The Houston Cougars are just two wins away from their first national championship in program history, with the men's Final Four set to begin in San Antonio on Saturday. Cougars fans are taking every precaution necessary to ensure good luck for Kelvin Sampson's squad at the Alamodome.

A petition was launched on Change.org Wednesday evening urging Texas Senator Ted Cruz to challenge New Jersey Senator Cory Booker's recently set filibuster record on the floor of the United States Senate. Do Coogs fans really care if Cruz can outdo Booker's 25-hour filibuster? Not really. But consider Wednesday's petition somewhat of a Trojan Horse. If the petitioners can truly get Cruz to spend his weekend in Washington, they should be able to avoid the "Cruz Curse" in San Antonio.

"The Junior US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has an unfortunate habit of affecting major Texas sporting events negatively. As passionate sports fans of the University of Houston and Texas constituents, we have no other option than to redirect his energies somewhere more effective during the upcoming Final Four in San Antonio, April 5-7," the petition reads. "We firmly believe that Senator Cruz's ego is clearly enormous, and if applied in an alternate time and place, it could make a significant impact on our state and the University of Houston’s athletic prospects.

"It is our suggestion that Senator Cruz redirects this well known debating skills to the floor of the Senate. Specifically we recommend that he challenges the Senate filibuster record starting Saturday, April 5, 2025."

The Houston Cougars are just two wins away from their first national championship in program history, with the men's Final Four set to begin in San Antonio on Saturday. Cougars fans are taking every precaution necessary to ensure good luck for Kelvin Sampson's squad at the Alamodome.

A petition was launched on Change.org Wednesday evening urging Texas Senator Ted Cruz to challenge New Jersey Senator Cory Booker's recently set filibuster record on the floor of the United States Senate. Do Coogs fans really care if Cruz can outdo Booker's 25-hour filibuster? Not really. But consider Wednesday's petition somewhat of a Trojan Horse. If the petitioners can truly get Cruz to spend his weekend in Washington, they should be able to avoid the "Cruz Curse" in San Antonio.

"The Junior US Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, has an unfortunate habit of affecting major Texas sporting events negatively. As passionate sports fans of the University of Houston and Texas constituents, we have no other option than to redirect his energies somewhere more effective during the upcoming Final Four in San Antonio, April 5-7," the petition reads. "We firmly believe that Senator Cruz's ego is clearly enormous, and if applied in an alternate time and place, it could make a significant impact on our state and the University of Houston’s athletic prospects.

"It is our suggestion that Senator Cruz redirects this well known debating skills to the floor of the Senate. Specifically we recommend that he challenges the Senate filibuster record starting Saturday, April 5, 2025."

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg on Thursday asked some eyebrow-raising questions that made at least one expert believe that he's likely to hold some Trump administration officials in contempt.

As reported by legal journalist Adam Klasfeld, Boasberg on Thursday asked "a series of questions about whom he should find in contempt if he finds probably cause for such an action."

Shortly after this, according to Klasfeld, Boasberg asked, "If I find probable cause for contempt, would the government want an opportunity to purge the contempt?"

Boasberg has been overseeing a lawsuit filed on behalf of Venezuelan immigrants who were detained and flown to a prison in El Salvador even after he had issued an order for them not to be deported from the country. He has often expressed frustration with administration officials' answers to his questions about the case.

According to New York University Law School professor Ryan Goodman, Boasberg's questioning on Thursday makes it look like he's ready to take the next step.
"Chief Judge Boasberg looks very likely to hold U.S. officials in contempt and is now drilling down on: WHO exactly made the decision not to turn the planes around or otherwise return the detainees? Would government bring back the detainees to undo contempt?" he observed on BlueSky.

The rollout of President Trump’s new reciprocal tariffs included some big surprises, as economists and trading partners sifted through which countries were hit the highest rates, and who was spared.

Questions swirled over the calculations and decision-making process within the White House while administration officials and Republicans hit the airwaves to defend the tariffs, urging investors and the broader public to trust Trump as stocks plunged on Thursday morning......

Unclear calculations
Trump and top administration officials said during Wednesday’s announcement that they calculated individual reciprocal tariff rates using a model that factored both tariff and non-tariff trade barriers.

Several analysts, however, figured out that the White House’s reciprocal tariff rates were calculated by taking the total trade deficit between the U.S. and that nation, dividing it by the total value of U.S. good imports, and then either dividing that number in half or setting the rate at 10 percent.

The White House insists tariff and trade barriers were part of the calculation.

“No we literally calculated tariff and non tariff barriers,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said on X, which received a community note explaining the formula. X is owned by Trump adviser and close ally Elon Musk.

When pitching the upcoming tariffs, Trump said for weeks they would be reciprocal as a way to create fairness. He argued that countries should be charged what they charge the U.S. on imports.

On a call with reporters just before the announcement on Thursday, White House officials said that the reciprocal tariff rate would be lower and “we’re only charging half because the president is lenient and kind.”

President Trump's controversial choice to be the top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Ed Martin, faces an uncertain future, as a Senate Democrat plans to put an indefinite hold on his nomination.

Martin, a "Stop the Steal" advocate and former defense attorney who represented U.S. Capitol riot defendants, is Mr. Trump's nominee to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, and Sen. Adam Schiff, a first-term Democrat from California, plans to hold his nomination amid a growing number of controversial statements and decisions by Martin.

The position is among the highest-profile and most powerful federal prosecutor positions in the U.S. Martin, who refers to himself as "Ed the Eagle," has been serving as acting U.S. attorney for D.C. since Inauguration Day.

Senators have the power to invoke a hold on a presidential nominee, a maneuver that can slow or stall consideration of a nominee for days or weeks. Precious Senate floor time is often needed to overcome holds on presidential nominees.

"For the past nine weeks, Ed Martin has consistently undermined the independence and abused the power of the US Attorney's office in DC, openly threatening and intimidating political opponents, dismissing charges against his own clients, firing public servants for their roles in legitimate investigations and using his office as a cudgel to chill dissent and free speech," Schiff said in a statement to CBS News.

I have been thinking about these extortion cases as President Donald Trump continues to target law firms with executive orders. Five major law firms have now been named in presidential orders that strip lawyers of security clearances, cancel government contracts, prohibit federal agencies from hiring former employees, and ban them from entering federal buildings, a major problem for lawyers with cases in federal court. The firms appear to have been targeted because they employ, or have employed in the past, lawyers who have worked on cases against Trump, such as special counsel Robert Mueller and former Justice Department lawyer Andrew Weissmann. One firm, Covington & Burling, appears to have ended up in the crosshairs because it provided pro bono legal services to special counsel Jack Smith.

Some firms have chosen to fight back by challenging the constitutionality of the orders in court. All three law firms that have sought temporary restraining orders—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale—have succeeded. Courts have found that they have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims that the orders violate the First Amendment right to free association, among other constitutional protections.

But two law firms have taken a different route. Paul, Weiss and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have instead cut deals with the Trump Administration, each agreeing to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono legal services to causes approved by Trump. Both are prominent, New York-based, global law firms with previously stellar reputations. Paul, Weiss was reacting to a presidential order targeting it by name. Skadden didn’t even wait for an order, entering into a deal to preempt one. Their desire to make the controversy go away is understandable, but their appeasement is not only disappointing to other members of the legal profession, it is also unlikely to succeed.

As I learned from those extortion cases, corruption breeds corruption. The first payment of a kickback is rarely the last. The corrupt politician learns who will cave in to pressure, and he exerts more. Once a victim pays a bribe or kickback, there is nothing to stop the powerful official from demanding more payments simply to preserve the status quo. In addition, he also learns that if he was able to find one victim, he can likely find others, so he will continue to use corrupt tactics in hopes of more paydays.

No doubt, the target of an extortionist is in an unenviable position. I saw small construction firms land lucrative government contracts to install a sewer system or repair a water main only to face the painful decision of paying a kickback or losing the work. When confronted with a demand to pay, the owner faces loss of revenue, deprivation of future business opportunities, damage to their reputation, and sometimes even fear of physical harm, threats, and harassment. They worry not just about themselves, but about their other clients, their employees, and even their own families, all of whom will be affected if they incur the wrath of a powerful political leader. As a result, it can be very tempting to give in to the demands for payment in hopes that the threat will disappear. But it never does. Some of those business owners found themselves paying again and again. Some were even charged as defendants in bribery conspiracies.,,,,,

But as every school child learns, the only way to prevent the bully from coming back for more is to refuse to give in to his demands.

Tesla has about $200 million worth of Cybertrucks in inventory in the US, as the truck is extremely difficult to sell.

A year and a half into production, Cybertruck production has ramped up, and inventory is building up.

Last year, Tesla could blame low Cybertruck deliveries on the production ramp, the more expensive Foundation Series, and the lack of access to the $7,500 tax credit.

All of those excuses are not available to Tesla this year. The Cybertruck is simply proving challenging to sell, and the automaker has to throttle down production to avoid building up too much inventory.

The tariff rates unveiled by President Donald Trump on Wednesday stems from a simple formula based on U.S. trade imbalances with other countries—not the tariff rates they charge the U.S., along with “currency manipulation and trade barriers,” as the White House initially claimed.

Key Facts

Trump, debuting rates including 54% for China, 20% for the European Union and 26% for India, said the figures were based on “the combined rate of all their tariffs, non-monetary barriers and other forms of cheating” that was then divided in half because Trump wanted to be “kind.”

Analyses posted on social media and in news articles determined the numbers were based on a much more simplistic calculation made by dividing a country’s trade surplus (representing the value by which a country’s exports exceeds the cost of its imports from the U.S.) by its total export value, then multiplying the figure by 0.5.

The formula matched the tariffs Trump debuted for China, the European Union, Indonesia, India and Vietnam, Ian Bremmer, a global political scientist and founder of Eurasia Group consultancy firm, pointed out on X, writing “this is…incredibly stupid.”

China, for example, had a trade surplus of $295 billion with the U.S. last year, with $438 billion worth of goods exported to the U.S.—$295 billion divided by $438 billion is equal to 67%, and divided in half equals the 34% tariff rate Trump debuted Wednesday.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative later confirmed the formula by publishing what appears to be a complex math equation for calculating the tariff rates, but when stripped of its Greek letters, shows it’s essentially based on countries’ trade surpluses with the U.S. divided by their export value then divided in half.

The approach suggests countries could lower their tariffs by buying more U.S. products, which would be “very difficult for Asian, particularly poorer Asian countries, to meet US demand . . . given that U.S. goods are much more expensive, and the purchasing power is lower for countries targeted with the highest levels of tariffs,” Natixis senior economist Trinh Nguyen told CNBC.

Chief Critics
“If the Trump administration didn't calculate the "tariff rates" other countries are supposedly imposing on us by using the formula trade deficit/imports, it's an amazing coincidence that every single country's "tariff rate" is equal to trade deficit/imports,” economic journalist James Surowiecki wrote on X. Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics told the BBC "the formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit. There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly."