☕️ LATE ADMISSIONS ☙ Monday, January 12, 2026 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Big voices join C&C; Musk backs killing the silent filibuster; NYT admits end of the UN era; Mamdani faceplants; Fed blindsided by obvious; WaPo torches Jack Smith; NYT frets Kennedy’s vaccine changes

Good morning, C&C, it’s Monday! Your roundup today includes: More big voices join C&C; Elon Musk touts nixing the ‘silent filibuster’; Times’s geopolitical experts admit that Trump has ended the United Nations era in favor of a new multipolar world of his design; Mayor Mamdani stumbles coming out of the gate and loses first legal battle; Fed Chair gets unexpected bad news that a blind squirrel could have seen coming a mile away; a minute of searching digs up more facts than in the entire Times article; Washington Post’s editorial board savages Trump prosecutor Jack Smith; and the Times frets that Kennedy’s revised childhood vaccine schedule is just the start of bigger things to come.

🌍 WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY 🌍

🔥🔥🔥

Let’s start with the “I told you so” mailbag. First up— yesterday, the world’s richest man, who could buy Greenland twice before breakfast without blinking, and who holds the biggest megaphone in history, broadcast our proposed solution to the ‘silent filibuster’ problem:

Like I keep saying! They don’t need to “nuke” the filibuster. They just need to go back to making Senators walk the walk and talk the talk. No more “pretend” filibusters, so Senators can get to happy hour at the Capitol Grill. It would require just the tiniest rule tweak, even though it would admittedly be painful for the Senators, for a while. I get it; nobody wants to listen to this for 12 hours straight:

🔥 Next up, although I won’t waste time on the sillier details, yesterday the New York Times confirmed our geopolitical read, that Trump is reorganizing the world, tossing out globalism for multipolarity, centered on the ‘big three’ countries: America, Russia, and China. The interactive, multimedia-style op-ed was headlined, “Trump Broke the World Order. Now What?”

The article rounded up five fretful “experts,” each of whom furnished an anxiety-filled essay (Monica Duffy Toft’s was one of the five). Although equally alarmist, each of the five shared the fundamental perspective that we’ve long discussed here on C&C. “The post-World War II rules-based order is collapsing,” Toft admitted, and “the Trump administration seeks to dominate the Western Hemisphere.” Toft and the four other experts agreed that China and Russia were rushing in to claim the other hemispheres, leaving the “world split in three.”

If, as I do, you consider the phrase “post-World War II rules-based order” synonymous with the Globalist Project, describing a United Nations-governed world, whose economic engine is the unwitting U.S. taxpayer, then this high-profile op-ed was nothing less than an admission that —in a single year— Trump has succeeded in deconstructing a vast global bureaucracy that has totally dominated world politics for 80 years. Without firing a shot.

After January 2nd (ten days ago), the evidence has become undeniable. What precipitated the experts’ belated confession began with the dramatic capture of Venezuela’s de facto leader and was confirmed by the President’s undisguised threats against Greenland. That got their attention. They waited. They waited in vain.

What sealed the deal —and proved Trump has already won— was the glaringly obvious lack of any meaningful geopolitical opposition.

The United Nations would be the obvious choice. That storied post-World War II institution can condemn a country at the drop of a hat. (Just ask Israel.) But in the wake of the Venezuelan decapitation and the Greenland brinksmanship, the “United Nations” is disunited, in disarray, a spent force, unable to issue even a toothless resolution of protest at this point. And if the United Nations can’t stop an ascendant America, who can? Not the European Union, which has refused to chime in. Not NATO, which cannot even muster a complaint about Trump’s designs against NATO-member Denmark over Greenland.

“The foundations of the post‑World War II era slip out from under us,” the Times’ editorial board somberly conceded, showing a little literary flair. “The world we know is ending. Something new has begun.”

Give them credit for getting this far. After a year of stubbornly hoping some miraculous scandal would topple Trump 2.0, they’ve finally thrown in the towel and caught up with where we’ve been for six months or more. True, the progressive experts weren’t ready yet to grapple with the possibility that President Trump might actually succeed in remaking the world into something better, something durable, but at least they admit that something new has begun.

📉📉📉

Late last week, the New York Times coughed up its first status report on the City’s new communist Mayor. It was a stinker. The story was headlined, “Mamdani’s First Big Move to Help Renters Is Dealt a Blow by Court.” In the bread-and-circuses world of 2026 NYC politics, the biggest game in town is a group of rent-controlled apartment buildings owned and run by the Pinnacle Group, which has been muddling through chapter 11 bankruptcy since last May.

For some reason, Pinnacle has been cutting corners on building maintenance, aggravating tenants who, while they enjoy the cut-rate, price-controlled rents, are often forced to wrestle cockroaches the size of German Shepherds. Mamdani officials deny the deferred maintenance has anything whatever to do with the City’s rent control policies, arguing landlords can earn profits despite 1960s-level rental rates using magical fairy dust.

During the campaign, Mamdani wouldn’t shut up about the Pinnacle bankruptcy. He described it as a test case of his ability to “protect New York renters,” making it (in his own mind, at least) into a vast Hollywood epic, like 1991’s The Super with Joe Pesci starring as a New York slumlord. (It has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes). Pinnacle was such a big part of the campaign that Mamdani even gave his Mayoral acceptance speech outside a Pinnacle building.

Unsurprisingly, one of his first acts in office was to dramatically lodge an objection in the Pinnacle bankruptcy case to its looming asset auction.

But winning lawsuits is a lot harder than talking about winning lawsuits. The federal bankruptcy judge promptly denied the City’s motion and proceeded with the sale of around 90 Pinnacle buildings, including about 5,200 apartments. Next week, the City will get another chance to object when the court must approve the now-completed sale.

The buildings were purchased by a company almost identical to Pinnacle —ironically, even named Summit Properties, a synonym for ‘pinnacle’— which disappointed tenants, who’d hoped to continue paying bottom-market rents but with a new, upmarket landlord.

Anyway, the Mamdani campaign, which was happily jogging down the collectivist running trail, has stepped on its first rake. If the new mayor fails to “save” Pinnacle, his brand could already be tarnished, just 12 days into his term. I expect they’ll try something stupid and heavy-handed, which the bankruptcy judge will not like.

For now, the brash young political newcomer looks outplayed; he turned a complicated, structurally unfavorable forum (bankruptcy court) into a signature test— and got a textbook demonstration of how little control a mayor has over distressed, rent‑stabilized assets once they fall under federal bankruptcy law.

Better luck next time!

📉📉📉

Mamdani wasn’t the only one who got an icy splash of reality in the tender spots. Late yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, “Federal Prosecutors Open Investigation Into Fed Chair Powell.” As I’ve said, if 2025 was the year of preparation, 2026 is the Year of Offense. The Times’s article was awful. It was rank journalistic malpractice, as the paper increasingly seems to treat reporting the news as some kind of Telemundo game show. Meanwhile, last night Fed Chair Jerome “Marble Bidet” Powell excreted a shameless and unmanly bit of whiningand blame-shifting on Twitter.

CLIP: Federal Reserve Chair, now under criminal investigation for perjury, blames it on Trump ().

Powell, trying to get ahead of the story, reported it himself. In the Sunday evening clip, the Fed Chair explained that he’d received several Grand Jury subpoenas, indicating that the DOJ was assembling a case against him. The Times got right down to work, describing the investigation as a witch hunt and a ‘feud’ between the President and the Fed Chair. “The investigation escalates Mr. Trump’s long-running feud with Mr. Powell,” the Times said, drolly.

The gist of Powell’s perspective —expressly adopted by the Times— was that, while “no man is above the law,” he personally is, since this new criminal investigation is nothing but political persecution, dammit, and totally illegitimate. Three things stood out about the Times’s awful story: (1) it only quoted Trump critics, but no Powell critics. (2) It never pinned down the DOJ’s likely charges, leaving its already handicapped readers fogged. (3) It assiduously avoided reporting who had launched the DOJ investigation in the first place.

Let’s try to help the Times by offering some real journalism.

It only took about ten seconds of googling to locate Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fl) criminal referral to the DOJ. She even posted a press release about it last July, and the title would have been extremely helpful to any reporter trying to find answers: “Rep. Anna Paulina Luna Refers Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for Criminal Investigation Over False Testimony.”

And there it was. Unlike the Times’ useless article, Luna’s July 2025 press release explained: (1) when Powell lied to Congress; (2) exactly what he said that wasn’t true; (3) which documents proved the Fed Chair lied under oath; and (4) which specific laws he allegedly broke, right down to the statute number (to wit: perjury and making false statements to federal officials).

The dustup centers on the Federal Reserve’s hyper-luxury $2.5 billion renovation of its headquarters building. According to Rep. Luna, the project includes swanky features like a VIP dining room, private elevators, a yoga retreat, premium marble, Disneyesque water features, and a rooftop arboretum where stressed fed governors can blow off steam by hunting kidnapped taxpayers.

During his sworn Congressional testimony, Powell denied that any of those features were included in the “final plans.” But Ms. Luna found the final plans and, contrary to Powell’s claims, dang it, the sumptuous features were right there. Thus: five Pinocchios.

Powell’s video mentions none of that helpful background. He didn’t even bother denying he said it or trouble himself to claim that it was true when he did. The Times could have checked Ms. Luna’s claims and debunked them, or at least asked Powell to comment on them. But nope. According to the Times, it’s just a feud.

Powell’s sudden and unexpected investigation is just the latest example of ammunition the Trump Administration quietly held in reserve throughout the second half of 2025— and only fired now, in the first two weeks of 2026. They’re surging. Powell’s tenure as Fed Chair expires in May, though he could still cling on until 2028 as one of the twelve Fed governors.

But if the DOJ develops evidence that Powell did lie, it would give Trump “cause” to legally fire him. Just saying.

🔥🔥🔥

Rounding out the trio of sudden and unexpected unpleasantness for progressive darlings, on Friday, the Washington Post’s entire editorial board published its opinion about Special Prosecutor Jack Smith, who led the federal cases against President Trump. The surprising piece was headlined, “Jack Smith would have blown a hole in the First Amendment.

Last month, Smith, who looks just like a central-casting villain, testified to Congress in closed session. Last week, Congress published the transcript. “The good news is that the exchange was mostly substantive and respectful,” the editors said, finding the bright side. “The bad news is that Smith is still clinging to flawed legal theories.” Ruh roh.

At the time, some of us criticized Smith’s approach for the same reasons. But now, three years later, the Washington Post’s editorial board is catching up. “Smith’s indictment accused Trump of lying so pervasively about the election that he committed criminal fraud,” the editors explained. But then they discovered the Constitution: “Political speech — including speech about elections, no matter how odious — is strongly protected by the First Amendment. The main check on such misdirection is public scrutiny, not criminal prosecution.”

Not only that, but the editors even quibbled with Smith’s characterization of Trump’s election claims as fraudulent at all. “Of course fraud is a crime,” the editors generously allowed. “But that almost always involves dissembling for money, not political advantage.” Then they squashed the villainous prosecutor like a grasshopper: “Smith’s attempt to distinguish speech that targets ‘a lawful government function’ simply doesn’t work.”

It was puzzling. Why was the WaPo suddenly championing President Trump’s free speech rights? Maybe the answer can be found in this seemingly offhand rhetorical question: “Imagine what kind of oppositional speech (i.e., Democrat speech) the Trump Justice Department would claim belongs in Smith’s unprotected category.”

In other words, now that Trump is back in office, don’t judge Democrats using prosecutor Smith’s rules. See how broad-minded the WaPo is? See how supportive (now) the editors are of free speech and of not twisting fraud laws into prosecutorial pretzels to fit the facts of the case?

Make no mistake— however delicately, however fondly, the WaPo tossed Jack Smith right under the bus.

The editors even accused Smith of the worst conceivable crime: helping Trump win. “The former special counsel apparently has no regrets about this heavy-handed approach,” the article said, “even though it failed legally and probably helped Trump win the 2024 election.” The editorial ended with this breathtaking paragraph:

Proving how explosive the commentary actually was, the article’s thousands of comments smouldered furiously with white-hot progressive resentment like an uncontrolled tire-yard fire. They accused WaPo of “selling out,” “turning MAGA,” being “craven and ridiculous,” and generally sneered so hard it could be seen from orbit.

But the readers missed the point. This was not a tardy defense of American values, of constitutional principles, and of the MAGA point of view. No, the Washington Post was urgently trying to stop the prosecution train, which is barreling along the tracks with its emergency brake snapped off. It’s a desperation move, one we’ve expected to see at some point.

WaPo’s real motive is to feign agreement with conservatives that the Trump prosecutions were both unlawful and morally wrong. Once it crosses that historical bridge, WaPo can argue that the current prosecutions of Democrats for perjury, mortgage fraud, welfare shenanigans, and immigration insurrection are equally wrong. Everyone on both sides should stand down! We should take politics out of law enforcement! Kumbaya.

They know it won’t be enough to simply mouth platitudes. That’s why people like Jack Smith have to go out the top-floor window. Jack Smith cannot be defended, not if Democrats intend to pivot to the moral high ground. Sacrifices must be made, to prove good faith.

Sadly, it won’t work. It’s too little, too late. The lift is just too heavy. During the prosecutions, the WaPo championed Jack Smith and defended him from these precise claims. A December 2023 editorial on the election‑interference case admitted that Smith’s legal theories necessarily relied on “some of the most ambiguous statutes” and “unprecedented” applications, but still treated the prosecution as justified and important, while framing Trump’s conduct as “reprehensible” rather than focusing on the President’s speech rights.

It won’t work, but it’s still fun to watch them try.

💉💉💉

Yesterday, the New York Times (byline Apoorva Mandavilli) ran an anguished story headlined, “In the New Vaccine Schedule, Signs of Bigger Changes to Come?” A horror-struck Times complained in the subheadline that, “the revised schedule may presage an approach to immunization that prizes individual autonomy and downplays scientific expertise.”

To the Times, the notion of “individual autonomy” conjures nightmare images of the worst excesses of the Third Reich, of slavery, and of calling a bearded, 250-pound, 6’3” man sir— even after he told you twice to say ma’am. In other words, nothing could be worse than individual autonomy.

“On Monday, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and political appointees at the CDC delivered a new vaccine schedule,” the Times groused, “that shrank the number of diseases American children would be protected against by one-third.” The problem, in the Times’s view, was that “Mr. Kennedy and his allies appear to be laying the groundwork for an entirely new approach to immunization, one that prizes individual autonomy and seeks to limit vaccines based on personal preference rather than scientific expertise.”

The Times admitted the Trump Administration’s remarkable messaging discipline: “Monday’s announcement was a surprise to everyone who would normally have been involved in such decisions,” the paper complained. “Federal health officials hinted at more changes to come,” it said.

More changes to come is exactly what we voted for!

In further encouraging news, the Times reported that Americans are starting to realize there might be a problem. “Mr. Kennedy’s rhetoric about shots not having been properly tested also appears to be gaining traction,” it admitted. “One Pew Research Center poll found that only about half of Americans are now highly confident that childhood vaccines have been adequately tested and shown to be safe.”

But it wasn’t all good news. “Many Democrat-led cities and states also promptly issued emphatic avowals of support for the previous schedule,” the Times unsurprisingly reported. So much for following the science. But get this: “Republican-led states were mostly silent, and none have so far shown signs of adopting the new recommendations.”

It’s once again time for local, local, local.

Most of all, the idea they hate the most is parents asking questions. After all, doctors are busy. “Dr. Jake Scott, a vaccine expert at Stanford, said the requirement that a health professional sign off on certain vaccines before children can access them sounds good in theory, but physicians might not have the time to address parents’ worries adequately.” Science! Shut up!

See how easily one of the bedrock principles of medical ethics —informed consent— must yield to inconvenience? That right there is all you need to know about modern “public health.”

Have a magnificent Monday! Slide back around tomorrow morning, when we will together dissect the extraordinary essential news and insightful commentary. Whenever you take a social media break, all you need to get by is Coffee & Covid.

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can: ☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid

Twitter: jchilders98.
Truth Social: jchilders98.
MeWe: mewe.com/i/coffee_and_covid.
Telegram: t.me/coffeecovidnews
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com