Trump has managed to secure U.S. jobs and helped to directly take on China," Sracic said.

The money Nippon Steel will bring to U.S. Steel is crucial to its survival. U.S. Steel operates integrated blast furnace plants in places like Braddock.

They are more expensive to operate than newer, non-unionized electric arc furnace mills, located mainly in the South, and need to be relined every decade, a very costly endeavor. U.S. Steel does not have the resources to maintain these facilities on its own.

Sracic noted that just a few years ago, U.S. Steel announced it was canceling its plans to invest $1 billion in Mon Valley Works, the umbrella name for all three plants in Braddock, West Mifflin and Clairton.

Other domestic steel companies, such as Cleveland-Cliffs, which once was a rival bidder for U.S. Steel, are closing down plants and laying off workers. Without new investment, workers at U.S. Steel's old blast furnace plants were looking at a repeat of the 1980s, with plant closures, massive layoffs and decimated communities.

"Trump can now rightly claim credit for saving these communities and the jobs of the workers who, unlike their union leadership, have served as one of his most loyal sources of support since he first ran for president in 2016. The future is now bright in Pennsylvania," he said of the plants here and in Bucks County.

Former President Joe Biden, who stubbornly refused to consider the deal, created a self-inflicted massive political wound from his failure to move on a deal, a decision that frustrated many members of his inner circle in the White House.

Steelworkers here said they believed Trump could get a better deal when he said he was against the sale during last year's presidential election. That is why when Trump came to Pittsburgh on election eve, they stood behind him at the rally in the city to voice their support.

Because of Trump's deal-making prowess, this partnership will solidify the working class in the Republican Party for generations.

"We've seen a massive realignment in U.S. politics, with union workers who used to be loyal to the Democratic Party switching in droves to the GOP," Sracic said, noting the contrast between what Trump has done in saving places like the U.S. Steel Mon Valley Works and Carter's refusal in the 1970s to meet with workers from Youngstown, Ohio, when those plants were shut down.

"Under Trump, this is a very new Republican Party. Just as Roosevelt earned the trust of working-class voters in the 1930s and made them Democrats for the next 60 years, Trump is locking in these voters for the next generation," he said.

McCormick said the deal is an example of "America First" foreign direct investment because of the binding commitments Trump hammered out that both protect existing jobs and create new jobs by drawing in capital under strong American control.

This was the deal the rank-and-file union steelworkers wanted but that was not sought by the international union leadership. This highlighted a common disconnect between the rank and file who live and work here and distant leadership that has no skin in the game.

It's difficult to overstate just how devastating the demise of the old steel mills was to the region. The economic rug was pulled out from under the area, and this not only affected factory workers but destroyed everything, including restaurants, barber shops and stores. 

While new industries have emerged — health care and education in Pittsburgh, for example — they don't provide the kind of opportunities, especially for those who are not inclined to pursue higher education, that the old mills offered.

"It's important to understand this was not just economic trauma; it was psychological trauma," Sracic said, adding, "Steel. Just think of that word. It calls to mind something strong — Superman was the 'Man of Steel.' 

"But also something solid, something you can depend on. In a practical sense, it also formed the backbone of the nation, necessary for everything from bridges to bullets. Take away steel, and everything collapses, or so it seemed by the mid-1980s. There is no more security."

McCormick added, "Only Donald Trump could have made this happen, and I'm grateful for him having me, congressman Mike Kelly, Dan Meuser from our Pennsylvania delegation in the Oval Office yesterday to discuss it."

The case that may break the Constitution

/

Alan Dershowitz Predicts Gavin Newsom’s National Guard Lawsuit Against Trump Will Go Down In Flames

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz said on Monday that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California’s lawsuit seeking to halt President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would eventually fail.

Newsom and Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta of California announced the lawsuit Monday, claiming Trump’s Saturday order to deploy the National Guard to respond to the riots in Los Angeles following a raid by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at a Home Depot was illegal. Dershowitz, on “The Dershow,” expressed doubt that the Supreme Court would “second-guess” Trump’s decision to call out the National Guard. 

“The Supreme Court will not second guess the President of the United States on this issue,” Dershowitz said. “They will say, whether right or wrong, the president had the authority to make this decision and he had the authority to make it over the lack of consent of the governor,” Dershowitz continued. “Let’s be clear, there was violence. You can see it on television, there were bombings, fire bombings and burnings of Teslas and other self-driving cars. There were rocks being thrown at ICE officers. There were threats against ICE officers, threats against their families. Was it a full-blown insurrection? No.”

…..

Dershowitz said the Supreme Court would not have much choice but to rule against Newsom, pointing to cases where the National Guard was federalized to protect civil rights.

FWIW:

This is where things could get interesting: what if a federal judge issues an injunction and refuses to stay his order? So far, Trump has obeyed every judicial injunction while appealing them, even those that weren’t stayed during appeal. Wil he do so in this case, if the riots are still going on? People on both ends of the political spectrum have been waiting for Trump to have his Andrew Jackson moment: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” This could do it.

“My prediction is: the lawsuits will fail. They’ll work in the federal district court,” Dershowitz said. “You’ll get, you know, the governor of California will find a federal district judge probably one he was involved in appointing and you’ll get some district court judge saying, maybe even issuing an injunction saying, the president of the United States can’t do this.” 

“It’ll be appealed immediately, but when the case gets to the Supreme Court in the United States, they would have no choice or little choice, but to hold that the judiciary cannot interfere with the discretionary judgment of the executive head of the executive branch. the president, about the necessity for sending in troops,” Dershowitz added.

A wise judge would go cautiously here and not force Trump to choose between obeying a ruling that will be overruled as soon as it hits the Supreme Court but would let cities burn for the days or weeks during that period, or ignoring the claimed authority of a federal judge. A wise judge would stay his ruling, but the judiciary is not exclusively comprised of such people, and Newsom and the other leftists will select their vessel carefully.

Interesting times.

Deporter in Chief? That title belongs to others

/

“Nice try, barry, but not even close”

Snopes:

Claim:

During the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, immigration authorities deported more than 3 million people, 75% to 83% of whom did not see a judge or have the opportunity to plead their case.

In short, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data from fiscal years 2009 to 2016, more than 3 million individuals were formally removed during the Obama administration. Including returns, cases in which noncitizens left the U.S. voluntarily or after withdrawing their application for admission without undergoing formal removal proceedings, the total number of departures exceeded 5 million.

Claims that 75% to 83% of those deported "never saw a judge or had a chance to plead their case" are based on statistics from individual years, particularly 2012 and 2013. These percentages refer to so-called "summary removals" carried out through legal procedures such as "expedited removal" and "reinstatement of removal," which do not involve a hearing before an immigration judge. From 2009 to 2016, these two categories combined made up anywhere between 58% and 84% of all formal removals annually, averaging about 74% over the entire period. 

Here’s neutral summery of the Obama — Trump records from an organization I’d never heard of, The Voices Heard Foundation:

Deportations and Due Process: Comparing Obama and Trump Policies

Obama’s Deportation Record

From 2009 to 2016, Obama’s administration deported around 3.2 million immigrants through formal removal orders, with a total of 5.24 million removals and voluntary returns. The focus was on criminals and recent border crossers, earning Obama the nickname “deporter-in-chief” from critics like the ACLU. In 2013 alone, 438,421 deportations occurred, per the Migration Policy Institute. Supporters said this targeted dangerous individuals, but critics argued it tore apart families and ignored immigrants’ rights.

….

Due Process Under Obama

A major issue was the lack of due process. About 75–83% of deportations were nonjudicial, meaning they skipped immigration court. In 2012, roughly 313,000 of 419,000 deportations happened without a judge’s review, according to ACLU data. These “expedited removals” often left immigrants without lawyers or a chance to appeal. For example, many long-term U.S. residents were deported after minor offenses, with no opportunity to argue their case. Critics said this violated fairness, while defenders claimed it was efficient for border security.

…..

Trump’s Deportation Policies

As of April 2025, Trump’s second term has ramped up deportation plans, aiming to remove millions, including criminals and undocumented immigrants. His 2017–2021 term saw about 1 million deportations, far fewer than Obama’s, but his current rhetoric promises a larger scale. ICE operations have expanded, targeting workplaces and communities, per recent web reports. Like Obama, Trump prioritizes criminals but also casts a wider net, raising fears of mass deportations.
….

Due Process Concerns with Trump

Trump’s policies face backlash for bypassing due process, much like Obama’s. Web sources, including NPR, note that expedited removals remain common, with many immigrants detained and deported without hearings. In 2019, 64% of deportations were nonjudicial, per the Migration Policy Institute. Critics argue Trump’s aggressive ICE raids and proposed “deportation camps” risk deporting people with U.S. ties without fair trials. Supporters say it’s necessary for law enforcement, but groups like the ACLU warn of human rights violations.
….

Conclusion

Obama’s 3.2 million deportations, with 75–83% lacking due process, set a precedent for efficient but controversial immigration enforcement. Trump’s ongoing policies, echoing this approach, face similar scrutiny for prioritizing speed over fairness. The debate remains heated: how should the U.S. balance security and justice? Understanding these facts helps clarify the challenges both administrations faced.

FWIW:

Trump v Obama is a fun debate, but neither the Light Bringer nor Orange Man is the all-time Depo King: that title belongs to Bill Clinton, followed closely by Bush II, and finishing the trifecta, Sleepy Joe’s handlers.

Between Scylla and Charybdis? He may stall by veto now, but Ned Lamont is, after all, a Democrat, so this bill will be back, soon

/

CT Mirror:

Lamont seeking revisions to controversial housing bill (House Bill 5002)

The General Assembly’s 2025 session ended last week, but the debate continues outside Hartford over a controversial housing bill that is prompting Gov. Ned Lamont to consider calling lawmakers into special session for revisions before he must sign or veto the legislation.

…. Options under consideration in talks with lawmakers include Lamont signing the bill on the promise that objectionable sections be revised before they take effect, or insisting on immediate changes in special session while he still has the leverage of a possible veto.

“So the question is: you sign it, fix the bill. Or don’t sign it, and get a new bill that works, takes down the temperature,” Lamont said Monday.

Lamont, a Democratic governor from Greenwich who won reelection in a landslide in 2022 with surprisingly deep suburban support, has heard complaints about the bill from elected mayors, first selectmen and voters from many of those same suburbs.

Some of the complaints involved “a lot of really gross misrepresentation, which I think is no help at all,” Lamont said.

“They say, ‘You’re taking away local authority. It’s the heavy hand of the state government.’ I think just the opposite. We’re trying to give towns the incentives to speed things up, get more housing where they need it,” Lamont said. “I want them to take the lead. That’s why we’re here.”

One piece of the bill known as “Towns Take the Lead” divides housing need among towns and assigns each town a set number of units to plan and zone for. That means every five years, towns would have a certain number of units they need to plan for, and some of those units will have to be for families or set aside for certain income levels.

“I thought it was an unnecessary provocation,” Lamont said. “You know, people are taking those numbers, they’re making it sound like a dictate. All it is is, these are some needs you may have, and how would you get there? It’s up to you to take the lead on that. But I think it was a problem.”

Other provisions generating opposition would require communities to allow developers to convert commercial buildings to residential with nine or fewer units without a special hearing before the planning and zoning commission. Another would ban minimum off-street parking requirements for certain residential developments.

“I don’t worry as much about the commercial piece. I hear back and forth a lot about the parking piece, but it’s just for the very smallest units,” Lamont said.

…. House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, who spoke to the governor over the weekend, said in an interview he was under the impression that Lamont was inclined to veto the bill if there are no changes.

“We have not gotten to that specific level of detail, if that’s the option,” Ritter said.

Time is short: The governor is leaving at the end of the week for the Paris Air Show, and he estimates he has about 14 days before he must sign or veto the bill.

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, a primary mover behind the bill, said crafting revisions addressing opposition may be difficult, since some of it is inaccurate in his view. The definition of what a “fair share” is for each community is an example, he said.

“There is a desire for great clarity about what fair share is and isn’t,” he said.

Fred Camillo, the Republican first selectman of Greenwich, is among those who have spoken to the governor. Camillo said there is a widespread perception that the bill as written would empower developers at the expense of local zoning.

He said some of the provisions were too broadly written, such as a matter of right to convert commercial buildings without review. The ban on a parking requirement would be problematic in Greenwich, where narrow streets often mean on-street parking is unsafe, he said.

Camillo, a former state representative, said he was hardly alone in lobbying Lamont.

“He is getting swamped,” Camillo said.

….

House Minority Leader Vincent J. Candelora, R-North Branford, said the housing issue controversy had primarily been focused in Fairfield County. But no longer.

“My community never cared about it. Now that it has passed, my community is blowing up,” Candelora said.

Surely there are easier, softer ways to end a naval career than this

/

Riverside NoPo Sale

/

7 Griffith Road, listed at $1.995 million, sold to Stamford buyers for $2.150.

History:

Purchased from an estate February 2022 to a local contractor for $1,020,000 (asking price was $995,000.) Renovated and resold to a Colorado buyer on July 22 2022 for $1.875 (asking price was $1.775 million).

Here’s what the house looked like pre-renovation:

Griffith Road is a perfectly decent neighborhood, but I’m not sure I’d agree with the listing agent’s description of it in that original estate sale: “This fantastic single-family home is located in one of the best neighborhoods in Riverside on a quiet cul-de-sac.”

But whatever.