Nancy Pelosi can whip votes, and they called Tom DeLay “The Hammer” for a reason. John Boehner, however, who had a more laid-back legislative approach and a more insane caucus, could never enforce that level of discipline as speaker of the House, which helped contribute to the government shutdown of 2013, among other sins.

Paul Ryan, the current speaker of the House, is very different from Boehner. Whatever you think of the merits of his wonkish reputation, he is certainly more policy-oriented than his predecessor. Ryan has been speaker since the fall of 2015, but he hasn’t really been tested in that role yet. What we’ve seen from Ryan suggests a McConnell-ish willingness to be hands off without McConnell’s ability to cultivate loyalty and get things done. There has been nothing in these last 18 months to suggest that Ryan has any more control over the raucous Freedom Caucus than Boehner did, despite the fact that Ryan insisted that the hard-right group be nice to him before he assumed the position.

This week is Ryan’s first big test as speaker. He and Trump have laid out an ambitious plan to repeal Obamacare, essentially daring Republicans to vote against them. The problem with their strategy, however, is that it’s clear that they have much more to lose than any of Ryan’s members. With two days to go until the rushed vote, Ryan has his work cut out for him: 26 Republicans currently do not support the AHCA and the GOP can only afford to lose 21 for the bill to pass. Some members—like the aptly named archconservative Dave Brat, who unseated the weaselly archconservative Eric Cantor in 2014—are calling on him to delay the vote.

Ryan created this mess by deciding to ram health care through and by convincing Donald Trump that it had to go first. In the next two days, we’ll find out if that was a good bet. We’ll also finally have a pretty solid idea of what kind of speaker Paul Ryan is. And with 48 hours to go, Ryan looks more like Boehner than DeLay or Pelosi.

Grilling the Supreme Court nominee in Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing, Franken raised the Case of the Frozen Trucker: Gorsuch has once ruled against a truck driver who, according to The Washington Post, “claimed he’d been wrongly fired because he ignored his supervisor’s demands by unhitching his unheated truck from its malfunctioning trailer and driving away in subzero weather in search of safety.” The Minnesota senator pointed out that Gorsuch’s fellow appeals court judges sided with the trucker. “It is absurd to say this company is in its rights to fire him because he made the choice of possibly dying from freezing to death or causing other people to die, possibly, by driving an unsafe vehicle,” he said. “That’s absurd.”

Then Franken delivered the line that capped the exchange and drew laughter from the room. “I had a career in identifying absurdity, and I know it when I see it,” he said. “It makes me question your judgment.”

This is just the latest memorable exchange involving Franken and Trump administration nominees. He exposed Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s ignorance on fundamental education policy debates and did some fierce fact-checking of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, his former Senate colleague. I’ve argued the Trump era is Franken’s time to shine, returning to his roots as a Saturday Night Live comedian and whip-smart progressive insult comic. There’s even evidence he’s coming around to the idea. The second-term senator recently told the Post he feels “a little freer to be myself, and so every once in awhile, something comes out.”

On Tuesday, midway through the second day of his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch did what Jason Segal, the smirky guy from The Office, and millions of bros couldn’t—he destroyed David Foster Wallace’s credibility. “We’re now like David Foster Wallace’s fish,” Gorsuch said. “We’re surrounded by the rule of law, it’s in the fabric of our lives.” Gorsuch was citing what now may be Wallace’s most famous work, his 2005 commencement address at Kenyon College, which has since become a kind of highbrow self-help text:

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

Wallace is the lingua franca of a certain subset of overeducated, usually wealth, extremely self-serious (mostly) men. Wallace’s bandana and occasional playfulness disguised this, but history has slowly revealed what has always been true, which is that David Foster Wallace was exactly the kind of person who would be into David Foster Wallace, just smarter.

Gorsuch and the sneakily conservative Wallace are peas in a pod. Wallace has quietly become a favorite of many archconservatives over the last decade: Scalia, the David Foster Wallace of Supreme Court justices, was also a fan, as is National Review’s Kevin Williamson, a man who mistakes facial hair for intellectual depth.

Of course, judging Wallace by the people who read him—even judging him by his own, often extremely regressive political views—is very unfair! Wallace wrote a long love letter to the IRS, after all, and can’t be neatly summed up, which is both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness (it’s what leads him to be taken up by both Gorsuch and the satchel bros). Also, Girl With Curious Hair still bangs.

But this is the company David Foster Wallace fandom keeps now:

David Foster Wallace is essentially the same as skiing and cigars now.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and no clock is more broken than David Brock. But Brock, who’s spent the last four months trying to elbow his way out of Hillary Clinton’s shadow and show real independence, tweeted out what may be the Democrats’ best way of undercutting Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination.

Brock wasn’t the first person to come up with this idea, which started circulating last night.

This is exactly what Republicans would do in this situation. It is slick and somewhat evil and totally political and partisan, and it would be effective because delegitimizing Trump has been the Democrats’ best play since November. It not only keeps him unpopular and ineffective, but also enrages Trump, causing him to tweet dumb, loud stuff, which makes him even more unpopular and ineffective.

This is essentially the same tactic that Republicans used when blocking Merrick Garland. They wed a Supreme Court nominee to a larger national storyline, and insisted that this is what’s right and proper. In Gorsuch’s case, however, Democrats wouldn’t have to twist themselves into a pretzel the way that Republicans did—i.e., the so-called Biden rule, a fictitious precedent that Congress cannot confirm Supreme Court nominees in an election year. They could simply make the case that this is an unprecedented situation and that Gorsuch’s confirmation should wait until it is resolved.

So why aren’t Democats doing this? Partly because, institutionally speaking, they lack the GOP’s willingness to hijack procedures. Republicans may have politicized the Supreme Court nomination system in 2016, but Democrats seem unwilling to adopt their nuclear methods.

But it could also backfire: It would put pressure on the FBI to hurry its investigation along—something Republicans very much want, Democrats not at all. They have to find a Goldilocks zone where they can use the FBI investigation as a wedge, but not create a situation where investigations in Congress and the FBI are hurried.

Still, it’s notable that this hasn’t even been floated by a Democratic senator. If Hillary Clinton were president right now we’d be in week three of impeachment hearings. Gorsuch has thus far done a decent job of seeming independent from Donald Trump. Democrats need to switch up the playbook to tie the two together.

On Tuesday morning, the president went to the Capitol to try to huff and bluff House Republicans into voting for Trumpcare, which many don’t want to do because it is a bad bill that will make the lives of everyone—but particularly the lives of people who voted for Trump—much worse.

This is pretty much the tactic for Paul Ryan and Trump. They’re daring Republicans to vote against this bill by making the specious claim that this is their only shot at passing health care reform. (It isn’t, not by a long shot.) Without the false sense of urgency, Ryan and Trump have nothing.

They are also creating a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario for Republicans. By raising the stakes for no reason, they’ve created a situation where you’re damned if you vote for the bill (because it’s terrible and it will put a target on your back) or if you don’t (Trump is suggesting he’ll blame defectors for future failures).

But that wasn’t all! Trump also made more specific threats.

This is Trump’s only negotiating tactic, really: intimidate people into doing what he wants them to do. But Trump’s support is a double-edged sword right now. He may be very popular among Republicans, but he’s incredibly unpopular generally, which means that the calculus for supporting his policies is complicated right now.

More than anything, this shows the limitation of Trump’s abilities as an executive and a negotiator. He just doesn’t have the patience or the subtlety to get things done at this level. Still, not everyone was unimpressed by this lackluster performance.

Ryan knows that treating Trump like a champion tee-ball player is the key to winning the president’s affection. But it doesn’t get you anywhere outside of Trump’s deranged mind.

Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers addressed the unsubstantiated claim—repeated by the White House—that British spies wiretapped Donald Trump last year at the behest of President Barack Obama. “I think it clearly frustrates a key ally of ours,” Rogers said.

Former Prime Minister David Cameron didn’t seem frustrated when he addressed the issue later in the day, but he did tweak Trump in a speech at Brown University in Rhode Island. Being out of office now, Cameron said, “I don’t have to listen any more to the wiretaps of Donald Trump’s conversations.”

“Just to be clear, that’s a joke,” he added, according to The Providence Journal.

This wasn’t the only awkward moment for Britain and the United States since Trump took office. In January, in a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May at the White House, Trump responded to a tough question from a BBC reporter by joking, “There goes that relationship.” The press also made hay of his decision to hold hands with May as they walked outside the White House.

In a Vogue profile published on Monday, May laughed it off. She said Trump “was actually being a gentleman,” adding, “We were about to walk down a ramp, and he said it might be a bit awkward.” When Vogue asked if May had confronted Trump about his comments on “women,” which she had previously called “unacceptable,” the prime minister was more serious:

We don’t comment on private conversations that take place. All I would say is, I’ve been very clear: I’m not afraid to raise issues. And the nature of the relationship is such that we should be able to be frank and open with each other.

That’s Rogers’s hope, too. Even as he acknowledged the damage done by the White House’s wiretapping claim, he told Congress, “I think our relationship is strong enough to handle this.”

The AHCA is a plane being built in midair. While Paul Ryan tried to act as if the bill was a finished product when it was unveiled two weeks ago, it was immediately clear that it was both inadequate and incredibly destructive. Since then, a number of fictional timelines and “prongs” have been thrown out to make it seem as if the bill won’t actually kick 24 million people out of the health insurance market in a decade. It’s easy to see why some Republicans are getting cold feet. But there’s another problem, too: Some Republicans don’t think the bill is harsh enough. The Freedom Caucus in the House and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee in the Senate all want a more draconian, market-oriented bill.

Late Monday night, the American Health Care Act was revised to include a number of line items to try to win over the Freedom Caucus, New York Republicans, and the hardline conservatives in the Senate. But all of these items ultimately make the bill even less likely to pass the Senate, even if they may ease the bill’s passage through the House. These revisions have been described as “sweeteners,” but they’re anything but. The revised bill is a disaster for Medicaid, even more so than the original bill. It moves up the expiration date by which states could take up the Medicaid expansion. It adds optional work requirements and block granting, both of which would effectively end Medicaid as we know it and create a public health disaster. (Only a small number of people receiving Medicaid—less than 15 percent—are able to work, and most of those are caring for a sick or disabled family member.)

There are increased tax credits for Americans between the ages of 55 and 64, who would be hardest hit by the AHCA. Except at this point the amendment is both toothless and terrible. Here’s Politico: “The amendment would not set up the tax credits but would instruct the Senate to do so, forcing House Republicans to take a vote on something the upper chamber would do later. It would be paid for by allowing consumers to write off less medical debt.” In other words, the Senate would have to figure out how to do it, and it would be paid for by kneecapping sick people.

The bill is especially engineered to win over New York Republicans. Per The New York Times:

The move—one of a number of late changes designed to gain more votes—would affect New York State only. It could save county governments outside of New York City $2.3 billion a year. But it could shift costs to state taxpayers or deny New York that same total in matching federal aid if the state continues to require those counties to contribute to the cost of Medicaid. Upstate New York Republicans, backed by local government officials, pressed for the measure over the angry opposition of New York’s Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo.

Medicaid is partially paid for in many counties by property taxes, and this shift would allow counties to drastically reduce those taxes, which also pay for schools. It would also tie up the state’s budget and likely increase obligations—and decrease services—for downstate residents.

All of these changes may entice some votes. The New York delegation is a big one! Passing off the problem of 55-to-64-year-olds to the Senate is shady but possibly effective! But they will make the bill harder to pass in the Senate. Yes, there are hardliners there, too. But there are also plenty of moderates who don’t want to see drastic changes to Medicaid, like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. It only takes three defectors to kill the bill in the upper chamber. Worst of all, for Ryan and Trump, is the fact that these regressive and destructive alterations still don’t seem to have the support of the Freedom Caucus.

Last night it was reported that Donald’s most beloved child, who has no formal role in the administration, will start working out of an office in the West Wing. Ivanka will also receive security clearance and a government communications device, making her a staffer in all but name.

Ivanka has already been under fire for the potential conflicts of interest generated by her tagging along with her father to meetings with world leaders, including Canada’s Justin Trudeau, Germany’s Angela Merkel, and Japan’s Shinzo Abe. Merkel seemingly couldn’t understand why Ivanka was allowed in their meeting:

Now, as Ivanka sets up shop next to her dad, any semblance of a wall has been torn down. Ivanka is attempting to separate herself from potential conflicts, but only half-heartedly. She put her jewelry and fashion line into a trust. For the handling of the day-to-day operations of that trust, she went not to her husband Jared Kushner, but to Josh Kushner, her brother-in-law-in-hiding, and his wife. And while Ivanka said she would “voluntarily follow all of the ethics rules placed on government employees,” the language she is using here is pretty muddy. As Norm Eisen, former Obama ethics czar, told Politico, “if she can voluntarily subject herself to the rules, she can voluntarily un-subject herself to the rules.”

The problem is that while Ivanka can minimize her conflicts, she can’t eliminate them (she still owns her brand). Her own lawyer told Politico, “we don’t believe it eliminates conflicts in every way.” When it comes to the White House, Ivanka might just be a woman who works too much.

The education secretary announced last week that she’s reversing Obama-era limits on fees that Americans pay for defaulting on federal student loans. As Bloomberg reported on Monday, the move is raising eyebrows because it stands to benefit the father of a key DeVos advisor—an aide who just happened to resign from the Education Department a day after this change was announced.

“The reversal is almost certain to hand United Student Aid Funds Inc., the nation’s largest guaranty agency, a victory in its two-year legal battle against her department,” Bloomberg’s Shahien Nasiripour explained. “The fees could translate into an additional $15 million in annual revenue for the company, filings in a related lawsuit suggest. Until Jan. 1, United Student Aid Funds was led by Bill Hansen, who served as Deputy Secretary of Education under President George W. Bush. His son, Taylor Hansen, a former for-profit college lobbyist, was until three days ago one of the few DeVos advisers with professional experience in higher education.”

Nasiripour couldn’t reach Taylor Hansen for comment, but Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren told him there’s “no question” this was a conflict of interest. The Washington Post reported that Warren sent a letter to DeVos on Friday questioning the hiring of Hansen and another official with ties to for-profit colleges.