Well Trump Watchers, we've made it to the end of another wacky week here in Washington. There's been plenty of news about the Mueller investigation, the DACA program and the travel ban, but all the while, the White House and Senate have been chugging along the judicial nominations track after a record-setting first year. Read on for the latest updates before you head out for what is hopefully a long weekend. Have news tips? Suggestions? Questions? Complaints? Knock-knock jokes? I'll take 'em all at [email protected] or on Twitter: @CoganSchneier.

➤➤ Want to receive Trump Watch straight to your inbox? Sign up here.

Judicial Nominations: Can't Stop, Won't Stop

The White House this week announced its latest wave of judicial nominees, including four new circuit court nominees. The Trump administration set a record in 2017 for the most circuit court nominees confirmed in the first year of a presidency, and it looks they are not slowing down anytime soon.

The newest nominees for circuit courts include:

● Andy Oldham, general counsel for Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, for the Fifth Circuit

● Skadden partner Michael Scudder for the Seventh Circuit

● U.S. District Court Judge Amy St. Eve for the Seventh Circuit

● Former Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett for the Ninth Circuit

So far, these nominees enjoy strong support. Jonathan Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law pointed out on the Volokh Conspiracy blog that unlike some past nominees, the appellate picks from blue states in the latest batch have the green light from their home-state senators. Democratic Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth only had good things to say about Scudder and St. Eve. Hawaii's two Democratic senators, Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, praised Bennett's nomination.

→ Law professors told Bloomberg News the latest round of nominees could show the White House is placing a greater emphasis on qualifications.

→ It's all very warm and fuzzy, but as Adler concedes, this “cooperative posture” is unlikely to last forever: “Where home state Senators are unwilling to engage in good faith consultation with the Administration, I expect the White House will eventually proceed on its own – and given the current make-up of the Senate, these nominees will get confirmed, with or without home state support,” he wrote. (P.S. Adler and I were on NPR together last year talkin' judges; you can listen here.)

But vetting appears to still be a problem when it comes to lower court nominees. Buzzfeed's Zoe Tillman (an NLJ alum) reported Thursday that Gordon Giampietro, a Wisconsin lawyer nominated to a seat in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, wrote several blog posts that disparage diversity, same-sex relationships and birth control. In a 2014 blog post, Giampietro wrote “calls for diversity” are “code for relaxed standards (moral and intellectual).” And that's just one of the posts.

→ Civil rights leaders immediately came out against the nominee and criticized the White House. Vanita Gupta, the president and CEO of The Leadership Conference, said in a statement the posts should disqualify Giampietro from any office “let alone a powerful judgeship.”

→ “If the Trump White House knew about these comments and nominated him anyway, it is an alarming commentary on their view of the role judges serve in our society. If they did not know about these comments, it is another sign of their poor vetting,” she said.

→ This is a familiar story line, and some in legal circles were hoping the White House would revamp its vetting procedures for judicial nominees in the new year. Three nominations for judges on district courts were scuttled last year after embarrassments, including when one nominee couldn't answer basic legal questions at his Senate hearing.

Diversity is also still lagging. Of Trump's 87 nominees to the federal bench so far, 92 percent are white. There are five Asian-American nominees, one African-American nominee and one Hispanic nominee. A USA Today analysisshows Trump has nominated more white federal judges than any president since Ronald Reagan.

→ The lack of diversity in these nominees has been well-documented over the past few months, and the White House faces steadily mounting criticism over it.It's unclear when and if the backlash will lead to change.

I'll let the Trump Watch Gavel Tracker, my weekly summary of Trump's nomination progress, take it from here:

What Will Next Week Bring?

➤ CNN reported Thursday that Rick Gates, co-defendant in the criminal case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is nearing a plea deal. When and if that happens, Gates will be the third known cooperator in the investigation run by Robert Mueller, the special counsel (Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to charges brought by Mueller last year).

➤ In wonkier news, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand's last day at DOJ is next week before she heads to a new job in the top legal position at WalMart. In a speech Thursday, the AAG said DOJ will be taking a closer look at class action settlements, and that we can expect a DOJ statement of interest on one “in the coming days.” If you spot it, holler at me!

Weekend Reads:

-I spotted a fun nugget in the DOJ budget proposal for fiscal year 2019: The Trump administration is getting sued so much that DOJ wants 22 extra attorneys. More here.

-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit slapped down Trump's travel ban policy for a second time, ruling 9-3 en banc that the ban is tainted with Muslim animus. Read more here from Marica Coyle.

-The administration also took a loss in a federal district court in New York this week, where a judge issued an injunction against the rescission of the DACA program. B. Colby Hamilton has more for ya here.

-Trump's nominees for the FTC are no cybersecurity experts, but C. Ryan Barber reports they all faced some tough questions about the Equifax breach in a hearing this week. Read more here.

-Trump used his budget office to do away with a Labor Department rule that would have required companies to be more transparent with the agency about employee compensation. DOJ defended the move in court this week. Erin Mulvaney has more here.