• The ban on Muslim immigration from first seven and now six predominantly Islamic countries was to be for 90 days;

• The then-expressed purpose for this 90-day ban was to afford the Trump administration the time necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of current and applicable immigration policies;

• The aforementioned 90 days has long passed since the executive order was first signed and put into effect;

• No review of the aforementioned applicable immigration policies has apparently been conducted during the intervening period;

• Trump has not once sought to either walk back or tone down his own noxious campaign rhetoric on the subject of Muslim residents and immigrants in the United States; and

• Trump's aforementioned rhetoric has proved wildly appealing to his own bigoted and narrow-minded white-wing political base, which constitutes about 35-40% of the U.S. eletorate;

If Trump has a demonstrable knack for anything of late, it would be for his capacity to tarnish and diminish the formerly impeccable personal reputations of once-respected individuals who've chosen to associate themselves with him for whatever their reasons.

SCOTUS would therefore be wise to decline the administration's request to consider its cause in this case, lest its faction of conservative justices otherwise further burnish their own already-dubious collective reputation for conflating the GOP's partisan political aspirations with the law itself.

But, my view is that the initial vote of whether to let the travel ban take effect while the Court weighs the case, which takes five votes, is less likely. However, if the Court does vote to let the travel ban take effect, there is a better chance that the policy might be upheld later.

I mean, a right-wing millionaire rodeo clown running for federal office in Montana body-slams and punches out a reporter for asking a legitimate question, then publicly lies about the encounter, and only finally apologizes for it after he gets elected to Congress. Yet few people in the media are batting so much as an eyelash at it right now, even though it was one of their own who was victimized and the congressman-elect was charged with criminal assault. Where's the outrage there?

The double standard at play here is appalling. And as CaptHowdy said earlier, nobody is holding the photographer accountable -- and given his earlier work (thanks, Cap'n), it was more likely than not his idea.

i thought this from Wyclef Jean was a useful and thoughtful take

Wyclef Jean to anti-Trump celebs: `Be very careful'

Wyclef Jean's advice for celebrities who want to get political: Don't be like Kathy Griffin.

Read up, said the musician of Fugees fame, and one-time aspiring celebrity-turned-president himself. And if you're a high-profile person, think about how what you're doing and saying might be interpreted, or maybe misinterpreted.

Otherwise, the cause you could just end up hurting the cause you think you're trying to help.

"If you're the celebrity that's speaking based on emotion, you don't know what policy you're talking about, they're going to take that sound bite and make a whole movie out of it," Jean said, speaking to me for POLITICO's Off Message podcast. "So, I encourage every celebrity ... let's be as smart as [Jimmy] Kimmel."

Though he says he feels obligated to give the president a chance, he can't stand what he's seen so far--like with the travel ban: "as someone who considers my group being Fugees, short for refugees, I find it crazy."

Could you imagine JFK apologizing for Marilyn or any others?

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare.

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences -- increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century -- as a chief justification for building the structure.

HBO will decide the best way for the corporation to respond to this. If HBO thinks he can weather this with little to no damage to the company brand Maher will keep his job.

Sasse did not suggest that he come to see the nice campus at Lincoln or the major health science center at Omaha. Or even the country life of Ox Bow.

The exchange was started with Bill's gracious treatment of the right wing senator, indicating that he should come to Nebraska.  Sasse responded by saying (paraphrase) good, come on over, we will put you in the fields. Learn what hard work is, although Sasse, the Harvard (BA), Yale (PhD) guy, is unlikely to offer much first-hand experiences. But, it would go a long way to justify his book pushing appearance on a lefty show that has swear words.

Since the discussion was about climate change, Bill could have used the field reference to compare coal going to oil, natural gas and green energy with the loss of jobs and changes in agriculture over the past 100 years...less farm workers in Nebraska thanks to John Deere equipment.  Unless, Sasse wants to ban farm equipment to return jobs to the farm. And, I doubt that given his fondness for the Koch Brothers and Big Agriculture.

Bill's response seemed to be intended to be funny and self-deprecating.  It turned out to be neither.

There was some laughter from the audience from the  startling response, but it came across to me more as nervous and uncomfortable laughter. Use of the word is so degrading and insensitive, that Maher should have been able to respond in any number of different ways: such as, working in the fields, you mean like exploited immigrants.

The panel and remainder of the show was particularly good.  Rebecca Traister (who authored the great article in New York magazine about Hillary Clinton, May 29-June 11) noted that Sasse was "smart and dangerous."

Sasse may know how to spread a lot of manure around, but that doesn't mean he ever, at any time, worked in any "fields."

The White Princess just 1 perspective. Things that differed from the book. Elizabeth never openly acknowledged to anyone that she knew Perkin was her brother Richard. The King's mother never admitted to murdering little Edward in the Tower. And there was no initial stand in hung in Perkin/Richard's place. The Earl of Warwick died alone. His cousin was not there to comfort him. But in the book he did not seem to understand they were ending his life at his beheading.