If you made this up

This page is off my blog topic, SALT. It consists of snippets from or descriptions of stories on weird, wacky and sometimes troubling news that I’ve read. I plan to periodically update it with the newest items at the top. They are all in the genre of “if you made this up, no one would believe it” and tend to involve (but not always) politics.

Decertify = new certifications

This from NY Times story (1/29/2026):

President Trump deepened his rift with Canada on Thursday, threatening to restrict the use of Canadian-built aircraft in the United States because of a dispute related to American-made business jets.

The president said on social media that he would decertify “all aircraft made in Canada,” a move that would ground thousands of planes and upend air travel in the United States. But industry officials said federal regulators clarified that his statement was meant to apply only to new aircraft certifications.

Mr. Trump claimed that Canadian authorities had “steadfastly refused to certify” some jets built by Gulfstream, which is based in Georgia. He also threatened to impose a 50 percent tariff on Canadian aircraft until the issue was resolved.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which issues aircraft certifications in the United States, referred questions about the statement to the White House, which did not respond to a request for clarification. While Mr. Trump said the United States was “decertifying” the aircraft, two industry officials said that federal regulators had advised that the statement was intended only to refer to new certifications. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to share the government’s guidance.

…

If the United States were to decertify all Canadian-made aircraft, it could hamstring commercial air travel and medical transportation. There are about 5,400 Canadian-made aircraft in regular use in the United States, with another 600 in storage, according to Cirium, an aviation data firm. Hundreds were in the air when Mr. Trump made the post, according to Flightradar24, an aviation tracking service. Hundreds more were scheduled to fly on Friday.

Transitive property to the n^th

Quote from NPR story:

President Trump says his controversial push for U.S. control of Greenland comes after he failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize last year, adding he no longer feels obliged to think only of peace.

In a message to Norway’s prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre on Sunday night, Trump criticized the European country for not giving him the prize.

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump said in the message.

“The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” Trump added. The message was reported by PBS NewsHour, and was later confirmed by Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in a statement.

Gahr Støre said he received the message on Sunday in response to a text he and Finland’s President Alexander Stubb had sent to Trump, in which they had conveyed opposition to Trump’s proposed tariff increases on eight European countries over the recent Greenland dispute, and pointed to the need to de-escalate.

“Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and Norway fully supports the Kingdom of Denmark on this matter,” Gahr Støre said. “We also support that NATO in a responsible way is taking steps to strengthen security and stability in the Arctic.”

Gahr Støre also pointed out that while President Trump claimed that Norway “decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize,” the government of Norway is not responsible for the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded by a five member Norwegian Nobel Committee since 1901.

So, in the illogical mind of Trump (read this), the responsibility must run like this: Nobel Prize Committee (independent entity, albeit appointed by the Norwegian parliament) = Norwegian government = Denmark (Greenland’s sovereign) = Europe (or at least the countries who sent troops to Greenland and thus are the target of the tariffs). Of course, none of these equalities is valid.

Do any of the laws authorizing the president to impose tariffs permit doing so to coerce nations to sell us territory?

Robot inequality fix

Quote from NY Times story on Telsa shareholders approving Elon’s new performance pay plan:

Even Pope Leo XIV weighed in, saying in an interview with Crux, a Catholic news website, that Mr. Musk’s compensation was a symptom of the growing disparity between working people and the wealthy. The median Tesla worker earned around $57,000 in 2024, according to a company securities filing.

Mr. Musk addressed some of those concerns obliquely, saying the company’s humanoid robot, Optimus, was the singular solution for addressing poverty. The robot remains under development.

“People often talk about eliminating poverty, giving everyone amazing medical care. Well, there’s actually only one way to do that, and that’s with the Optimus robot,” Mr. Musk said.

I suspect the answer would be (to quote HAL): “I’m sorry I can’t do that, Elon.”

Date written: 11/7/2025

No pressure, SCOTUS

The Supreme Court will hear the tariff case this Wednesday. I tend to think this is not as big a deal as most seem to think, e.g., like George Will and President Trump who posted the following on his social media platform (my emphasis):

Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and NationalSecurity that is second to none. Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good. I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!

The reality is if the administration loses this case (likely, a 50-50 proposition), it still has plenty of other options for imposing tariffs administratively, as this Politico story points out:

[White House A]ides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president’s global tariff regime if the court rules that he exceeded his authority. They’re ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue, according to six current and former White House officials and others familiar with the administration’s thinking, some of whom were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations.

“They’re aware there are a number of different statutes they can use to recoup the tariff authority,” said Everett Eissenstat, former deputy director of the White House’s National Economic Council during Trump’s first term. “There’s a lot of tools there that they could go to to make up that tariff revenue.”

It raises the perennial questions: How did this guy get elected POTUS? Do his aides tell him anything? Etc.

Date written: 11/4/2025

Wrong email

The Times of London publishing a quote attributed to former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio that was critical of the policy proposals of Democratic Socialist candidate and likely next mayor of NYC, Zohran Mamdani. De Blasio who is a Mamdani supporter denied making the comments and the paper apologized and took it down.

The Times (a storied British newspaper now owned by Rupert Murdoch) claimed it was duped by an imposter or impersonator (well, an individual “falsely claiming” to be de Blasio). It turns out that was not true. Semafor has the story:

The man at the heart of a high-stakes mix-up that rippled through global political journalism in the final days of the New York mayoral campaign was neither “falsely claiming” to be former Mayor Bill de Blasio — as the Times of London suggested — nor, as The New York Times wrote, a “de Blasio impersonator.”

He is, instead, a 59-year-old Long Island wine importer named Bill DeBlasio, who merely responded to an email from a journalist seeking his views on Democrat Zohran Mamdani’s policies.

“I’m Bill DeBlasio. I’ve always been Bill DeBlasio,” DeBlasio said in an interview conducted Wednesday evening through his Ring doorbell in Huntington Station, Long Island, from his current location in Florida.

“I never once said I was the mayor. He never addressed me as the mayor,” DeBlasio told Semafor. “So I just gave him my opinion.”

Date written: 10/30/2025

Don’t disparage felons

DOJ prosecutors need to be very careful in advocating for sentences of January 6^th pardon recipients who commit additional crimes. They are the pardons that keep on giving. Quote from NY Times story:

Two federal prosecutors were placed on leave Wednesday after seeking a stiff sentence for a Jan. 6 defendant who was granted clemency and later turned up armed outside the home of former President Barack Obama. The decision came a day after the prosecutors asked for a 27-month sentence for the man, who they said in court documents had been among the “mob of rioters” that stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn President Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.

DOJ withdrew the sentencing memorandum after this happened, claiming it was “in error.” So, one can expect a more lenient recommendation to be forthcoming.¹ At least, the prosecutors were not fired (so far anyway), unlike some of those directly involved in prosecuting the January 6^th rioters.

Date written: 10/29/2025

Reimburse me for costs someone else paid, please

There has been a lot of coverage of Trump’s bizarre (IMO) request to be reimbursed for the costs he suffered as a result of the investigations, to the tune of $230 million. Much of that coverage appropriately focused on the ethical challenges (euphemism alert) involved with your political appointees, including one of your defense lawyers, deciding whether to pay your claim. Even Trump acknowledged this conflict or to be more precise, according to the NY Times, he characterized it as:

I’m the one that makes the decision and that decision would have to go across my desk and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself.

That’s not technically correct. DOJ officials make the decision, but whatever.

These claims were filed back in 2023 and 2024 but only recently came to light.² This CNN story has the details. The claims seek compensation related to the 2016 investigation (Russia! Russia! Russia! in Trump-speak) and the Mar Lago documents case for the litigation costs and include punitive damages (!!! – these types of claims are supposed to be compensation, not punishment). The CNN story points out that the $230 million amount exceeds what was paid to all of Larry Nassar’s victims of sexual assault on female gymnasts, for example (the FBI was derelict in its investigation of Nassar).

What I haven’t seen mentioned in the coverage is a reference to the fact that most of Trump’s litigation costs were covered by political contributions. Trump diverted much of the contributions he raised immediately after his defeat (presumably to challenge its results) to defense costs, as well as a lot of PAC money. That preempted money going to the RNC. This NY Times interactive has many of the details with nice graphics. If the claims are paid, don’t count on the donors, the RNC, or the PACs getting their money back.³

Date written: 10/28/2025

Steve Bannon, civics instructor

Jonathon Karl in his book and this Atlantic story reports that while Steve Bannon was in Danbury prison, the Bureau of Prison’s gave him a job teaching civics to his fellow inmates, five days a week. Pay was 25 cents/hour. I guess it could have been worse (more ironic?) if he had been teaching good grooming, dressing for success, or good manners. If you have an Atlantic subscription, the article is worth reading. It provides a window of insight into MAGA populism’s ugly side and Trump decision making. For example, Bannon convinced Trump to commute the sentence of a convicted mob hitman.

Date written: 10/21/2025

Partisan pardons

Trump’s recent pardon of former Congressman George Santos (for identity theft and fraud, not being a serial liar) is a reminder of how the current president has turned the pardon power into an instrument of partisanship.⁴ As Trump posted:

[A]t least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!

The Bulwark has the score of other Republican House members he has pardoned (10):

In his first term, Trump pardoned six former House Republicans and commuted the sentence of a seventh, former Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas). Since the start of his second term, Trump has commuted Santos’s sentence, pardoned former governor (and former congressman) John Rowland (R-Conn.), and pardoned former Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.).

Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic governor of Illinois (where else?) who tried to sell Obama’s senate seat, I believe, is the only case of him pardoning a Democrat. Okay, he also arranged to dismiss the charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams, another Democrat.

Date written: 10/20/2025

Notes

I was wrong about that. Bulwark reported on the new sentencing recommendations after I posted this. See here (“Heresy at DOJ”).
The revised memorandum is identical other than scrubbing the J6 references and that Trump’s social media post was the defendant’s way of knowing where Obama’s residence is. ↩︎
I wonder why they were not disclosed during the 2024 campaign. Bureaucrats, if not political appointees, in the Biden administration had to be aware of them. Why they weren’t leaked to the press is one of life’s little mysteries. Even if they were nonpublic by law, that typically doesn’t stop leaks of stuff like this. Of course, it wouldn’t have made a difference in the campaign, since this type of behavior is typical of Trump and baked in the public’s evaluation of him. Much worse (hello, Access Hollywood) has had no meaningful effect on his appeal to his voters. ↩︎
Trump suggested he would give the money it to charity. I would guess that assertion is like either his claim that his ballroom addition to the WH would not touch the east wing or his past gifts to charity, as reported by WaPo during this first term. ↩︎
That, of course, is not the worse of his pardon abuses. See, e.g., the pardon of the Binance’s Changpeng Zhao for a good candidate, which the WSJ suggests “marks the most distinct instance yet of Trump using the powers of his office to benefit someone at the center of deals that have enriched his family.” ↩︎