Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[FullMonte]

I read the highlights of the others. Trump tweeted that some people needed to be more proactive in investigating the people who were weaponizing the DOJ against him. Not much ever came of it, other than a two month investigation that went nowhere. It was never "Trump's" DOJ. Neither Sessions, nor Barr, were ever his "wing man."

A two month investigation that went nowhere? Which one is that? Are you unaware that shortly after being confirmed, Sessions followed Trump's directive and directed a federal attorney (John Huber) to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, Uranium ONE, and her private email server? That investigation lasted two years. The reason you likely weren't aware of it is because after two years, the investigation quietly closed down after Huber could find NOTHING wrong by anyone who investigated previously, nor could he find any evidence of criminal actions by Hillary. Then there was the multi-year investigation by John Durham that ended with a report that said (regardless of what MAGA folks claim) that there was no criminality by anyone, that the FBI should have opened the investigation into Trump's campaign (although it should have been opened as a fact finding investigation, instead of a criminal investigation).

And, I'm sure that it was completely random that both Comey and McCabe were audited by the IRS within weeks of each other (both investigations, of course, showed that neither did anything improper---unless you count McCabe paying too much in taxes one year improper).

 

[Snarky Sack]

A two month investigation that went nowhere? Which one is that? Are you unaware that shortly after being confirmed, Sessions followed Trump's directive and directed a federal attorney (John Huber) to reinvestigate Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, Uranium ONE, and her private email server? That investigation lasted two years. The reason you likely weren't aware of it is because after two years, the investigation quietly closed down after Huber could find NOTHING wrong by anyone who investigated previously, nor could he find any evidence of criminal actions by Hillary. Then there was the multi-year investigation by John Durham that ended with a report that said (regardless of what MAGA folks claim) that there was no criminality by anyone, that the FBI should have opened the investigation into Trump's campaign (although it should have been opened as a fact finding investigation, instead of a criminal investigation).

And, I'm sure that it was completely random that both Comey and McCabe were audited by the IRS within weeks of each other (both investigations, of course, showed that neither did anything improper---unless you count McCabe paying too much in taxes one year improper).

If you disagree with the phrase "went nowhere," I'll agree to disagree. The fact that the investigation was quietly closed down, and found nothing wrong, as you say, then that fits my definition of "went nowhere."

I'll take your word for the two year length and thank you kindly for the correction.

If that was weaponization - "if" - an investigation that found nothing and was so obscure that I never heard of it was a popgun-type weaponization. Maybe without the "pop," though.

It was certainly nothing like the ongoing for seven years now weaponization, aimed at first preventing Trump's election, then overturning Trump's election, then preventing his 2020 re-election and now preventing his 2024 re-election.

 

[FullMonte]

If you disagree with the phrase "went nowhere," I'll agree to disagree. The fact that the investigation was quietly closed down, and found nothing wrong, as you say, then that fits my definition of "went nowhere."

So, the Huber investigation into Hillary was the investigation you referred to? What about the Durham investigation? You claim that the DOJ was not weaponized under Trump because he simply made some statements, but they weren't really "directing" the DOJ....yet Trump repeatedly called for Hillary to be investigated, and lo and behold, less than a year after taking office, his attorney general was investigating Hillary....he repeatedly claimed that the Russia investigation was politically motivated...and boom...his second attorney general investigated that. Both investigations ended up with nothing. So, either Trump was directly telling his attorneys general to investigate those topics, or for some reason completely unrelated to Trump's statements, those two attorneys general decided on their own to undertake failed investigations.

If that was weaponization - "if" - an investigation that found nothing and was so obscure that I never heard of it was a popgun-type weaponization. Maybe without the "pop," though.

I'm surprised you didn't hear about it. It was all over the news when it happened.

Comey, McCabe faced rare, intensive tax audits by IRS under Trump appointee: report

The IRS conducted purportedly random, intensive audits of two former top FBI officials who drew the ire of former President Trump, The New York Times reported on Wednesday. The Times published lett…

thehill.com

It was certainly nothing like the ongoing for seven years now weaponization, aimed at first preventing Trump's election, then overturning Trump's election, then preventing his 2020 re-election and now preventing his 2024 re-election.

I'm still trying to figure out HOW the DOJ was weaponized to prevent Trump's election. Let's see...the FBI had a secret investigation going on into Trump's campaign, while having a well documented investigation into Hillary Clinton, going so far as to publicly announce that they were re-opening the investigation into Hillary 11 days before the election. How was that trying to prevent Trump's election?

 

[Snarky Sack]

So, the Huber investigation into Hillary was the investigation you referred to?

No, you brought up the Huber investigation and you said that it was quitely closed down. I don't believe I ever typed the name "Huber" until just now. Please don't put words in my mouth. I got the "two-month investigation" from cuddlemonkey's link of politico, and I see now that it was two years, not two months. I have no idea if the politico article references the Huber investigation or not whatever length it may have been.

Since you brought it up, I found this on the DOJ's website:

John Huber Leaves his Post as Longest-Serving United States Attorney in the Nation

John Huber Leaves his Post as Longest-Serving United States Attorney in the Nation

www.justice.gov

It is a rather glowing description of Huber's service under three presidents, and he doesn't sound like a man who can be weaponized.

What about the Durham investigation? You claim that the DOJ was not weaponized under Trump because he simply made some statements, but they weren't really "directing" the DOJ....yet Trump repeatedly called for Hillary to be investigated, and lo and behold, less than a year after taking office, his attorney general was investigating Hillary....he repeatedly claimed that the Russia investigation was politically motivated...and boom...his second attorney general investigated that. Both investigations ended up with nothing. So, either Trump was directly telling his attorneys general to investigate those topics, or for some reason completely unrelated to Trump's statements, those two attorneys general decided on their own to undertake failed investigations.

I would hope that they were unrelated to Trump's statements, other than it is all part of the same topic of investigations of senior officials. He makes hyperbolic statements so often, that a cabinet level agency would be foolish to take important and impactful actions based on his public posturing. They do something like investigating a Trump political opponent on Trump's say so, they better get that in writing.

Suppose for the sake of argument, you could produce correspondence from Trump to the DOJ showing that he did order the investigation of Clinton. That is not by definition "weaponizing the federal government." Not if he thought there was legitmate reason to investigate Clinton with a special counsel. Still, if Trump did indirectly cause that investigation to happen - yuge if - I disagree with him. If he had asked me, I would have said, "Mr. President, take your win gracefully, and leave it be."

But I was not advising him.

I'm surprised you didn't hear about it. It was all over the news when it happened.

Comey, McCabe faced rare, intensive tax audits by IRS under Trump appointee: report

The IRS conducted purportedly random, intensive audits of two former top FBI officials who drew the ire of former President Trump, The New York Times reported on Wednesday. The Times published lett…

thehill.com

So, a couple of federal employees had their taxes audited. Trump gets audited every year, with his political opponents looking for ways to make his tax return public. The IRS sent an agent to Matt Taibbi's house on the day he testified about the FBI's weaponization of Twitter under its previous owner.

‘Twitter Files’ journalist received IRS agent visit at home the same day he testified in Congress - Washington Examiner

The IRS made an unexpected visit to the home of Matt Taibbi on the same day that he testified before Congress, the "Twitter Files" journalist has disclosed to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). Along with fellow Twitter Files author Michael Shellenberger, Taibbi testified on...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I'm still trying to figure out HOW the DOJ was weaponized to prevent Trump's election. Let's see...the FBI had a secret investigation going on into Trump's campaign, while having a well documented investigation into Hillary Clinton, going so far as to publicly announce that they were re-opening the investigation into Hillary 11 days before the election. How was that trying to prevent Trump's election?

That announcement of re-opening the Clinton investigation was a one-man screw up as far as I'm concerned, not a conspiracy. Comey was in it for Comey, and he did that to cover his rear-end. If you have evidence that someone else was calling the shots on that, please present it.

Strzok and Page certainly weaponized their positions, with Page's position (no pun intended) being more morale booster for Strzok. Are you unfamiliar with the "fudge Trump," "he's never going to be president, right? RIGHT?" "we'll stop it," "smell the Trump support" and other texts? Strzok and Page were not the only ones doing that, they were just the only ones exposed for some reason.
Kevin Klinesmith obviously weaponized his job by falsifying an email to get a warrant on Carter Page.

Rod Rosenstein was accused by Jim Jordan of having subordinates who took the Steele Dossier, "dressed it up as evidence," and presented it to the FISA court for other warrants. Rosenstein never admitted it, but now we know that is exactly what was done.

The FBI, inspector general Michael Horowitz found, had changed or withheld significant information used to build its application to surveil Page. The FBI attorney who changed the information is now under criminal investigation.

Collyer called these “troubling instances.”

The court specifically noted on Tuesday new information that should have cast doubt within the FBI about the accuracy of ex-British spy Christopher Steele’s dossier on Donald Trump and Russia, which was cited in the Page warrant.

The FBI withheld information “which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power,” Collyer wrote.

FISA court slams FBI conduct in Carter Page surveillance warrant applications | CNN Politics

The typically ultra-close-lipped Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court slammed the FBI for mistakes it made in the Carter Page surveillance warrants and ordered the agency to detail how it will improve its warrant applications in light of the errors, uncovered recently by the Justice...

www.cnn.com

 

[FullMonte]

No, you brought up the Huber investigation and you said that it was quitely closed down. I don't believe I ever typed the name "Huber" until just now. Please don't put words in my mouth. I got the "two-month investigation" from cuddlebunny's link of politico, and I see now that it was two years, not two months. I have no idea if the politico article references the Huber investigation or not whatever length it may have been.

See...here we go again. You were discussing Trump weaponizing the DOJ, and you mentioned: "Not much ever came of it, other than a two month investigation that went nowhere." So, I asked "A two month investigation that went nowhere? Which one is that?" and then brought up the Huber investigation, and the Durham investigation. You responded "The fact that the investigation was quietly closed down, and found nothing wrong, as you say, then that fits my definition of "went nowhere." and then "I'll take your word for the two year length and thank you kindly for the correction."

Since I mentioned the Huber investigation being two years before being quietly closed down, and you mentioned "the investigation being quietly closed down" and then thanked me for correcting your two month time to the two year time I mentioned about the Huber investigation...why wouldn't I assume that the two month investigation you mentioned was the two year investigation I mentioned?

If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Can you tell me what two month (or two year) investigation you were referring to?

I would hope that they were unrelated to Trump's statements, other than it is all part of the same topic of investigations of senior officials. He makes hyperbolic statements so often, that a cabinet level agency would be foolish to take important and impactful actions based on his public posturing. They do something like investigating a Trump political opponent on Trump's say so, they better get that in writing.

I guess it's completely possible that two different attorneys general decided, independently of Trump's statements to undertake fools' errand investigations that were directly in line with the statements he had been making.

So, a couple of federal employees had their taxes audited. Trump gets audited every year, with his political opponents looking for ways to make his tax return public. The IRS sent an agent to Matt Taibbi's house on the day he testified about the FBI's weaponization of Twitter under its previous owner.

That's your takeaway? "a couple of federal employees had their taxes audited"? Maybe read the article. The two men were "randomly" selected for audits, and during that year, the IRS selected 1 out of every 30,000 returns for audits. Based on a quick google search showing that around 154 million returns were filed in 2017, that means that the IRS randomly selected around 5,000 returns for audit. I'm no statistician, but I'd say that the odds of the two highest ranking FBI officials who both questioned Trump being "randomly" included in a group of 5,000 returns out of 154,000,000 returns is bordering on Powerball winning odds.

That announcement of re-opening the Clinton investigation was a one-man screw up as far as I'm concerned, not a conspiracy. Comey was in it for Comey, and he did that to cover his rear-end. If you have evidence that someone else was calling the shots on that, please present it.

But, you would agree, would you not, that announcement harmed Clinton's chance of winning the 2016 election significantly more than anything the FBI/DOJ did in their quiet investigation that no voter was aware of, wouldn't you?

 

[Snarky Sack]

See...here we go again. You were discussing Trump weaponizing the DOJ, and you mentioned: "Not much ever came of it, other than a two month investigation that went nowhere." So, I asked "A two month investigation that went nowhere? Which one is that?" and then brought up the Huber investigation, and the Durham investigation. You responded "The fact that the investigation was quietly closed down, and found nothing wrong, as you say, then that fits my definition of "went nowhere." and then "I'll take your word for the two year length and thank you kindly for the correction."

Yes, that should have been the end of the discussion about which investigation we were talking about.

Since I mentioned the Huber investigation being two years before being quietly closed down, and you mentioned "the investigation being quietly closed down" and then thanked me for correcting your two month time to the two year time I mentioned about the Huber investigation...why wouldn't I assume that the two month investigation you mentioned was the two year investigation I mentioned?

You would have assumed exactly that, you did assume exactly that, and that should have been the end of the discussion about which investigation was in the link that Cuddlemonkey provided. If we're going to start doing this again, I'm really not interested.

If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. Can you tell me what two month (or two year) investigation you were referring to?

Whichever was in the politico link that Cuddlemonkey provided. BTW, I said "Cuddlebunny" before, so feel free to jump on that also, if your goal is to annoy me more.

I guess it's completely possible that two different attorneys general decided, independently of Trump's statements to undertake fools' errand investigations that were directly in line with the statements he had been making.

If you mean Sessions and Barr, they were Trump appointees, so it isn't surprising that they would think the same as he.

Should Trump and Sessions both be disbarred for investigating Clinton? Because I am happy to say that Rosenstein, Page, and Klinesmith should be. Not for investigating Trump, but for the unethical way they did it.

That's your takeaway? "a couple of federal employees had their taxes audited"? Maybe read the article. The two men were "randomly" selected for audits, and during that year, the IRS selected 1 out of every 30,000 returns for audits. Based on a quick google search showing that around 154 million returns were filed in 2017, that means that the IRS randomly selected around 5,000 returns for audit. I'm no statistician, but I'd say that the odds of the two highest ranking FBI officials who both questioned Trump being "randomly" included in a group of 5,000 returns out of 154,000,000 returns is bordering on Powerball winning odds.

I'm not statistician either, but I'd say the probability is no greater of that happening than that Matt Taibbi had a home visit from IRS auditors on the day he testified to the Weaponization of Govenrment Committee.

But, you would agree, would you not, that announcement harmed Clinton's chance of winning the 2016 election significantly more than anything the FBI/DOJ did in their quiet investigation that no voter was aware of, wouldn't you?

Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Obviously Comey's announcement of re-opening the investigation harmed Clinton. Obviously, if any investigation was so quiet that no voter* was aware of, it would not have harmed anyone in particular politically.

Nothing to say about the actions of Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, McCabe and Klinesmith?

*Hyperbole, I assume?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Good points made for having cameras in the courtroom
===============


Normally, federal courts ban cameras in the courtroom. Concerns about confidentiality of jurors, judicial decorum and media distraction have, for years, overrode the fundamental First Amendment principle of the media’s right to report and the public’s right to know what their government is up to.

However, presented with arguably the most extraordinary trial in our history and immense consequences for our democracy, the normal rule should not dictate the result. It’s not enough to say, “It’s always done this way.” What does the law require in such unique circumstances?…..

Indeed, no one has a greater interest than Cannon, whose impartiality has been justifiably questioned and whose experience in criminal cases is light, in showing the country that she can preside fairly and competently.

“Any judge overseeing such an unprecedented, high-stakes trial will also come under enormous scrutiny,” NBC News pointed out. “Whether Trump is found guilty or acquitted, the trial — and how it is perceived by the public — will likely define Cannon’s career and judicial legacy.”…..

In Minnesota’s prosecution of Derek Chauvin, the now-former police officer who murdered George Floyd, the media appealed to the court to allow cameras in the courtroom in contravention of normal procedure. They prevailed. Strict rules were imposed about where the cameras could be and who had to be kept off air (e.g., the family, jurors). Decorum prevailed; Americans could see for themselves the testimony and thereby understand the verdict. The public widely approved of the result.

Likewise, in the trial of three White men for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, cameras in the courtroom played a critical role in allowing the public to judge for themselves the defendants’ unprovoked, unjustifiable chase and shooting of an unarmed Black man. There too, the verdict was received calmly.

And let’s face it: Any Trump criminal trial would be far more consequential than those trials.

The defendant and the prosecution need to be able to make their cases not only to the jury but also to the American people. Voters (even in the case of conviction) likely will be left with the decision as to whether to reelect him.

And with a defendant like Trump — who tells the public one thing (he declassified the documents) and the courts another (never raising the declassification argument) — the American people should have the opportunity to put the story together for themselves.


First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams told me, “There could hardly be any case in American history in which cameras in a courtroom could play a greater role in educating the public about the nature and fairness of a trial.”

He added, “The absence of cameras in the Miami courtroom in which a former president and likely future candidate for the presidency will be held would be an enormous public and historical loss.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/18/cameras-courtroom-trump/

 

[Snarky Sack]

No doubt cameras should be in courtroom if Trump ever does go to trial.

This unprecedented indictment and possible trial of an opposition front runner should be thoroughly documented for history. In third world countries, such proceedings are business as usual. For the U.S., it is unique, and should be preserved for posterity.

 

[DaveXA]

No doubt cameras should be in courtroom if Trump ever does go to trial.

This unprecedented indictment and possible trial of an opposition front runner should be thoroughly documented for history. In third world countries, such proceedings are business as usual. For the U.S., it is unique, and should be preserved for posterity.

I tend to agree it should be open to the public, as long as the classified documents and conversations can be protected. I'm sure there will be sessions or meetings done in private when discussing classified intel.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Faced with the damning details of Donald Trump’s indictment, some GOP primary rivals have grasped for what they surely imagine is a middle-ground position.

They admit the charges seem grave while declaring that of course law enforcement is corruptly obsessed with Trump and has persecuted untold numbers of ordinary conservatives as well.


This might seem like a typical rhetorical straddle: It focuses primary voters on Trump’s vulnerabilities while speaking to their anger at President Biden and Democrats.

But it has dangerous real-world implications: By endorsing the idea that this mass victimization is real, Trump’s rivals could help feed a widespread yearning for mass retaliation under the next GOP president.


This week, Trump angrily vowed to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” the “Biden crime family,” promising to “totally obliterate the deep state.”

This was an explicit threat to turn law enforcement loose on political opponents as revenge for his indictment, which he and his supporters dismiss as wholly illegitimate.

Trump’s railing has cornered his rivals — even his less extreme ones — into humoring his depiction of Biden’s “deep state.”

They describe his conduct as reckless and indefensible — and in some cases agree that he might have endangered national security — but they aren’t contesting Trump’s notion that conservative voters should understand the charges as an illegitimate attack on them.

Former vice president Mike Pence, for instance, acknowledged that the charges against Trump are “serious” while also lamenting “years of politicization” at the Justice Department.

Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, admitted that Trump might have endangered American troops while insisting the Justice Department has “lost all credibility with the American people.”

And South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott acknowledged the gravity of the charges while accusing law enforcement of “targeting and hunting Republicans.”

All three effectively told those within the GOP base they are right to suspect law enforcement of the worst designs possible.

How did it become unthinkable for GOP presidential candidates to tell conservative voters the truth — that law enforcement is not engaged in their systematic victimization?


It’s a situation Republicans and right-wing elites have helped Trump create. For years, they relentlessly bombarded the GOP base with propaganda holding that all accountability directed at Trump has been irredeemably corrupt and, at bottom, about the deep state persecuting them.


This has been the case no matter how serious Trump’s misconduct — from his documented obstruction of the investigation into Russian electoral interference to his extortion of the Ukrainian president for nakedly corrupt ends.

Meanwhile, GOP elites have spun hallucinogenic tales about alleged law enforcement campaigns against conservatives……….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/16/trump-indictment-threatens-prosecution-biden-deep-state/

 

[LA - L.A.]

Faced with the damning details of Donald Trump’s indictment, some GOP primary rivals have grasped for what they surely imagine is a middle-ground position.

They admit the charges seem grave while declaring that of course law enforcement is corruptly obsessed with Trump and has persecuted untold numbers of ordinary conservatives as well.


This might seem like a typical rhetorical straddle: It focuses primary voters on Trump’s vulnerabilities while speaking to their anger at President Biden and Democrats.

But it has dangerous real-world implications: By endorsing the idea that this mass victimization is real, Trump’s rivals could help feed a widespread yearning for mass retaliation under the next GOP president.


This week, Trump angrily vowed to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” the “Biden crime family,” promising to “totally obliterate the deep state.”

This was an explicit threat to turn law enforcement loose on political opponents as revenge for his indictment, which he and his supporters dismiss as wholly illegitimate.

Trump’s railing has cornered his rivals — even his less extreme ones — into humoring his depiction of Biden’s “deep state.”

They describe his conduct as reckless and indefensible — and in some cases agree that he might have endangered national security — but they aren’t contesting Trump’s notion that conservative voters should understand the charges as an illegitimate attack on them.

Former vice president Mike Pence, for instance, acknowledged that the charges against Trump are “serious” while also lamenting “years of politicization” at the Justice Department.

Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, admitted that Trump might have endangered American troops while insisting the Justice Department has “lost all credibility with the American people.”

And South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott acknowledged the gravity of the charges while accusing law enforcement of “targeting and hunting Republicans.”

All three effectively told those within the GOP base they are right to suspect law enforcement of the worst designs possible.

How did it become unthinkable for GOP presidential candidates to tell conservative voters the truth — that law enforcement is not engaged in their systematic victimization?


It’s a situation Republicans and right-wing elites have helped Trump create. For years, they relentlessly bombarded the GOP base with propaganda holding that all accountability directed at Trump has been irredeemably corrupt and, at bottom, about the deep state persecuting them.


This has been the case no matter how serious Trump’s misconduct — from his documented obstruction of the investigation into Russian electoral interference to his extortion of the Ukrainian president for nakedly corrupt ends.

Meanwhile, GOP elites have spun hallucinogenic tales about alleged law enforcement campaigns against conservatives……….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/16/trump-indictment-threatens-prosecution-biden-deep-state/

I think we're going to see an escalation in political violence after the next election, no matter the outcome. If Trump loses the Republican primary, he will incite violence from his devotees and too many of them will obey him. If Trump loses the general election, he will incited violence from his devotees and too many of them will obey him.

If Trump wins the election, he's going to be a vindictive tyrant. If Congress, the Supreme Court, the FBI, state and local law enforcement, and the military don't refuse to be his henchmen, then their will be politically motivated imprisonments, torture and murder. If enough of those same institutions prevent Trump from getting his revenge, then he will incite his devotees to violence and too many of them will obey him.

I don't see any scenario in which we don't see an increase in political violence over the next few years. I'd much rather for us to end up dealing with the fallout from Trump losing the election, than the fallout that would come from Trump winning the election.

 

[MT15]

Two former members of the Trump Admin spoke out about the Trump documents indictment yesterday:

“Mr. Barr also attacked Mr. Trump’s character in extraordinary language, describing him as “a consummate narcissist” and a “fundamentally flawed person” who would always put his own ego ahead of everything else. He added that he believed Mr. Trump had lied to the Justice Department about the classified documents in his possession.
“He’s like a defiant 9-year-old kid who is always pushing the glass towards the edge of the table, defying his parents from stopping him from doing it,” Mr. Barr said, adding that “our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.””

“Mark T. Esper, who was a defense secretary in the Trumpadministration, also said on Sunday that the former president had committed an illegal act, and that his actions had put U.S. national security at risk.
In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Mr. Esper laid out the risks of state secrets being held at Mr. Trump’s Florida estate, including in a bathroom, an office, a bedroom and a ballroom, according to the indictment.
“Think about how that could be exploited, how that could be used against us in a conflict,” Mr. Esper said, adding that “clearly, it was unauthorized, illegal and dangerous.””

Barr Says Documents Case Against Trump Is ‘Entirely of His Own Making’

The former attorney general, who has become a vocal critic of Donald Trump, was one of two people who served in the former president’s cabinet to question his judgment on Sunday.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Faced with the damning details of Donald Trump’s indictment, some GOP primary rivals have grasped for what they surely imagine is a middle-ground position.

They admit the charges seem grave while declaring that of course law enforcement is corruptly obsessed with Trump and has persecuted untold numbers of ordinary conservatives as well.


This might seem like a typical rhetorical straddle: It focuses primary voters on Trump’s vulnerabilities while speaking to their anger at President Biden and Democrats.

Some of Trump's GOP opponents are doing the political straddle, no doubt. But I haven't seen it in the way that the WaPo describes it above. Pence straddled by avoiding the question. I don't use the word "dodging," because I think it is appropriate for Pence in particular not to comment much, given his own stash of classified materials.

DeSantis, the most substantive Republican besides Trump as far as presidential hopefuls, straddles by formally describing the weaponized government arrayed against Trump in terms similar to those used by GOP congresspersons and promising a deep cleaning of the Deep State much as Trump is promising, while at the same time making snide asides such as "as a naval officer, if I had taken classified documents to my apartment, I would have been court martialed in a New York minute." Highly doubtful, but if true, it should be no surprise that a president is not the same as an ensign.

I note the WaPo left out DeSantis, the only realistic alternative to Trump.

Some of the minor candidates (likely VP hopefuls) either talk about Trump in very similar terms to Democrat rhetoric, or say almost exactly what Trump would want them to say, throwing in some token criticism.

Maybe I'm seeing the wrong Republicans, but I'm not seeing what WaPo Describes.

But it has dangerous real-world implications: By endorsing the idea that this mass victimization is real, Trump’s rivals could help feed a widespread yearning for mass retaliation under the next GOP president.


This week, Trump angrily vowed to “appoint a real special prosecutor to go after” the “Biden crime family,” promising to “totally obliterate the deep state.”

This was an explicit threat to turn law enforcement loose on political opponents as revenge for his indictment, which he and his supporters dismiss as wholly illegitimate.

That's what happens when you turn law enforcement loose on political opponents for seven years. If they see an opening to gain power themselves, they will want to do the same. Maybe a Ted Cruz would have been able to forgive and forget if he were leveraged out of office by a weaponized government and got back in.

Trump’s railing has cornered his rivals — even his less extreme ones — into humoring his depiction of Biden’s “deep state.”

They describe his conduct as reckless and indefensible — and in some cases agree that he might have endangered national security — but they aren’t contesting Trump’s notion that conservative voters should understand the charges as an illegitimate attack on them.

Former vice president Mike Pence, for instance, acknowledged that the charges against Trump are “serious” while also lamenting “years of politicization” at the Justice Department.

Wish meets Washy. Yeah, I want that guy to be president.

Nikki Haley, Trump’s former ambassador to the United Nations, admitted that Trump might have endangered American troops while insisting the Justice Department has “lost all credibility with the American people.”

And South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott acknowledged the gravity of the charges while accusing law enforcement of “targeting and hunting Republicans.”

We need quotes here, WaPo

All three effectively told those within the GOP base they are right to suspect law enforcement of the worst designs possible.

How did it become unthinkable for GOP presidential candidates to tell conservative voters the truth — that law enforcement is not engaged in their systematic victimization?


It’s a situation Republicans and right-wing elites have helped Trump create. For years, they relentlessly bombarded the GOP base with propaganda holding that all accountability directed at Trump has been irredeemably corrupt and, at bottom, about the deep state persecuting them.

It has been corrupt, no one can reasonably deny that with the revelations of McCabe, Strzok, Page, Klinesmith, and Rosenstein in connection with the Steele Dossier being phonied up as evidence for the FISA courts. Those courts are noted for their silence, but they felt they had to speak out against the FBI's sloppy and dishonest handling of the Trump investigations.

This has been the case no matter how serious Trump’s misconduct — from his documented obstruction of the investigation into Russian electoral interference to his extortion of the Ukrainian president for nakedly corrupt ends.

He tried to stop the weaponization of the government against him. He was unique in being in a position to at least try. Most people, such as General Flynn, are helpless when the full power of the federal government is turned against them.

Meanwhile, GOP elites have spun hallucinogenic tales about alleged law enforcement campaigns against conservatives……….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/16/trump-indictment-threatens-prosecution-biden-deep-state/

That sentence is why WaPo has to have a paywall, while Foxnews.com can make profit from advertising, and can be the most popular cable news network in the world. WaPo must assume that its only audience is upper middle class and above Demcrats.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

Summarization of the order:

Edit: this motion has been granted.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I'll do it!

I live in Texas so there are a lot of red counties, so I'll have to find the most red.

I'll probably look for a red district, if you don't mind. Counties tend to look like fired eggs, with blue yolks and red whites. No pun intended with "red whites." Gerrymandering tends to divide districts by political bent much more so than counties are.

I'll try to video tape it, so I can document the results. If you don't mind, I won't risk it in a blue area.

No you won’t

 

[FullMonte]

Yes, that should have been the end of the discussion about which investigation we were talking about.

Except that you ignored the key part of that entire paragraph. You were so upset, it appeared, that I put words in your mouth by asking you if you were referring to a particular investigation that you seem here to admit is the investigation you were referring to, that you ignored the rest of my paragraph.

You said that there was no weaponization of the Trump DOJ except for possibly a 2 month investigation that went nowhere. Since I didn't know what investigation you were referring to, I mentioned two investigations that each lasted multiple years that were investigations that Trump was demanding publicly, and the astronomically unbelievable odds that two federal employees who questioned Trump had their taxes "randomly" selected for audit.

If you mean Sessions and Barr, they were Trump appointees, so it isn't surprising that they would think the same as he.

That's fair. Its entirely possible that both of them, on their own, decided to reinvestigate matters that had been settled, matters that Trump was publicly demanding be investigated, on their own, and that Trump's statements had nothing to do with those decisions.

I'm not statistician either, but I'd say the probability is no greater of that happening than that Matt Taibbi had a home visit from IRS auditors on the day he testified to the Weaponization of Govenrment Committee.

If the IRS did take action because of what Mr. Taibbi posted, that would be just as wrong. The IRS does claim that they sent both Mr. Taibbi and his attorney letters stating that there were concerns about identity fraud months before those posts of his were made. I don't know if that is true or not, but if it is, it would show that his testimony had nothing to do with it.

Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Obviously Comey's announcement of re-opening the investigation harmed Clinton. Obviously, if any investigation was so quiet that no voter* was aware of, it would not have harmed anyone in particular politically.

Why are you so obsessed with me putting words into your mouth? I asked a question. I asked if you would agree that Comey's statement did more harm to Clinton than anything he did harmed Trump. I didn't say that you said anything, I didn't imply that you said anything. I asked if you would agree with what I said.

Nothing to say about the actions of Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, McCabe and Klinesmith?

No, I didn't mention them. Can you point to any voters (with the exception of those two individuals or any other investigators who were aware of what they were doing) who chose to vote for Clinton because of the actions those two individuals took?

*Hyperbole, I assume?

Yeah, that was hyperbole. I assume that some of the investigators who were working on that investigation voted in the 2016 election and were aware of the investigation into Trump.

 

[MT15]

There’s a WaPo story causing a bit of a stir. Kane field has looked at it, and gives a gift link to the article. The main takeaway for me is that this just makes people saying the DOJ and FBI are being “weaponized” against Trump look not so smart or not honest.