TPM Reader EB emailed today to tell me something that hadn’t come across my radar: the cost of computer memory is going absolutely through the roof. Just do a Google search for something like rising cost of computer memory and you’ll see a ton of articles. To give you a sense of scale the cost increases are approaching 200% year over year and as much as 30% for certain kinds of gaming RAM recently in one week. The cause is what you’d expect: the insatiable demand for memory created by the AI server farm buildout. I buy computer memory too but I don’t think I’ve tried to buy recently enough to be aware of the surge.

I told EB that I continue to find all of this surreal.

For almost a decade now, we’ve watched as Trump plowed through guardrails intended to restrain a rogue executive, exploited one loophole after another, and managed to turn every legal ambiguity in his favor.

So it’s worth noting that one relatively small structural guardrail held firm and provided a check today on one of Trump’s worst abuses.

I mentioned earlier this month that we had this panel at our 25th anniversary event that I simply loved, an oral history of TPM. We published the audio of the panel as last week’s installment of the podcast. I have my own reasons for enjoying it, but I think you will too. In any case, one thing I was reminded of in listening to the discussion is that in recent years I’ve shifted toward analysis and away from my own reporting. Not as an absolute, of course. And in the spring I was reporting on a lot of stuff at once. But certainly over this year, I’ve written a lot of big-picture looks at what I think is happening in the country, what the Trump administration is trying to do, what people can and are doing to resist those efforts, what the big global story is. Listening to the panel discussion made me a bit hungry to do more of the thread-collecting and yanking of nitty gritty reporting, the grabbing on to a story and getting everything of out it, finding and introducing the key characters, finding the arc of their story.

This story is a few days old. But I only came across it yesterday. Meet Austin Smith. He’s a former state legislator in Arizona, member of the Arizona Freedom Caucus. Or former member. He was also strategic director of Turning Points Action, Turning Points’ political arm. (Yes, what other arm would their be?) He was also a hardcore “vote fraud” hustler. And now rather predictably he’s pled guilty to attempted election fraud. Yes, surprise, surprise. In fact, he’s from Surprise, Arizona. No really. You can read the story here.

So Trump didn’t rendition Mamdani. They appear to be huge friends now. What gives?

Here’s my take since I’ve got this question again and again in the last hour.

Just before I began writing this post, I saw this article from The Washington Post about the rise of billionaires in American politics. Given Bezos’s ownership and the recent shift in its editorial policies I’m mildly surprised they published it. The key points aren’t terribly surprising. But it brings them together in one place — the vast growth in billionaire giving over the first quarter of this century, the rapid trend from a relatively even partisan split to overwhelming giving to Republicans. It is among other things the story of billionaires becoming increasingly class conscious. It’s always been true that money buys influence in American politics. In some ways, it was even greater and more brazen in the past since there wasn’t even the pretense of limits on giving or disclosure.

But the role of billionaire ownership of the political process has not only grown rapidly in recent years. Public recognition of that fact has, too, which has — perhaps paradoxically or perhaps not — spurred the drive for even tighter ownership. It’s no exaggeration to say that the deca-billionaire or even centi-billionaire class — setting aside those who might command a mere few billion dollars — act now as a kind of post-modern nobility, a class which does not rule exclusively but interacts with politics in a fundamentally different way from the rest of society.

GREENBELT, MD—If the Justice Department had brazenly defied a judge’s order a year ago the way it did again today in the Abrego Garcia case, it would have been a banner headline and the buzz of legal circles.

But 10 months into the Trump II presidency, it’s become all too normal for his Justice Department to refuse to comply with direct court orders, to engage in bad faith charades in court, and to dare judges to do anything about it.

The case of Abrego Garcia — the El Salvadoran man wrongfully deported to his home country in March in violation of a immigration judge’s order — may be where the Trump administration has been most persistently defiant for the longest time. It’s refusal to correct its error and bring him back sparked a constitutional clash that landed at the Supreme Court, and it only brought him back after indicting him for unrelated crimes.

You don’t have to get too deep into the weeds to understand the significance of what happened today.

ALEXANDRIA, VA—This morning’s hearing on James Comey’s motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution was largely overshadowed by the revelation that the indictment may not be valid because it was botched by interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan. You can read my initial report from court here.

It would be an epic way for the weaponized prosecution of Comey to end: the Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience so badly mishandling the basic nuts and bolts of grand jury practice that no indictment ever attached to Comey.

But a botched indictment only indirectly gets at the heart of the bad faith and ill motive that is driving the Comey prosecution, so let’s run through some of the highlights of the nearly hour-long argument that preceded U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressing prosecutors for answers on their mishandling of the grand jury. Instead of recounting the arguments from both sides — former deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben for Comey and Nathaniel Lemons for the government — I want to zoom in on what most interested the judge and where his questions were most focused.

Yesterday President Trump met in the Oval Office with Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) and, in the midst of defending him over the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, said that MBS “knew nothing about it.” Last night Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA) went to the well of the House and gave a brief speech in which he said that the two most troubling presidential calls he had reviewed while serving on the National Security Council staff were the infamous one with President Zelenskyy and another heretofore unknown call with MBS. Vindman then goes on to imply that the call showed Trump not knew MBS ordered the murder but likely supported it. Vindman first posted the video on Twitter last night. This morning he posted the same video on Bluesky. But in the caption he writes in the post — as opposed to the video — he zeroes in specifically on Trump’s claim that MBS “knew nothing about it.”

A few TPM readers responded to yesterday’s post about Trump as the “weak horse” arguing that Trump’s waning power makes him more dangerous, not less. I agree. Mostly. What’s “more dangerous” is a subjective question, with different kinds of dangers, different time horizons. Overall it’s clearly a good thing since Trump’s loss of power and the eventual defeat of his movement are good things. Though that’s far from a certainty, it is getting more likely. But Trump won’t go quietly. We know that from Jan. 6. No president wants to see their popularity wane or the loss of power that goes with it. But Trump’s binary mental world puts a sharper, more draconian focus on everything. In his world, you are punishing or the punished, dominating or the dominated. Loss of power means personal political peril. That’s how it works in his own head, and to a significant degree Trump’s own actions have made that all-or-nothing world a reality around him.