Sunday, December 21, 2025

Something to Know - 21 December


                                         

I could not resist posting this Andy Borowitz piece

The developing speed that  Artificial Intelligence has evolved from a clever idea to a force of unbridled social change is now a challenge to contend with.   What used to be a guaranteed career for a successful life has now presented those currently in the field of working in the industries using AI so well that they may be putting themselves out of a job.  The ability to apply knowledge in finding solutions and programs in very high level jobs is no longer in high demand.   AI has worked so well, and will keep on its trajectory that AI, Large MultiModel computer devices may work so well in the future that the only people required will be those who standby for events when Super Artificial Intelligence computer system begin to stray and carry out harmful deviations that they were not scripted to do.  Someone has to pull the plug on the systems to kill the electrical power.   Those who have been involved in the preparation and education of attaining the computer skills for this career have graduated from the most prestigious universities, or are in the process of the education, and finding themselves  unemployable.

This story from the Los Angeles Times bears witness to this issue

They graduated from Stanford. Due to AI, they can't find a job

April 2019 photo of Hoover Tower on the campus of Stanford University.
Hoover Tower on the campus of Stanford University.
 
(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)
Visiting Tarbell fellow Nilesh Christopher
Staff WriterFollow
Dec. 19, 2025 4 AM PT
  • Stanford computer science graduates are discovering their degrees no longer guarantee jobs as AI coding tools now outpace entry-level programmers.
  • Tech companies are replacing ten junior developers with just two experienced engineers and an AI agent capable of equivalent productivity.
  • Facing a weaker job market, recent graduates are turning to master's programs, less prestigious employers, and startup ventures to survive.

A Stanford software engineering degree used to be a golden ticket. Artificial intelligence has devalued it to bronze, recent graduates say.

The elite students are shocked by the lack of job offers as they finish studies at what is often ranked as the top university in America.

When they were freshmen, ChatGPT hadn't yet been released upon the world. Today, AI can code better than most humans.

Top tech companies just don't need as many fresh graduates.

"Stanford computer science graduates are struggling to find entry-level jobs" with the most prominent tech brands, said Jan Liphardt, associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University. "I think that's crazy."

While the rapidly advancing coding capabilities of generative AI have made experienced engineers more productive, they have also hobbled the job prospects of early-career software engineers.

Stanford students describe a suddenly skewed job market, where just a small slice of graduates — those considered "cracked engineers" who already have thick resumes building products and doing research — are getting the few good jobs, leaving everyone else to fight for scraps.

"There's definitely a very dreary mood on campus," said a recent computer science graduate who asked not to be named so they could speak freely. "People [who are] job hunting are very stressed out, and it's very hard for them to actually secure jobs."

The shake-up is being felt across California colleges, including UC Berkeley, USC and others. The job search has been even tougher for those with less prestigious degrees.

Eylul Akgul graduated last year with a degree in computer science from Loyola Marymount University. She wasn't getting offers, so she went home to Turkey and got some experience at a startup. In May, she returned to the U.S., and still, she was "ghosted" by hundreds of employers.

"The industry for programmers is getting very oversaturated," Akgul said.

The engineers' most significant competitor is getting stronger by the day. When ChatGPT launched in 2022, it could only code for 30 seconds at a time. Today's AI agents can code for hours, and do basic programming faster with fewer mistakes.

Data suggests that even though AI startups like OpenAI and Anthropic are hiring many people, it is not offsetting the decline in hiring elsewhere. Employment for specific groups, such as early-career software developers between the ages of 22 and 25 has declined by nearly 20% from its peak in late 2022, according to a Stanford study.

It wasn't just software engineers, but also customer service and accounting jobs that were highly exposed to competition from AI. The Stanford study estimated that entry-level hiring for AI-exposed jobs declined 13% relative to less-exposed jobs such as nursing.

In the Los Angeles region, another study estimated that close to 200,000 jobs are exposed. Around 40% of tasks done by call center workers, editors and personal finance experts could be automated and done by AI, according to an AI Exposure Index curated by resume builder MyPerfectResume.

Many tech startups and titans have not been shy about broadcasting that they are cutting back on hiring plans as AI allows them to do more programming with fewer people.

Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei said that 70% to 90% of the code for some products at his company is written by his company's AI, called Claude. In May, he predicted that AI's capabilities will increase until close to 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs might be wiped out in five years.

A common sentiment from hiring managers is that where they previously needed ten engineers, they now only need "two skilled engineers and one of these LLM-based agents," which can be just as productive, said Nenad Medvidović, a computer science professor at the University of Southern California.

"We don't need the junior developers anymore," said Amr Awadallah, CEO of Vectara, a Palo Alto-based AI startup. "The AI now can code better than the average junior developer that comes out of the best schools out there."

To be sure, AI is still a long way from causing the extinction of software engineers. As AI handles structured, repetitive tasks, human engineers' jobs are shifting toward oversight.

Today's AIs are powerful but "jagged," meaning they can excel at certain math problems yet still fail basic logic tests and aren't consistent. One study found that AI tools made experienced developers 19% slower at work, as they spent more time reviewing code and fixing errors.

Students should focus on learning how to manage and check the work of AI as well as getting experience working with it, said John David N. Dionisio, a computer science professor at LMU.

Stanford students say they are arriving at the job market and finding a split in the road; capable AI engineers can find jobs, but basic, old-school computer science jobs are disappearing.

As they hit this surprise speed bump, some students are lowering their standards and joining companies they wouldn't have considered before. Some are creating their own startups. A large group of frustrated grads are deciding to continue their studies to beef up their resumes and add more skills needed to compete with AI.

"If you look at the enrollment numbers in the past two years, they've skyrocketed for people wanting to do a fifth-year master's," the Stanford graduate said. "It's a whole other year, a whole other cycle to do recruiting. I would say, half of my friends are still on campus doing their fifth-year master's."

After four months of searching, LMU graduate Akgul finally landed a technical lead job at a software consultancy in Los Angeles. At her new job, she uses AI coding tools, but she feels like she has to do the work of three developers.

Universities and students will have to rethink their curricula and majors to ensure that their four years of study prepare them for a world with AI.

"That's been a dramatic reversal from three years ago, when all of my undergraduate mentees found great jobs at the companies around us," Stanford's Liphardt said. "That has changed."

Show.


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Posted by No comments:

Saturday, December 20, 2025

Something to Know - 20 December




Robot smaller than grain of salt can 'sense, think and act'

With solar cells and its own propulsion system, the device is a step toward sending robots into the human body.


The collection of photos from the Webb and Hubble telescopes reach out into the universe observing objects far away in estimated light years in the millions from Earth.   Not easy to comprehend, and not practical for us to figure out going out there to check things out.  You get the feeling that we are one tiny speck of a planet in a landscape so large to comprehend.  At the same time we have science looking at objects so close and so small able to do wonderful things in Medicine and Health.   If you had your choice of exploration, would you invest in investigating the universe or medical robots in our bodies?

Jimmy Kimmel - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fLti9X2RdSs

By Mark Johnson
Solving a technical challenge that has stymied science for 40 years, researchers have built a robot with an onboard computer, sensors and a motor, the whole assembly less than 1 millimeter in size — smaller than a grain of salt.

The feat, accomplished by a partnership of researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and University of Michigan, advances medicine toward a future that might see tiny robots sent into the human body to rewire damaged nerves, deliver medicines to precise areas, and determine the health of a patient's cells without surgery.

"It's the first tiny robot to be able to sense, think and act," said Marc Miskin, assistant professor of electrical and systems engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, and an author of a paper describing the work published this week in the journal Science Robotics.

The device, billed as the world's smallest robot able to make decisions for itself, represents a major step toward a goal once rooted in science fiction. In the 1960s, the story and movie "Fantastic Voyage" imagined a medical team placed aboard a submarine and shrunk to the size of a microbe. The microscopic medical crew was then injected into the body of a dying man in order to destroy an inoperable blood clot.

"In the future, let's say 100 years, anything a surgeon does today, we'd love to do with a robot," said David Gracias, a professor in the department of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Johns Hopkins University who was not involved in the study. "We are not there yet."

In 1989, two decades after "Fantastic Voyage," Rodney A. Brooks and Anita M. Flynn, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote a paper called, "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control: A Robot Invasion of the Solar System," that described a robot they'd built measuring just 1¼ cubic inches, dubbed Squirt.

Sawyer Fuller, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Washington, said that when "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control," was published, "people thought microrobotics was coming any minute now. … Turns out it has taken a little longer than expected to put all these things together."

Fuller, who was not involved in building the new microrobot, called it "the vanguard of a new class of device."
Miskin said the microrobot built by the Michigan and Pennsylvania teams is about 1/100th the size of MIT's Squirt but isn't ready for biomedical use.
"It would not surprise me if in 10 years, we would have real uses for this type of robot," said David Blaauw, a co-author of the paper in Science Robotics and professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan.

A microrobot on a U.S. penny, showing scale. (Michael Simari/University of Michigan )
For decades scientists have dreamed of building a microrobot less than 1 millimeter in size, a barrier that corresponds to the smallest units of our biology, Miskin said. "Every living thing is basically a giant composite of 100-micron robots, and if you think about that it's quite profound that nature has singled out this one size as being how it wanted to organize life."

For comparison, a human hair has a diameter of about 70 microns, while human cells are about 20 to 40 microns across.

Although scientists and engineers have been miniaturizing circuits for the last half-century, the challenge has been to shrink all of the parts needed for a computer-guided microrobot, then assemble them without damaging the parts or causing them to interfere with one another. The robot needs an energy source of sufficient power to operate the computer and move the robot.
Five years ago, Miskin, whose specialty has been building microrobots, met Blaauw when the two gave back-to-back talks. Blaauw's lab then held ― and still holds ― the distinction of having built the world's smallest computer.

"Even in the presentations we were like, 'Oh, we need to talk to each other,'" Blaauw recalled.
The device they built uses tiny solar cells that convert light into energy. Some of that energy powers the computer, and some propels the robot as it swims through liquid. The computer runs at about one-thousandth the speed of today's laptops and has far less memory.
In the lab, the scientists shone an LED light down into the lab dish that contained the robot in a solution. The robot is made of the same kinds of materials found in a microchip: silicon, platinum and titanium.
microrobots_swimming

These tiny robots, smaller than grains of salt, can generate enough energy to perform simple tasks like swimming through liquid. (Video: University of Pennsylvania)
To protect it from the effects of fluids, the microrobot is encased in a thick layer of what is essentially glass, Miskin said. There are a few holes in the glass that are filled in with the metal platinum, forming the electrodes that provide electrical access.

At Johns Hopkins, Gracias stressed that scientists need to ensure that the materials they use for microrobots can be safely used inside a human body.

Sensors on the robot allow it to respond to different temperatures in liquid. To move, the device uses energy from the solar panels to charge two metal electrodes on either side of it. The electrodes attract oppositely charged particles in the water, generating a flow that pulls the robot along.

As it swims, the robot communicates with the person operating it.
"We can send messages down to it telling it what we want it to do," using a laptop, Miskin said, "and it can send messages back up to us to tell us what it saw and what it was doing."
The robot communicates using movements inspired by the waggle dance honey bees use to communicate.

Three microrobots beside an insect wing, for scale. (Maya Lassiter/University of Pennsylvania )
During the summer, the scientists invited a group of high school students to come in and test the new microrobots. The students were able to track the movements of the robots using a special low-cost microscope.

"They loved it," said Miskin. "It was definitely a little bit challenging at first, just getting oriented to working with something that small. But that's part of the appeal. Once they got the hang of it, they were all in." Miskin said the version of the robot the students used cost only about $10.
Researchers are working now to develop the microrobot so that it can work in saltwater, on land and in other environments.
The long-term vision, Blaauw said, is to design tiny computers that can not only talk back and forth to their operators.
"So the next holy grail really is for them to communicate with each other," he said.


*******************************
If you are more curious about these microbts, here is a YouTube video that details a scientific discussion between medical development personnel
The above link is for the super nerds, but compels others to watch just out of curiosity
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Posted by No comments:

Friday, December 19, 2025

Something to Know - 19 December

In 2018, Trump sued the Pulitzer Prize Board because it passed him up and awarded the prize to the New York Times and Washington Post.   So, Trump "being Trump", naturally" sued the Pulitzer folks.   The Pulitzer Prize folks would have nothing of it, and demanded that Trump produce the evidence he had to initiate the suit.   Trump threw everything he had at the wall to support his claim.   But sadly, he has no real evidence; he has nothing, and he knows it.   He would have to expose all of his business operations over many years; he would not want to do that.  So, the judge just may (probably will) just dismiss his case for lack of evidence.   Let this be an example to others. 


Geddry's Newsletter a Publication of nGenium marygeddry@substack.com 

4:20 PM (3 hours ago)
to me

Donald Trump's Lawsuit Has Entered the Find Out Phase

The Pulitzer Prize Board demands his records, his money trail, and possibly his last remaining secrets

Dec 17
 
READ IN APP
 

This week's installment of Trump v. Reality comes courtesy of the Pulitzer Prize Board, which has decided it is done indulging his tantrum and would now like to see… well, everything.

Medical records. Psychological records. Prescription histories. Tax returns. Financial holdings. Foreign gifts. Crypto assets. Liabilities. The Pulitzer Prize Board isn't asking for a sliver of context or a carefully curated snapshot, they're demanding the whole damn filing cabinet, prying open every drawer Trump has spent a decade slamming shut.

Oh yeah!, and while we're at it, documentation proving that all those other lawsuits, the E. Jean Carroll cases, the CNN suit, the ABC settlement, the CBS meltdown, the Wall Street Journal–Epstein birthday card fiasco, actually caused the billions and billions of dollars in harm Trump keeps claiming. In short: Show us your work.

This is all unfolding in a defamation lawsuit Trump himself filed after the Pulitzer Prize Board committed the unforgivable sin of calmly explaining why it refused to rescind the 2018 prizes awarded to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their reporting on Russian interference and the Trump campaign. The Board commissioned two independent reviews. Those reviews found that nothing in the reporting had been discredited by later facts. The prizes stood.

Trump responded the way he always does when confronted with facts: he sued. According to Trump, the Board's explanation defamed him. Emotionally devastated him. Ruined his reputation. Cost him untold wealth. Possibly disturbed the very molecules of his being. He demanded astronomical damages in Florida state court and waited, presumably, for everyone to cower.

Instead, the Pulitzer Prize Board chose violence. Their discovery requests are a thing of beauty. Not flashy, nor rhetorical, just brutally literal. If Trump is claiming emotional or physical injury, they would like the records supporting that claim, all of them, going back to January 1, 2015. Including prescription medications and annual physicals. And if he is not claiming such injuries, they would like him to say so in writing.

That sentence alone is doing more work than most congressional committees. Trump's entire litigation persona depends on simultaneously being the most harmed man in America and the most private. He wants to claim catastrophic emotional damage without ever explaining what that damage looks like, who diagnosed it, or what treatment it required, if any. The Board has now forced him to choose: either the harm was real, or it wasn't. And either way, the paper trail matters.

Then come the finances. The Board would like Trump's tax returns from all jurisdictions, with all attachments, schedules, and worksheets, from 2015 to the present. They would also like documentation showing every source of income, every asset, every liability, and every gift worth $100,000 or more. If you're going to claim you lost billions, they politely suggest we should probably see what you had in the first place, and who was giving it to you.

The lawsuit has stopped being about defamation and now looks like an unsolicited audit of Trump's entire adult life.

And just when it seems it can't get better, the Board turns Trump's own legal hobby against him. If the Wall Street Journal injured him by reporting on his 2003 birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein, then he must produce the documents. If E. Jean Carroll damaged his reputation, he must produce the documents, and reconcile them with the jury verdict finding him civilly liable for sexual assault. If CBS, CNN, and ABC cost him billions, he must show the proof. If being accurately described on television caused him harm, he must explain how.

Trump has filed hundreds of defamation lawsuits, each one inflating his supposed suffering to cartoonish proportions. The Pulitzer Prize Board has simply said: fine. Let's see the evidence.

And here's the part that makes this such a delicious spectacle: Trump always loses interest when discovery gets real.

We've seen this movie. When Michael Cohen fought back by immediately serving discovery and noticing Trump's deposition, Trump delayed, dodged, claimed he was too busy, tried to push dates months out. Judges ordered him to sit. Trump blinked. And then, right on schedule, he dismissed the case and ran away rather than answer questions under oath.

The Board isn't just defending journalism, it's calling Trump's bluff in the one arena where his bravado collapses: sworn testimony backed by documents.

Trump can posture on cable news, rage on social media, and file lawsuits by the dozen. What he cannot do, and has never been able to do, is withstand sustained, disciplined scrutiny of his records, his finances, or his health.

Trump will either comply and open the vaults, revealing a trove of information he has spent years fighting to keep hidden. Or he can do what history suggests he will do: stall, deflect, scream "witch hunt," and eventually walk away from his own lawsuit rather than let anyone see what's inside.

Either way, the rest of us get to enjoy the show. I'm stocked up on popcorn and Prosecco is chilling


--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Posted by No comments:

Thursday, December 18, 2025

Something to Know - 18 December

I do not normally intend to send out two newsletters in one day.   However, there is so much stuff flying around on different subjects that land on my display screen, that at least two are needed.  This is one of those times.  HCR has written highlights about the activities surrounding health care regulations.   I was particularly jolted by the comparison by the two sides on what is the basic reasoning by both parties.   The cost to continue supporting the Affordable Care Agreement (Obama Care) is stated to be $350 Billion over the next 10 years...and the opposition says that that is unaffordable and socialized medicine to boot.   At the same time the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, which have benefited the wealthy, is estimated to cost $4 Trillion over the same period.   This is the same story that I have heard since I was old enough to know about government and politics....the Democrats are in favor of supporting the middle class and those at the bottom of the food chain.   Republicans support big business, and anything that the government does to support those who are not as wealthy or impoverished is Socialism and has no standing for distributing the wealth to those who are in need.   Nothing has changed.   This is a very harsh dogma of nasty Libertarian economic policy. (sorry, Rich).



Heather Cox Richardson from Letters from an American heathercoxrichardson@substack.com 
Unsubscribe

Dec 17, 2025, 10:48 PM (10 hours ago)
to me
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

This morning, four vulnerable Republicans signed onto the discharge petition all House Democrats have signed to force Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring a bill to extend the premium tax credits for purchasing healthcare insurance on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) markets to the floor for a vote. The proposal extends the credits for three years.

Republicans who recognize that the American people overwhelmingly want the extensions have been fighting their colleagues who want to get rid of the ACA and slash government spending in general. Instead of extending the credits, House leadership is proposing a package of policies popular among their conference; the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that it will drop about 100,000 people a year off health insurance through 2035 but will save the government $35.6 billion.

Without the extension of the premium tax credits, which Republicans permitted to lapse at the end of the year when they passed their July budget reconciliation bill that they call the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the 24 million Americans who buy insurance on the ACA marketplace will see their insurance premiums skyrocket, and millions will lose their health insurance altogether. And yet, Republicans oppose the extensions, which will cost the government about $350 billion over the next ten years. The Republicans' extension of the 2017 tax cuts in that same bill will cost about $4 trillion over the same period.

Yesterday, Johnson dismissed the members of his conference who wanted to vote on the extension, saying that "many of them did want a vote on this Obamacare covid-era subsidy the Democrats created. We looked for a way to try to allow for that pressure release valve, and it just was not to be." Representative Mike Lawler (R-NY) told reporters: "This is absolute bullsh*t."

When the Republican-controlled House Rules Committee struck down all the Republican attempts to amend the Republican bill by extending the tax credits, four Republicans signed the Democrats' discharge petition. The four Republicans who signed are Lawler and Brian Fitzpatrick, Rob Bresnahan, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania. David G. Valadao of California told Marianna Sotomayor, Kadia Goba, and Riley Beggin of the Washington Post that he would have signed, too.

This evening, the House passed the Republican healthcare measure, which is expected to die in the Senate. The House will vote on extending the premium tax credits in January.

Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson of the Washington Post reported today on a court filing by lawyers for the government that claims it is legal for the administration to distribute federal money only to Republican-dominated states, withholding it from Democratic-dominated states. The government admitted that it withheld grants from the Department of Energy according to "whether a grantee's address was located in a State that tends to elect and/or has recently elected Democratic candidates in state and national elections (so-called 'Blue States')." Without evidence, the government claimed that such discrimination "is constitutionally permissible, including because it can serve as a proxy for legitimate policy considerations."

Kornfield and Natanson note that this is a "remarkably candid admission" that "echoes…Trump's frequent vows to punish cities and states that he sees as his enemies, from withholding disaster relief for Southern California to targeting blue cities with National Guard troops."

Joey Garrison of USA Today reported yesterday that a senior White House official told him the Trump administration is dismantling the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. Since 1960, NCAR scientists have studied Earth's atmosphere, meteorology, climate science, the Sun, and the impacts of weather and climate on the environment and society. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe wrote that "[d]ismantling NCAR is like taking a sledgehammer to the keystone holding up our scientific understanding of the planet."

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought told Garrison that the center is "one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country" and that the government will break it up, moving what he called "any vital activities such as weather research" to "another entity or location." Earlier that day, Garrison notes, the administration cancelled $109 million in grants to Colorado.

Colorado governor Jared Polis said he had not heard the news about NCAR but that "[i]f true, public safety is at risk and science is being attacked. Climate change is real, but the work of NCAR goes far beyond climate science. NCAR delivers data around severe weather events like fires and floods that help our country save lives and property, and prevent devastation for families. If these cuts move forward, we will lose our competitive advantage against foreign powers and adversaries in the pursuit of scientific discovery."

Trump has repeatedly attacked Polis, a Democrat, since his refusal to pardon former Colorado election official Tina Peters, convicted by a jury for state crimes in facilitating a data breach in her quest to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Peters is serving a nine-year prison sentence. On December 11, Trump granted Peters a "full pardon," but since presidents cannot issue pardons for state crimes, that means little unless Polis also pardons her.

Matt Cohen of Democracy Docket reported yesterday on escalating calls for violence to free Peters coming from prominent right-wing figures. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo posted after the threat to close NCAR that he was "[h]earing this is payback for Colorado not honoring Trump/Peters 'pardon.'"

Former special counsel Jack Smith testified today behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee about his investigation into Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. According to Ryan J. Reilly of NBC News, who obtained portions of Smith's opening statement, Smith told the committee that he and his team found "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump engaged in a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) subpoenaed Smith earlier this month, rejecting Smith's offer to testify in public. Jordan was among those claiming to be outraged at the news that Smith had obtained the call records of nine congressional Republicans related to the president's attempt to overturn the results of the election. Those records listed who was called and the time, date, and length of the call, without information about the content of it.

In 2022 the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol revealed that Trump and Jordan had a ten-minute phone call on the morning of January 6. That afternoon, Jordan objected to the counting of the votes that would certify Democrat Joe Biden as president. Jordan refused to cooperate with the committee when it asked for more information.

Smith told the committee that the phone records "were lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive" investigation. He continued: "January 6 was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 100 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted. Over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police officers that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election."

"I didn't choose those Members," Smith said, "President Trump did."

Republicans were hoping to undermine Smith and to portray him as part of a Department of Justice weaponized under the Biden administration. "Jack Smith should be in jail—if not prison," Representative Troy Nehls (R-TX), a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Hailey Fuchs and Kyle Cheney of Politico. "He's a crook. Jack Smith is a crook, and he needs to be held accountable for all his games that he played."

After Smith testified, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said Jordan "made an excellent decision in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly, because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president's men involved in the insurrectionary activities of January 6."

Today, news broke that Trump has added plaques to the hall of portraits of former presidents hanging in the White House. A plaque under the photo of President Barack Obama says he "was one of the most divisive political figures in American History," who "passed the highly ineffective 'Unaffordable' Care Act."

Under a photograph of an autopen, with which Trump replaced the portrait of Biden, the plaque begins: "Sleepy Joe Biden was, by far, the worst President in American History. Taking office as a result of the most corrupt Election ever seen in the United States, Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our Nation to the brink of destruction…."

—

--
****
Juan Matute
CCRC


Posted by No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)