Trump's Big Lie

Liberty In Peril

formerly,

The Llano Ledger

11-17-23

Delusionally believe Trump is not a fascist? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. Wake up.

ABC News reports:

"Former President Donald Trump vowed this weekend to "root out" his political opponents, who he said "live like vermin" as he warned supporters that America's greatest threats come "from within" -- extreme rhetoric that echoes the words of fascist dictators like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, experts and Trump's critics said."

No question. History dangerously repeating itself.

"A Trump campaign spokesman dismissed the backlash to his speech, at a Veterans Day rally in New Hampshire, but some historians said the parallels were alarming. "To call your opponent 'vermin,' to dehumanize them, is to not only open the door but to walk through the door toward the most ghastly kinds of crimes," writer and historian Jon Meacham said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

History dangerously repeating itself. Time to wake up.

"Speaking to a packed crowd inside Stevens High School auditorium in Claremont, New Hampshire, on Saturday, Trump, who is seeking a second term in the White House, said: "We will put America first and today, especially in honor of our great veterans on Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."

Spoken by a nazi autocrat. Imagine that. Stunning. Hypocrisy at its worst, -- and most dangerous. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"He accused these groups of doing anything "to destroy America and to destroy the American dream" and he went on to repeat his baseless claims of election fraud.

Isn't that precisely what you, yourself are doing, Mr. Trump? Destroying our democratic republic, the American dream for all but the very top of the food chain. Perpetrating and perpetuating a phony election fraud claim by you, sir, a congenital liar. Saddest of all? Many well-educated people have embraced your bullshit and lies as gospel truth.

Same old shit we've heard from the nazi element in the Republican Party:

"A major theme of the rally was "peace through strength," and Trump boasted of his own leadership on the world stage in comparison to President Joe Biden."

Sadly, while Joe Biden is certainly not worth a crap for totally different reasons, Trump delusionally has the threat ass backwards:

"The real threat is not from the radical right. The real threat is from the radical left," he told attendees, drawing shouts of agreement. "It's growing every day, every single day. The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable, competent, smart, tough leader -- Russia, China, North Korea, they're not gonna want to play with us."

You got it laughably ass backwards, Mr. Trump. Too delusional, sir, or dishonest to understand your ideology is indeed an embrace of raw fascism. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

Here's the unvarnished truth:

"Just before he took the stage on Saturday afternoon, Trump posted a similar message on his social media platform. The comments received immediate pushback, both from critics who have long challenged Trump's habit of attacking others with hyperbolic insults and from historians who said his latest remarks had an unsettling resemblance to those of infamous authoritarians. "Please tell us if this reminds you of any earlier historical figure," NBC's presidential historian Michael Beschloss wrote on X. "It doesn't echo 'Mein Kampf.' This is textbook 'Mein Kampf,'" Yale University professor Jason Stanley, author of "How Fascism Works," said about Trump's comments on MSNBC. Stanley was referring to a book published by Hitler before his rise to power. "Trump's comments are remarkably evocative particularly of Hitler's rants against Marxists and socialists -- Hitler also decried pro-democratic forces as Marxist," Stanley told ABC News. "In another regard, this is worse than Nazi propaganda," he said. "Bear in mind that there was actually a communist anti-democratic threat in Europe in the 1920s and '30s, and there is none in America today."

The delusion continues unabated:

"In a statement, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung rejected the comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini. "Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their sad, miserable existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House," Cheung said."

Nothing quite like insanity, is there?

More insanity courtesy of Mr. Trump:

"At the Veterans Day rally, while talking about legal challenges he's facing, Trump also floated the possibility of retribution against his political enemies if he returns to the White House, though he said, "I don't want to do that." He again suggested that the charges he faces in four criminal cases were brought for political reasons, though prosecutors have defended their work. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing. The Biden campaign, which has been ramping up their responses to Trump's campaign trail activities, slammed his "vermin" rhetoric as championing "un-American ideas." "On a weekend when most Americans were honoring our nation's heroes, Donald Trump parroted the autocratic language of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini - two dictators many U.S. veterans gave their lives fighting, in order to defeat exactly the kind of un-American ideas Trump now champions," said campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa. "Donald Trump thinks he can win by dividing our country. He's wrong, and he'll find out just how wrong next November," Moussa said. Last month, Trump faced outcry from critics when he said during an interview with The National Pulse, a right-wing website, that immigrants who are in the country without documentation are "poisoning the blood" of America. He repeated his longstanding claim that terrorists, criminals and those with mental illness are coming in through the borders. A White House spokesperson in a statement to The Daily Beast at the time called the comment "abhorrent" and "dangerous," saying, "The role of leaders is to bring people together; never to turn them against one another with divisive, self-serving poison."

Hopelessly gutless:

"Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel repeatedly refused to weigh in on Trump's "vermin" comments when asked during her appearances on NBC and CNN's Sunday news shows. "I will say this: I know President Trump supports our veterans," McDaniel said on "Meet the Press."

Cowardly fail to financially and/or materially support those fighting for all civil and constitutional rights and liberties at great personal cost and risk? Get what you truly deserve. Forfeiture of liberty. At the hands of outrageously corrupt and abusive government.

9-8-23

The following is precisely why this publication continues to expose the Trump nazi for precisely whom and what he is. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

ABC News(AP) reports:

"A 98-year-old man has been charged in Germany with being an accessory to murder as a guard at the Nazis' Sachsenhausen concentration camp between 1943 and 1945, prosecutors said Friday. The German citizen, a resident of Main-Kinzig county near Frankfurt, is accused of having “supported the cruel and malicious killing of thousands of prisoners as a member of the SS guard detail,” prosecutors in Giessen said in a statement. They did not release the suspect's name."

Why no transparency?

"He is charged with more than 3,300 counts of being an accessory to murder between July 1943 and February 1945. The indictment was filed at the state court in Hanau, which will now have to decide whether to send the case to trial. If it does, he will [be] tried under juvenile law, taking account of his age at the time of the alleged crimes." Prosecutors said that a report by a psychiatric expert last October found that the suspect is fit to stand trial at least on a limited basis. German prosecutors have brought several cases under a precedent set in recent years that allows for people who helped a Nazi camp function to be prosecuted as an accessory to the murders there without direct evidence that they participated in a specific killing. Charges of murder and being an accessory to murder aren't subject to a statute of limitations under German law."

Get this:

"More then 200,000 people were held at Sachsenhausen, just north of Berlin, between 1936 and 1945. Tens of thousands died of starvation, disease, forced labor, and other causes, as well as through medical experiments and systematic SS extermination operations including shootings, hangings and gassing. Exact numbers for those killed vary, with upper estimates of some 100,000, though scholars suggest figures of 40,000 to 50,000 are likely more accurate."

Hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest died fighting this scourge. Second World War European Theater.

Delusionally believe the same couldn't happen here in the United States as our country continues to nazify courtesy of the nazi element in the Republican Party and their fuhrer the Trump nazi? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

6-30-23

Think the following isn't a figurative slap in the face of law enforcement by the Trump nazi? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. NBC News reports:

"Former President Trump spoke on Thursday at a fundraiser on behalf of people charged in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol — even as he faces scrutiny from national and state prosecutors for his own actions surrounding the attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 election win."

Insult to injury? Get this. It's appalling considering all the injuries and casualties resulting from the January 6 insurrection inspired by the Trump nazi:

“I’m going to make a contribution,” Trump told the gathering hosted at his own private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The group, Patriot Freedom Project, included at least one actual defendant along with multiple family members of those charged in the attack. An attendee of the fundraiser verified a video posted online of Trump’s remarks. The former president heralded the defendants."

What nazi dictator wouldn't? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

“You have police officers, you have firemen, you have teachers, you have electricians, you have great people, and they’ve been made to pay a price — in many cases, not all cases,” Trump said, before propagating false claims that “BLM and antifa” were behind the Capitol attack."

Expect better of a congenital liar? Think prosecutors won't use his financial contribution and hosting of these bastards at his own private golf club against the son of a bitch?

"Jeffrey Clark, the former Justice Department official under Trump who sought to help overturn the 2020 election, also spoke at the event. The crowd included Cynthia Hughes, the founder of Patriot Freedom Project and aunt of Jan. 6 defendant Timothy Hale-Cusanelli —a Nazi-sympathizer sentenced to four years in prison — as well as Derrick Evans, a Jan. 6 defendant who is a former West Virginia lawmaker now running for the GOP nomination for a House seat. Geri Perna, the aunt of Jan. 6 defendant Mattthew Perna, who died by suicide, also attended. Trump has increasingly touted the Jan. 6 defendants’ cause on the campaign trail. His rallies have featured the song “Justice for All,” Trump’s version of the national anthem with the “J6 choir” of inmates awaiting trial for their roles in the insurrection."

Goddamned galling.

"In April, at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, he embraced a woman who served time in jail for her role in the Jan. 6 riot and has called for former Vice President Mike Pence to be executed. He has also said he would pardon “a large portion“ of the Jan. 6 rioters if he is re-elected to the White House. "

Goddamned galling.

"NBC News reached out to the Trump campaign and the Patriot Freedom Project for comment but did not hear back."

Surprised? -- Not possible to credibly defend the indefensible.

6-23-23

Trump presents an exigent threat to a democratic republic. Time to wake up. Carefully, consider the following. The Washington Post reports:

"America’s institutions have been attacked repeatedly over the past half-dozen years, thanks principally to the conduct and actions of Donald Trump. The next 18 months could further undermine confidence in democracy and the rule of law as the former president seeks a return to the White House while defending himself against federal and state criminal charges."

No question. For a number of reasons to be addressed in this article in considerable depth.

"Not since the Vietnam War in the 1960s or perhaps the mid-19th century before the Civil War has the country’s governing structure faced such disunity and peril, given the unprecedented nature of a federal criminal indictment of a former president compounded by the fact that Trump has been charged by the Justice Department in the administration of the Democrat who defeated him in 2020 and who is his likeliest general election opponent in 2024, if Trump is nominated again by the Republican Party."

Compounding all this is determined foot dragging by the Justice Department since the January 6th Capitol insurrection.

"Scholars, legal experts and political strategists agree that what lies ahead is ugly and unpredictable. Many fear that the 2024 election will not overcome the distrust of many Americans in their government and its pillars, almost no matter the outcome. “A constitutional democracy stands or falls with the effectiveness and trustworthiness of the systems through which laws are created and enforced,” said William Galston of the Brookings Institution. “If you have fundamental doubts raised about those institutions, then constitutional democracy as a whole is in trouble.” The indictment in the case involving Trump’s retention of classified government documents coming in the midst of a presidential campaign raises legal questions about what might happen if he were to be convicted and elected. Could Trump pardon himself? Could he serve as president after a conviction? Could he run for office from a prison cell? Depending on events, those could become ripe for adjudication."

Compounding all this is the number of ongoing investigations that could lead to additional indictments:

"On top of those legal questions are big issues confronting the country. With other investigations continuing — one into Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and in the fake electors scheme, and the other looking at his efforts to overturn the Georgia results of the 2020 presidential election — more damage might be inflicted on these democratic institutions by the battering likely to take place between now and the inauguration in 2025. “It seems obvious and clear that it’s going to be worse and probably much worse, but the form it might take and what that extreme reaction looks like is very hard to predict,” said Jack Goldsmith, who served in the Justice Department and at the Pentagon during the administration of George W. Bush and now is a professor at Harvard Law School. “Convicted or not, nominee or not, we can assume [Trump] is going to inflame this to the maximum and his supporters will inflame this to the maximum.”

No question. Clearly, sadly, the nazi element in the Republican Party has determinedly placed partisanship ahead of principle. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"For the past three years, Trump has sought to shred long-standing trust in the country’s electoral process, claiming falsely that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen. With no supporting evidence to buttress those claims, public opinion surveys suggest that Trump nonetheless has persuaded millions of Republican voters that President Biden was not legitimately elected. Election denialism now infects a large portion of the Republican Party. With the new indictment, Trump is again taking direct aim at the integrity of law enforcement agencies, the judicial system and, ultimately, public faith in the rule of law. He did this as president, and now, in the aftermath of his 37 charges in the documents case — to which he pleaded not guilty — he has escalated those attacks in an effort to discredit the Justice Department and the FBI, claiming he is a victim of a politicized “witch hunt.”

Expect better of an Aryan arrogant autocrat? Shameless nazi dictator? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"This is not the first time the political and legal systems have been tested together. But past comparisons are imperfect because the state of the country has changed. As a result, institutions of government are more fragile. That heightens the risks to the country this time. The 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore ended in a virtual tie, leading to a bitter recount in Florida that ultimately resulted in the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision that effectively awarded the presidency to Bush, who received a narrow electoral college majority, although Gore had narrowly won the national popular vote. This was a stress test by any measure. Gore was gracious in defeat, even though he disagreed with the court’s decision, showing a willingness to put the country and its institutions above his personal ambitions and disappointments."

Indeed, Gore stood tall.

"Benjamin Ginsberg, a Republican lawyer, was working with the Bush team in Florida at the time and pointed to the different conditions then. “Faith in institutions was the only way you would approach that,” he said. “That is clearly no longer the case. Both candidates [in 2000] were going to accept the results no matter how fraught the situation. This is really different and unprecedented.”

Indeed, an exigent threat to a democratic republic.

"Watergate is another example of the system under stress. In that case, then-President Richard M. Nixon chose to resign in August 1974 rather than remain in office and face almost-certain impeachment and conviction. But that was in part because prosecutors enjoyed the trust of the public and Nixon was not prepared to go against that. “It’s so different from the Watergate context, when there was a pretty broad consensus in the legitimacy of what the prosecutors were doing,” Goldsmith said. “That’s not in today’s politics.” Nixon was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford, and to this day is the only president to have received one."

That pardon was an egregious mistake. Remained proof positive the top of the food chain is indeed above the law. Reinforced the fact there are indeed two systems of justice. One for the very top of the food chain. The other for the rest of the citizenry.

Get this. It's quite striking:

"Early into his term as president, Trump consulted advisers about the reach of his pardon powers, and whether he could pardon himself in connection to then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Constitution says the president has the authority “to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” No president has ever pardoned himself, and the question of whether a president legitimately holds such power has never been tested in court. Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, said the text of the Constitution cannot be read to give the president that authority. “When you grant something, you are giving it to someone else,” Gerhardt said. “It can only be sensibly read to convey that the president has the power to give somebody else the pardon, not himself.” Ken Gormley, the president of Duquesne University and an expert on the Constitution, the presidency and the pardon power, agreed. “The idea of a self-pardon runs counter to the entire purpose of a pardon under the Constitution,” he said."

Interestingly:

"Nixon asked the Justice Department for advice on this question during the Watergate scandal. In response, the Office of Legal Counsel said emphatically that the president cannot pardon himself. “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, it would seem that the question should be answered in the negative,” Mary C. Lawton, the acting assistant attorney general, wrote in a brief 1974 memo. Lawton went on to suggest, however, that the president could use the 25th Amendment to declare himself temporarily unable to perform the duties of his office. In that case, the vice president would become acting president and “as such he could pardon the president. Thereafter the president could either resign or resume the duties of his office,” Lawton wrote. Gerhardt pointed to legal scholarship that suggests the 25th Amendment is intended to address disabilities such as physical or mental impairment, and not impairment that is due to a legal problem. But those novel legal questions never have been litigated, and if Trump did attempt to pardon himself — or leave it to his vice president — the issues could end up before the Supreme Court."

-- Sadly, which is clearly in the pocket of the Trump nazi by a 6-3 Republican nazi majority. Should that happen, would tear this country apart. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Nothing in the Constitution prevents a presidential candidate from campaigning or serving as president while under indictment or post-conviction, although some crimes are disqualifying. In 1920, Eugene V. Debs ran as the Socialist Party candidate while serving time in federal prison for speaking out against the draft during World War I. He received nearly a million votes. Another question that has arisen is what crimes would legally preclude someone from holding office. Among them are: “Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally,” which makes illegal the willful theft or destruction of any government document. Under federal law, committing that crime is punishable by up to three years in prison and disqualifies someone from holding any office in the country. When law enforcement officials searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in August 2022, the warrant listed three crimes that may have been committed to justify the search of the former president’s residence. The law that bars someone from being president, U.S. Code 2071, was one of them. Ultimately, however, federal prosecutors did not accuse Trump of committing this crime in the indictment. None of the crimes that federal prosecutors formally accused Trump of committing would prevent him from being president."

Pitiful. Pathetic. Should that happen, would tear this country apart.

"Still another legal question is whether a former president is immune from criminal liability for actions taken while in office. The federal case involving classified documents did not involve things done when Trump was president. The New York case involving hush money paid to an adult-film actress, in which Trump was charged with falsifying business records to conceal the payment, involved actions taken before and during his presidency. Two pending investigations, special counsel Jack Smith’s probe involving Trump’s role leading up to the attack on the U.S. Capitol and Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis’s examination of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 results in Georgia, are examining actions carried out while he was president. Nixon was sued for damages in a civil case after firing a civilian employee. The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ruled in his favor, saying that a president had absolute immunity from liability for civil damages when acting in his official capacity."

A highly questionable ruling. Should that ultimately be invoked this time around and under these circumstances, would tear this country apart.

“If either of those indictments [in the pending investigations] move forward, there’s going to be this question of whether Nixon v. Fitzgerald extends beyond civil liability to criminal liability,” said Vikram Amar, the dean of the University of Illinois College of Law. Putting aside these future questions, Amar sees an immediate threat in the cases involving Trump, a threat to the role and power of evidence and the public’s belief in evidence. “You can’t have a criminal system unless evidence is going to matter, and you can’t have elections if evidence doesn’t matter,” he said. Amar said he worries about the documents case because, he estimated, “There are 30 to 40 percent of America that would never think Trump’s conviction was fair, no matter what the evidence shows. They’ve made up their minds that this is a witch hunt.” The indictment of Trump in the documents case represented a no-win decision for Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appointed the special counsel and allowed the charges to go forward. In the estimation of many legal experts, declining to charge Trump, given the preponderance of evidence laid out in the indictment, would have sent a signal that former presidents, or at least this former president, are above the law. But the indictment provided Trump an opening to attack federal law enforcement and to further erode his political supporters’ trust in the institutions of government."

"The possibility of an indictment in the Jan. 6 investigation adds another layer of risk. Goldsmith sees that case as more fraught legally than the documents case and therefore potentially harder for prosecutors to win. It also carries additional political consequences. “Doing two cases at once, will it be seen as piling on?” he said. “Will it be seen as making things worse?” Biden also is under investigation by a special counsel, for having classified documents in his possession. The facts of the case are very different from those of the one involving Trump, including the fact that Biden and his team appear to have cooperated fully with federal officials. So, too, did former vice president Mike Pence, who also had classified documents in his possession after leaving office. The Pence matter was closed without any charges being brought. The investigation involving Biden continues. If Biden is not prosecuted, Trump is likely to claim, and many of his followers probably would accept, that there were two standards of justice at work, despite the differences in the facts."

Certainly, be up to prosecutors to make that abundantly clear.

"One other investigation will affect the political debate. That involves Hunter Biden, the president’s son, and is probing possible violations of tax and gun laws. Federal investigators are said to be nearing a charging decision in that case. Would indicting the current president’s son do anything to convince Trump and his followers that the justice system is fair?"

Certainly, be up to prosecutors to make that abundantly clear.

"Attacks on the legitimacy of government institutions are most virulent on the political right, led by Trump. But many on the left also have doubts, especially about a Supreme Court that now has a solid conservative majority and whose rulings in cases including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to abortion, have inflamed the political debate."

Certainly, be up to prosecutors to make it abundantly clear that the Supreme Court majority is not conservative but Republican nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"These are likely to be the conditions throughout the coming election year. By any measure, this represents a gloomy prospect for restoring a thriving democracy. “At the level of national politics and presidential politics, things do feel quite fragile, and I don’t have much reason to think we’re about to turn the corner in 2024,” said Archon Fung, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government who studies issues of democracy. Some experts see small reasons to be hopeful. The institutions of government proved to be largely resilient in the face of Trump’s attacks during his presidency, although Goldsmith said he worries about what might happen if Trump is elected to another term. Trump has vowed retribution against his adversaries and would be likely to be surrounded in office by aides who would help him execute his wishes."

Raw nazism. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Others say that at the local level, there are signs that citizens of differing political views are determined to try to prevent attitudes in their communities from becoming inflamed. Ginsberg said he and Bob Bauer, a Democratic lawyer and former White House counsel, are working with local officials to help assure election safeguards and to educate the public about them. Many of Trump’s critics wish that through the legal process, the former president were somehow disqualified from serving again as president. The counterargument to that is that questions about his fate and the country’s future probably would be better answered at the ballot box than in the courtroom."

Under normal conditions, that would certainly be the better alternative. ... But in a country that is approximately half Republican nazi and continuing to deteriorate? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"A conviction and a decisive defeat at the ballot box might force Trump from the political scene and cause the Republican Party to move in a different direction, although in an era of close elections, the prospect of 2024 producing a blowout in either direction remains doubtful — and even that would not necessarily cleanse the system. “The country functioned after the Civil War,” Galston added, “but it was a long time before the system was drained of the political poisons of the Civil War.”

Sadly, an ongoing challenge vis-a-vis 'woke' ideology and ongoing resistance to changing the names of military bases named after racist, treasonous Civil War military icons.

6-23-23

Think Trump's former Attorney General is thinking straight? CBS News reports:

"Former Attorney General Bill Barr has been highly critical of former President Trump's conduct in the classified documents case, but doesn't believe Trump should go to prison for the alleged crimes. "I don't like the idea of a former president serving time in prison," Barr told "Face the Nation" on Sunday when asked whether Trump should serve a prison sentence if he is convicted."

Why is that, Counselor? Don't you believe in a democratic republic where no one is above the law? From the bottom of the food chain to the very top?

6-23-23

Think the following isn't truly appalling? That the Justice Department didn't drag its feet vis-a-vis prosecution of Trump and his henchmen? The Washington Post reports:

"Hours after he was sworn in as attorney general, Merrick Garland and his deputies gathered in a wood-paneled conference room in the Justice Department for a private briefing on the investigation he had promised to make his highest priority: bringing to justice those responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In the two months since the siege, federal agents had conducted 709 searches, charged 278 rioters and identified 885 likely suspects, said Michael R. Sherwin, then-acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, ticking through a slide presentation. Garland and some of his deputies nodded approvingly at the stats, and the new attorney general called the progress “remarkable,” according to people in the room. Sherwin’s office, with the help of the FBI, was responsible for prosecuting all crimes stemming from the Jan. 6 attack. He had made headlines the day after by refusing to rule out the possibility that President Donald Trump himself could be culpable. “We are looking at all actors, not only the people who went into the building,” Sherwin said in response to a reporter’s question about Trump. “If the evidence fits the elements of a crime, they’re going to be charged.”

Think that was the truth at the time?

"But according to a copy of the briefing document, absent from Sherwin’s 11-page presentation to Garland on March 11, 2021, was any reference to Trump or his advisers — those who did not go to the Capitol riot but orchestrated events that led to it."

Most fascinating, isn't it? Get this:

"A Washington Post investigation found that more than a year would pass before prosecutors and FBI agents jointly embarked on a formal probe of actions directed from the White House to try to steal the election. Even then, the FBI stopped short of identifying the former president as a focus of that investigation. A wariness about appearing partisan, institutional caution, and clashes over how much evidence was sufficient to investigate the actions of Trump and those around him all contributed to the slow pace. Garland and the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, charted a cautious course aimed at restoring public trust in the department while some prosecutors below them chafed, feeling top officials were shying away from looking at evidence of potential crimes by Trump and those close to him, The Post found. In November, after Trump announced he was again running for president, making him a potential 2024 rival to President Biden, Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to take over the investigation into Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. On June 8, in a separate investigation that was also turned over to the special counsel, Smith secured a grand jury indictment against the former president for mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Trump was charged with 31 counts of violating a part of the Espionage Act, as well as six counts arising from alleged efforts to mislead federal investigators. The effort to investigate Trump over classified records has had its own obstacles, including FBI agents who resisted raiding the former president’s home. But the discovery of top-secret documents in Trump’s possession triggered an urgent national security investigation that laid out a well-defined legal path for prosecutors, compared with the unprecedented task of building a case against Trump for trying to steal the election."

Sadly, these officials don't seem to understand in a democratic republic no one is above the law. -- From the bottom of the food chain to the very top.

"Whether a decision about Trump’s culpability for Jan. 6 could have come any earlier is unclear. The delays in examining that question began before Garland was even confirmed. Sherwin, senior Justice Department officials and Paul Abbate, the top deputy to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, quashed a plan by prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office to directly investigate Trump associates for any links to the riot, deeming it premature, according to five individuals familiar with the decision. Instead, they insisted on a methodical approach — focusing first on rioters and going up the ladder. The strategy was embraced by Garland, Monaco and Wray. They remained committed to it even as evidence emerged of an organized, weeks-long effort by Trump and his advisers before Jan. 6 to pressure state leaders, Justice officials and Vice President Mike Pence to block the certification of Biden’s victory. In the weeks before Jan. 6, Trump supporters boasted publicly that they had submitted fake electors on his behalf, but the Justice Department declined to investigate the matter in February 2021, The Post found. The department did not actively probe the effort for nearly a year, and the FBI did not open an investigation of the electors scheme until April 2022, about 15 months after the attack. The Justice Department’s painstaking approach to investigating Trump can be traced to Garland’s desire to turn the page from missteps, bruising attacks and allegations of partisanship in the department’s recent investigations of both Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election and Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Inside Justice, however, some have complained that the attorney general’s determination to steer clear of any claims of political motive has chilled efforts to investigate the former president. “You couldn’t use the T word,” said one former Justice official briefed on prosecutors’ discussions. This account is based on internal documents, court files, congressional records, handwritten contemporaneous notes, and interviews with more than two dozen current and former prosecutors, investigators, and others with knowledge of the probe. Most of the people interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal decision-making related to the investigation. Spokespeople at the Justice Department and FBI declined to comment or make Garland, Monaco or Wray available for interviews."

Called stonewalling. Special treatment for the top of the food chain. No equal justice.

12-16-22

The following is clearly not in the best interests of what is supposed to be a democratic republic. In follow-up to the Mar-a-Lago search, The Associated Press reports:

"Lawyers for Donald Trump were in court Friday for sealed arguments as part of the ongoing investigation into the presence of classified information at the former president’s Florida estate. The proceedings were taking place before U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, the chief judge of the federal court in the District of Columbia. Defense lawyers were seen entering the courtroom around 2 p.m. and left more than an hour later without addressing reporters. A lawyer for The Associated Press and other news organizations had submitted a letter earlier Friday requesting media access to the hearing, but despite that, it took place entirely behind closed doors."

Outrageous. Un-American.

"Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem said in a statement that the hearing concerned “an ongoing and sealed grand jury matter” that remains under seal."

Why? Why is the Trump nazi protected and coddled?

"It was not immediately clear what the outcome of the proceedings were. The Washington Post, relying on anonymous sources, reported on Thursday that the Justice Department had earlier asked Howell to hold Trump’s office in contempt for failure to fully comply with a May subpoena that sought the return of classified documents in his possession. The department also wants the Trump team to appoint a custodian of records who could attest that all classified documents have been returned, according to the Post. Lawyers for Trump declined to comment ahead of the hearing. A Justice Department spokesman also did not return a phone message seeking comment Friday afternoon. The roughly 100 documents marked as classified that the FBI took from Mar-a-Lago in August were on top of 37 documents bearing classification markings that Trump lawyers retrieved from the home during a June visit. In addition, 15 boxes containing about 184 classified documents were recovered in January by the National Archives and Records Administration. The possibility that the Justice Department had not yet recovered all classified materials has existed for months."

Why is this being tolerated?

"The FBI’s August search of the home came after investigators developed evidence indicating that additional sensitive documents remained there, even though Trump representatives had certified in June that all classified documents requested in a Justice Department subpoena had been located and returned."

Clearly, they lied.

"The Trump lawyer who made that representation and who was serving as the custodian of his records at the time, Christina Bobb, was interviewed by the FBI in October. She told investigators that she had not drafted the letter but that another Trump lawyer who she said actually prepared it had asked her to sign it in her role as a designated custodian of Trump’s records, a person familiar with her account has told AP. The Post reported earlier this week that two additional documents with classification markings were found during a recent search of a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Florida that was arranged by Trump’s lawyers. Those items were then turned over to the FBI."

Think the following justice? In follow-up to the Mar-a-Lago search, The Washington Post reports:

"A federal judge on Friday declined to hold former president Donald Trump’s office in contempt for not fully complying with a May subpoena to return all classified documents in his possession, according to people familiar with the proceedings."

If indeed true, why?

"U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell told Justice Department lawyers and Trump’s legal team to come to an agreement themselves over what actions or assurances by Trump’s office would satisfy the government, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sealed court proceedings. “The President and his counsel will continue to be transparent and cooperative,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement to The Washington Post. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment."

Why no transparency? The public is entitled to this information. Has a right to know what is going on allegedly in its name. Especially, in light of the following:

"The hearing punctuated months of mounting Justice Department frustration with Trump’s legal team after attorneys provided assurances that a diligent search had been conducted for classified documents at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club. They made that claim when handing over 38 documents to the Justice Department in response to the grand jury subpoena. But the FBI later amassed evidence suggesting that more classified material remained at Mar-a-Lago."

Expect better of a congenital liar?

"The Justice Department secured a warrant, and FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, retrieving some 13,000 additional documents, about 100 of them classified. The department is investigating the potential mishandling of classified material, destruction of government property or obstruction of the investigation. One of the central areas of disagreement between the two sides has centered on the Trump legal team’s repeated refusal to designate a custodian of records to sign a document attesting that all classified materials have been returned to the federal government, The Post first reported earlier this week."

Not surprising, is it? After all, legal counsel is self-servingly protecting its sorry ass dealing with a congenital liar. -- Not that its gutlessness is defensible. LOL.

"The standoff led to the Justice Department’s request to hold Trump’s office in contempt."

Precisely, what the 'judge' should have done. Instead of gutlessly protecting and coddling the Trump nazi and legal counsel. The following is certainly an outrageous problem clearly not in the best interests of justice and transparency in what is supposed to be a democratic republic:

"A media coalition that included The Post sought unsuccessfully to open Friday’s hearing, arguing to Howell that grand jury secrecy rules should not apply to the proceedings, given extensive public litigation between Trump and the government over the Mar-a-Lago search in federal courts in Florida and significant reporting about the underlying subpoena, as well as the principle that court proceedings should be public."

No question. When did we lose our country?

“The First Amendment and common law rights of access to judicial proceedings oblige the Court to provide public access to the hearing and seal only those narrow portions that implicate still-secret grand jury material,” wrote Ballard Spahr law firm attorneys Charles D. Tobin and Maxwell S. Mishkin, who were representing the news-organization coalition. Attorneys for media organizations said they would continue to seek the unsealing of materials given the public importance, including any redacted opinion, hearing transcript or related filings from each side. In a statement, a court spokeswoman said only: “This afternoon, the Court held a hearing regarding an ongoing and sealed grand jury matter. This matter remains under seal” pursuant to grand jury secrecy rules."

What a crock of shit. Certainly, not in what is supposed to be the best interests of a democratic republic. Not a de facto fascist police-state.

"Howell and several previous chief judges in Washington have released grand jury materials in cases of historical and public importance, such as the Watergate investigation that led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation and, more recently, in the Trump-Russia special-counsel investigation and a Justice Department demand for records from three large Chinese banks in a sanctions investigation."

The following is a most disturbing problem certainly not in the best interests of what is supposed to be a democratic republic. Not a de facto fascist autocracy:

"But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in April 2019 struck down judges’ “inherent authority” to release such materials when the public interest outweighs the need for secrecy. After that opinion, in McKeever v. Barr, Howell denied another media request, writing that efforts by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to further journalists’ newsgathering and ensure government transparency “have significant value” but “fall outside the scope of this exception” to the grand jury secrecy rules courts had relied on."

A crock of shit not in the best interests of liberty.

NBC News reports:

"A federal judge Friday did not grant the Justice Department's request to hold the office of former President Donald Trump in contempt for failing to comply with a grand jury subpoena demanding the return of documents with classified markings, according to a source familiar with the matter. The decision was made during a closed-door hearing at a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department declined comment. Trump's attorneys had no comment, but a spokesperson for Trump said in a statement that the former president "and his counsel will continue to be transparent and cooperative, even in the face of the highly weaponized and corrupt witch-hunt from the Department of Justice."

What a crock of shit.

"The DOJ's contempt request, which was first reported by The Washington Post, came after Trump's lawyers recently discovered at least two documents with such markings in a storage unit in West Palm Beach, Florida. The storage unit is not far from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, where the FBI executed a search warrant in August after obtaining information that Trump had held onto documents with classification markings even after getting hit with a grand jury subpoena for their return in May. That search turned up over 100 documents with such markings, including some marked top secret, in a storage room in Mar-a-Lago and in Trump's office there. After getting the subpoena, Trump's attorneys returned a number of documents — including some with classified markings — in early June, and told the Justice Department in a letter that all documents with such markings had been returned. The new documents were found after Trump’s lawyers hired an outside firm to conduct searches last month at the storage facility and other locations. After Trump left the White House, his office arranged with the federal General Services Administration to have six pallets of boxes moved from a storage facility in Virginia down to West Palm Beach and Mar-a-Lago in July of 2021, GSA emails previously obtained by NBC News show. The pallets were delivered in August of 2021, with four going to the storage facility and two going to Mar-a-Lago, the emails show. The Justice Department has been conducting what it has described as an active criminal investigation into whether information involving national security was mishandled, as well as possible obstruction of justice."

Why all the footdragging?

"Trump has denied any wrongdoing, and claimed that he declassified the documents and that they were his personal property. Under federal law, official White House papers are federal property and must be handed over to the National Archives when a president leaves office. Friday's hearing on the DOJ’s request, and the legal arguments underpinning it, was kept under wraps because it involved grand jury proceedings. Any orders from Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in the case, including any resulting from Friday's closed-door hearing, would likely be filed under seal as well."

Outrageous.

"NBC News was part of a press coalition that unsuccessfully sought access to the hearing. The coalition argued in a letter to Howell that the proceeding should be public, in part because lawyers for Trump and the government have already acknowledged in court filings that there is a pending grand jury action. Trump lawyers Timothy Parlatore, James Trusty and Evan Corcoran were seen entering the judge's chambers on Friday around 2 p.m. ET, and they left the courthouse shortly before 3:30 p.m. Corcoran drafted the June letter certifying all documents with classification markings had been returned, NBC News has previously reported. The hearing comes one day after Trump's civil action demanding a court-appointed special master review the documents recovered by the feds in August was officially dismissed by a federal appeals court. That move allows DOJ investigators to finally review the 11,000 documents they recovered in August that didn't have classified markings. The same court — 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — allowed the DOJ to review the over 100 documents that did have classified markings in October, overturning an earlier ruling by Aileen Cannon, a Florida federal court judge who was nominated by Trump."

11-25-22

Update on Mar-a-Lago search. The Associated Press reports:

"Attorney General Merrick Garland named a special counsel on Friday to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into the presence of classified documents at former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election. The move, announced just three days after Trump formally launched his 2024 candidacy, is a recognition of the unmistakable political implications of two investigations that involve not only a former president but also a current White House hopeful. Garland said Friday that Trump’s announcement of his presidential candidacy and President Joe Biden’s likely 2024 run were factors in his decision to appoint Jack Smith, a veteran prosecutor, to be the special counsel. Garland said the appointment would allow prosecutors to continue their work “indisputably guided” only by the facts and the law. “The Department of Justice has long recognized that in certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public’s interest to appoint a special prosecutor to independently manage an investigation and prosecution,” Garland said from the Justice Department’s podium. “Based on recent developments, including the former president’s announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election and the sitting president’s stated intention to be a candidate as well, I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.”

Why all the foot-dragging to date? In a democratic republic, no one is above the law. No one. From the bottom of the food chain to the top. Yet, Trump has received special treatment.

"Though the appointment installs a new supervisor atop the probes — both of which are expected to accelerate now that the midterm elections are over — the special counsel will still report to Garland, who has ultimate say of whether to bring charges. Smith, a veteran prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s public integrity section in Washington and who later served as the acting chief federal prosecutor in Nashville, Tennessee, during the Obama administration, is set to begin his work “immediately,” Garland said. Smith has also been the chief prosecutor for the special court in the Hague that is tasked with investigating international war crimes. The Justice Department described Smith as a registered independent, an effort to blunt any attack of perceived political bias. Trump is a Republican, and Biden is a Democrat. “Throughout his career, Jack Smith has built a reputation as an impartial and determined prosecutor who leads teams with energy and focus to follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said. “As special counsel, he will exercise independent prosecutorial judgment to decide whether charges should be brought.” “The extraordinary circumstances here demand it,” Garland said of the appointment. The special counsel’s probe will combine the investigation into “whether any person or entity unlawfully interfered with the transfer of power following the 2020 presidential election” and the investigation into the classified documents at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida."

Time to get a move on, Mr. Attorney General.

"Garland said he would ensure the special counsel receives the resources to do the work “quickly and completely.”

About time.

"Smith said he plans to conduct the probes “independently and in the best traditions of the Department of Justice.” Representatives for Trump did not immediately return messages seeking comment, and Biden ignored questions shouted by reporters about the appointment. The decision to appoint a special counsel may still raise questions with members of Congress. Garland has spoken repeatedly of his singular focus on the facts, the evidence and the law in the Justice Department’s decision-making and of his determination to restore political independence to the agency following the tumultuous years of the Trump administration. And there does not seem to be an obvious conflict like the one that prompted the last appointment of a special counsel to handle Trump-related investigations. The Trump Justice Department named former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to lead the investigation into potential coordination between Russia and the Trump 2016 presidential campaign."

11-18-22

Update on Trump Mar-a-Lago search. NBC News reports:

"If Trump were anyone else, he would have already faced a likely indictment,” said lawyer Bradley Moss, who represents intel agency workers in cases involving classified information. In February, a week before the National Archives warned the Justice Department that former President Donald Trump had kept Top Secret documents at his Florida compound, Asia Janay Lavarello was sentenced to three months in prison. She had pleaded guilty to taking classified records home from her job as an executive assistant at the U.S. military’s command in Hawaii."

Why special treatment for the Trump nazi? In a supposed democratic republic, no one is above the law. No one. From the bottom of the food chain to the very top. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

“Government employees authorized to access classified information should face imprisonment if they misuse that authority in violation of criminal law,” said Hawaii U.S. Attorney Claire Connors, who did not accuse Lavarello of showing anyone the documents. “Such breaches of national security are serious violations … and we will pursue them.”

To date, no equal treatment for Trump. None.

"Cases like Lavarello’s are a major part of the calculus for Justice Department officials as they decide whether to move forward with charges against the former president over the classified documents found in his Florida home, current and former Justice Department officials tell NBC News. In another example, a prosecutor advising the Mar-a-Lago team, David Raskin, just last week negotiated a felony guilty plea from an FBI analyst in Kansas City, who admitted talking home 386 classified documents over 12 years. She faces up to 10 years in prison."

To date, no equal treatment for Trump. None.

"A charging decision may be looming as the Mar-a-Lago investigation enters what appears to be a decisive phase. People familiar with the deliberations of Attorney General Merrick Garland and his top aides say the AG does not believe it’s his job to consider the political or social ramifications of indicting a former president, including the potential for violent backlash."

That's right. It's not.

"The main factors in his decision, these people say, are whether the facts and the law support a successful prosecution — and whether anyone else who had done what Trump is accused of doing would have been prosecuted. The sources say Justice Department officials are looking carefully at a cross section of past cases involving the mishandling of classified material. Garland himself previewed his approach in a July interview with "NBC Nightly News" anchor Lester Holt. Though his comments were about the separate Jan. 6 investigation, Justice Department officials said they apply broadly. Holt prefaced a question by saying that “the indictment of a former president, of a perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart. Is that your concern, as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that?” Garland answered, “We pursue justice without fear or favor.”

Indeed, the way it's supposed to be in a democratic republic.

"And when Holt asked whether Trump becoming a candidate would affect the decision-making, Garland simply repeated that the Justice Department intended to hold anyone guilty of crimes accountable."

Again, the way it's supposed to be in a democratic republic.

Here's the underlying issue and the problem to date that has resulted from Trump's special treatment:

"Experts say the public evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case seems unambiguous. “If Trump were anyone else, he would have already faced a likely indictment,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who often represents intelligence agency employees in cases involving classified information. “It would be entirely outside of the rule of law to not indict him,” said former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, an NBC News contributor who played a key role in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. “The whole point is to treat people similarly. And when you look at past cases, it compels that you have to bring a case.”

Precisely, why it's so outrageous Trump has received special treatment to date.

"Former prosecutors with experience in cases involving classified information say that based on the public information alone, the Justice Department has enough evidence to charge Trump with the mishandling of national defense information. Less clear is whether there are aggravating factors — such as whether the Justice Department can prove Trump obstructed justice by failing to turn over documents despite a grand jury subpoena."

How so?

"The addition of Raskin, an experienced former terrorism prosecutor, and David Rody, another veteran prosecutor who left a law firm partnership to join the investigation, is widely seen as an effort to beef up the prosecution team in the event the case goes to trial. “The National Security Division doesn’t try a lot of cases like this — they would want to bring in trial lawyers,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. Attorney and an NBC News contributor. “It looks to me like they are building a trial team.”

If indeed so, that's encouraging.

"Amid reports that Justice Department officials are considering whether to name a special prosecutor if Trump declares his candidacy for president, some observers say that would be a bad idea. “To me that seems idiotic,” said David Laufman, who led the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, a position now held by Jay Bratt, a key figure in the investigation of the Mar-a-Lago case. “It’s precisely in cases like this where so much is on the line for the Department of Justice that it’s critical for DOJ leaders to participate in discussions on whether to approve charges,” Laufman said. “They should have the opportunities to kick the tires hard and as often as possible, and ultimately they should own the decision to approve or disapprove for the first time in American history potential criminal charges against a former president.” He added, “It’s already baked in that there will be criticism … and the idea that relegating this to a special counsel will somehow mitigate or neutralize criticism from the far-right is ludicrous. Just own it. That’s why you’re in those jobs.”

Certainly, appears there is foot-dragging due to fear of blow back should the prosecution fail. That's gutless. It encourages, worse, enables tyrants at the very top of the food chain.

"Moss agreed, adding, “I really don’t think a special counsel helps anything here. I think all that does is delay things and bogs things down. There is nobody who could take the job and not be dragged through the mud.”

Been more than enough foot-dragging to date.

The gutlessness and insanity of some remain stunning:

"Not everyone believes that a prosecution of Trump is warranted, based on the known facts. One former U.S. attorney, a Trump critic, said a mere documents mishandling case is not serious enough to merit charging a former president, unless prosecutors can prove aggravating factors such as intent to share the material, or obstruction of justice. “I think it’s a relatively minor case, and I don’t think you bring a minor case against a former president,” that person said."

Outrageous special treatment at the very top of the food chain. Apparently, this lawyer does not understand in a democratic republic no one is above the law. No one:

"Yet there are currently people serving long prison sentences for doing exactly what Trump appears to have done — taken highly classified information home, with no allegation that they gave it to an adversary. One of them is Nghia Hoang Pho, 72, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to taking highly classified material from his job as a programmer for an elite hacking unit of the National Security Agency. At sentencing he told the judge he did it so he could work from home and earn a promotion before his retirement. Prosecutors didn’t contest that claim, but another factor made the case much more serious. Unluckily for Pho, he had been using an anti-virus product made by a Russian cybersecurity firm, Kaspersky, which copied some of the highly classified material off of his home computer without his knowledge. U.S. officials determined that the files were handed over to the Russian government, leading to one of the worst intelligence losses in modern U.S. history. The Kaspersky firm denied giving the files to the Russian government. Pho “compromised some of our country’s most closely held types of intelligence and forced the NSA to abandon important initiatives to protect itself and its operational capabilities at a great economic and operational cost,” Maryland U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said at the time. Pho got five years in prison."

Why special treatment for Trump to date?

"A former NSA contractor, Harold Martin, was sentenced in 2019 after prosecutors said he took home at least 50 terabytes of data — the equivalent of 500 million pages of mostly highly classified material — over 20 years. Martin’s lawyers said he was a hoarder, and prosecutors concluded that he had not given classified information to anyone. He got nine years."

Get this:

"Legal experts say it’s difficult to compare those two cases with that of the former president. A closer analogy, they say, would be the prosecution of David Petraeus, the retired Army general and former CIA director, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after admitting giving classified material to his biographer, with whom he was having an affair, and lied to FBI agents who questioned him about it. He was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $100,000."

Special treatment for someone high in the food chain. Received no prison time. Why not? No equal treatment.

"In a somewhat similar case, former CIA Director John Deutch was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001 as he was poised to plead guilty to a misdemeanor for keeping top secret codeword information on computers at his homes in Maryland and Massachusetts."

The above, yet another example of no equal treatment.

"But few can envision Trump agreeing to admit guilt, as those men did. Among the factors the Justice Department weighs in whether to pursue classified-document mishandling cases, former prosecutors say, is whether the person knew the material included state secrets; whether they planned to profit from the information; whether they told the truth to investigators; and the volume and importance of the classified material. Prosecutors have put no evidence on the public record suggesting Trump had any nefarious intent in keeping the classified documents, but their court filings suggest his case meets the other three criteria. According to court filings, the National Archives put Trump on notice that they had received highly classified material from Mar-a-Lago and suspected there was more there; a Trump lawyer told the Justice Department all the secret records had been turned over, when that was not true; and some of the documents seized at Mar-a-Lago were so sensitive that only a small number of people inside the U.S. government would be authorized to see them. The FBI seized more than 11,000 documents from Mar-a-Lago, including several hundred marked classified."

Trump clearly lied.

“The reason he will almost certainly be indicted, in my view, is because of his efforts to obstruct and conceal the documents and prevent the government from recovering them," said Moss. A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Trump has called the investigation illegitimate, and his lawyers have likened it to a document dispute akin to the late return of an overdue library book."

Classified material removed and stored in an unsecured facility. -- To say the least.

"Even if the Justice Department decides charges against Trump in the Mar-a-Lago case are warranted, prosecutors will have to clear another hurdle: securing agreement from intelligence agencies about using some of the classified information found at Trump’s home in open court. It’s not uncommon for the government to decide against moving forward with an otherwise winnable case because officials conclude that they can’t risk exposing the intelligence information in court, according to Laufman. NBC News has confirmed that among the documents found at Mar-a-Lago are highly classified materials related to China and Iran — information unlikely to be deemed suitable for public airing. “They need to get the intelligence community to play ball,” Laufman said, “and that means getting whatever agency owns the information to agree to their use of their classified documents in furtherance of the government prosecution.”

Nothing more than a 'get out of jail free card' for the traitorous, treasonous top of the food chain.

The following is particularly galling. Called special treatment for the very top of the food chain:

"As for the broader social and political implications of indicting Trump, Moss said that if the Justice Department doesn’t consider them, someone in the Biden administration should."

Bullshit. Unadulterated bullshit. This is supposedly a democratic republic where no one is above the law. No one. From the bottom to the very top of the food chain. Moss, apparently, doesn't understand this. -- Coming from an attorney who clearly talks out both sides his ass as he has in this article.

“I would be surprised if on some level political ramifications don’t get considered and addressed,” he said. “It is a former president, a likely opponent for the incumbent president in 2024, and there has never been an indictment in this context before. Those are not trivial considerations.”

Wake up. Figuratively, remove your head from your ass. Your determined ignorance is not only stunning, it's frighteningly treasonous. Duplicitous. Called talking out both sides your ass, sadly, to cover that ass. To gutlessly deflect criticism from the nazi element in the Republican Party? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

11-4-22

Update on Trump Mar-a-Lago search. The Washington Post reports:

"One of the Justice Department’s most experienced national security prosecutors has joined the team overseeing the intensifying investigation of classified documents at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club, people familiar with the matter said. National security law experts interviewed by The Washington Post say prosecutors appear to have amassed evidence in the case that would meet some of the criteria for bringing charges against the former president — an unprecedented action that they said likely would only happen if the Justice Department believes it has an extremely strong case."

Why all the foot-dragging?

"David Raskin, who served for many years as a senior federal prosecutor in New York City, and more recently has worked as a prosecutor in Kansas City, Mo., has been quietly assisting in the investigation into Trump and his aides, according to the people familiar with the matter, who like others interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Raskin is considered one of the most accomplished terrorism prosecutors of his generation, having worked on the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in Virginia as a co-conspirator in the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Raskin was also part of the team that prosecuted Ahmed Ghailani in federal court in Manhattan in connection with the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. Ghailani was acquitted of most counts but found guilty of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He is the only Guantánamo Bay detainee to be brought to a U.S. court and tried and convicted. Both Moussaoui and Ghailani received life sentences."

Get this:

"Justice Department officials initially contacted Raskin to consult on the criminal investigation into the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol. But his role has shifted over time to focus more on the investigation involving the former president’s possession and potential mishandling of classified documents, the people familiar with the matter said."

Interesting, isn't it?

"The addition of Raskin to the team handling the Mar-a-Lago probe is another indication of the seriousness with which Justice Department officials view the case and underscores the high stakes for both Trump and those tasked with investigating him."

In a democratic republic, no one is above the law. No one. -- Been a problem since President Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon.

“There is no other case in history like this,” said Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security during the Obama administration. “This is the former president of the United States. This is someone who was the commander in chief, someone who spent four years being briefed every single day on national security issues. It isn’t like any other case, so the steps prosecutors take aren’t going to look the same as any other case.”

Precisely, the problem. Special treatment.

Get this. Read it most carefully:

"Government employees with security clearances have to sign documents acknowledging they know the rules of how to handle such secrets, and follow them. When they leave the government, they also sign paperwork saying they do not possess any classified material, and prosecutors often use that paperwork as evidence that the defendants understood what they did was illegal. Presidents, however, do not have security clearances and do not sign such paperwork."

That's a problem. A big problem that makes it easy for the very top of the food chain to escape criminal culpability:

"For that reason and others, any potential criminal charge would rely heavily on prosecutors’ ability to show Trump’s intent — that he didn’t just unwittingly take classified materials from the White House and store them at his residence at the private club in Florida without knowing it was a crime."

Amounts to a figurative get-out-of-jail-free card. This needs to change if our supposedly democratic republic is to survive.

"McCord said the timeline of events — from requests for documents from the National Archives, to subpoena demands by the Justice Department, to a court-authorized search of the property on Aug. 8 — could be critical to meeting that requirement. “The evidence of the many months long back and forth between the president and his lawyers with the National Archives about documents that were believed to be classified that they wanted returned” suggest that Trump was aware of the legal ramifications of the situation, she said."

No question. Still grants the bastard and his attorneys way too much wiggle room.

"Since the Aug. 8 search, many key pieces of evidence have been described by people close to the matter, and they offer a rough sense of how prosecutors may weigh the “aggravating factors” in Trump’s case — circumstances surrounding an alleged crime that could increase its severity and convince prosecutors to seek charges. “Classic aggravating factors in a case involving the willful retention of classified documents would include the number of classified documents kept in a place they are not authorized to be,” said David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department national security official. Like the FBI analyst in Kansas City, Trump allegedly had a large volume of classified documents on his property — though 184 of the more than 300 were turned over voluntarily in January in boxes given to Archives officials."

So what? Never should have been in his personal possession, certainly not in an unsecured storage facility. Regardless, those documents belong to the American public, not the president.

"Other potential aggravating factors include whether there was an effort to conceal documents from investigators, or obstruct the probe. People familiar with the investigation have said a Trump aide told the FBI the former president instructed him to remove boxes from a storage room where classified documents were kept — and that was done after Trump received a subpoena in May for any classified material in his possession. That witness account, from former White House valet Walt Nauta, is buttressed by security-camera footage from Mar-a-Lago that shows boxes being moved after the subpoena, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation."

That's not a crime? Or, evidence of a crime?

"Federal investigators have interviewed a range of low-level Trump aides in the probe to understand how the boxes got to Mar-a-Lago, how they were packed at the White House and why they were moved, according to two people familiar with the matter. In addition to Nauta, those questioned include Molly Michael, Trump’s longtime personal assistant, who sat just outside his office and handled all his calls and appointments in both Florida and at his residence and golf course in Bedminster, N.J., these people said. Michael, who also worked in the same role in the Trump White House, departed her job late this summer after being questioned by federal authorities, but she and Trump remain on good terms, these people said. It is unclear what Michael has told investigators."

Fascinating, isn't it?

"Nauta still works for Trump and recently traveled with him to a rally, two Trump advisers said. People close to Nauta said his lawyers have conveyed to others that he is likely to face difficult choices in the weeks ahead because of the investigation. He has conveyed to others that he did not seek to be interviewed by the FBI but had to answer their questions, these people said. Prosecutors have also asked Trump advisers and Archives officials about all the chances Trump was given to return the documents, and why he expressed anger at being asked to do so, according to a person who has heard accounts from some of those who have been questioned."

Did the son of a bitch truly believe they belonged to him?

"The credibility of such witnesses will likely be a major factor in any charging decision regarding Trump. When first questioned by the FBI, Nauta denied handling sensitive documents or the boxes that might contain such documents, according to people familiar with the matter, before his account shifted significantly in a second interview. Justice Department officials are trying to arrange a third interview, and possible grand jury testimony, but have yet to reach an agreement, these people said."

Did he lie, bullshit, or mislead investigators?

"To prosecutors, evidence of possible obstruction of an investigation “is sort of a red cape in front of a bull,” said Laufman, who described the known evidence as “sound evidentiary footing” to pursue a case."

Think that's not an ancillary issue to this entire fiasco? All too often, as well, thwarts justice when a prosecutor remains too goddamned gutless and self-serving?

“From the public facing information thus far, it would seem to me that the Justice Department already has a bevy of aggravating factors and if it otherwise can meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump unlawfully retained classified information, it would be on a sound evidentiary footing to criminally charge him,” Laufman said. “That’s not to say whether ultimately the attorney general in his judgment will find it in the net interests of the department to criminally charge a former president of the United States for the first time in history.”

That's the problem. An ongoing problem in what is supposed to be a democratic republic where no one is allegedly above the law. Matters not what is in the personal best interests of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney General. Matters only what is in the best interests of the American public. These self-serving bastards seem to have conveniently forgotten this.

"There are important questions that have to be answered before prosecutors can make such a determination, such as whether key witnesses’ accounts of what happened at Mar-a-Lago are credible. Prosecutors are also trying to determine whether claims made by one Trump ally and adviser, a former federal prosecutor named Kash Patel, could provide Trump a defense that the documents were no longer classified."

Think so? Get this. Read it most carefully:

"Patel has publicly claimed that Trump declassified material. While Trump has made similar claims in public interviews, his lawyers have yet to argue in court papers that he did declassify the documents. In recent weeks, prosecutors called Patel to answer questions before a grand jury about any alleged declassification decisions by Trump, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Patel has asserted his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, and the two sides appear to be at a stalemate."

How about that?

"Prosecutors have also asked Trump aides if they ever saw or heard Trump give any kind of blanket declassification order, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. Brandon Van Grack, a lawyer in private practice who previously worked classified-mishandling cases as a federal prosecutor, said investigators typically don’t interview key witnesses until they have collected significant amounts of evidence. “The fact that there is reporting that they are talking to individuals who appear to have directly communicated with the former president is a high sign that there has been an evolution in the case,” Van Grack said. “Before you talk to key witnesses, you typically want to have most of the facts already nailed down so that you are focused on what holes you need to fill and can better assess whether the witness is telling a complete and true story.”

The foot-dragging continues:

"It is still likely to be months before a charging decision is made, according to Van Grack, who said he expects prosecutors won’t make any big decisions in the case until after a court-appointed special master completes his review of the 13,000 nonclassified documents seized in the FBI search. Criminal investigators are barred from using these nonclassified documents until after the review is completed, now expected in December. The Justice Department could get access to the nonclassified material earlier if prosecutors win a pending appeal that would overturn the appointment of the special master, but the appeals court judges are not expected to make their decision until late November at the earliest."

Determined foot-dragging that clearly obstructs justice.

Here is the issue that has been the problem since at least President Ford's pardon of his predecessor, Richard Nixon:

"Javed Ali, a senior official at the National Security Council during the Trump administration who now teaches at the University of Michigan, said the threshold to potentially charge the former president would be extremely high, leaving prosecutors little room for error. Even if prosecutors could feasibly file multiple charges against Trump, he expects they will only bring charges if they have an ironclad case."

So gutlessly do nothing? Determinedly confirm the top of the food chain is indeed above the law?

“Because this is so unprecedented, they are going to take it slow,” Ali said. “It’s going to be so explosive. And the last thing you want to do is bring a case to trial that is weak or has holes because then what would be the point?”

Again, so gutlessly do nothing? Drag your feet and allow the top of the food chain to escape justice? -- One of the reasons why an unwanted, dreaded second American revolution catastrophically looms.

10-28-22

Truth comes out. The Associated Press reports:

"Former President Donald Trump signed legal documents challenging the results of the 2020 election that included voter fraud claims he knew to be false, a federal judge said in a ruling Wednesday. U.S. District Court Judge David Carter in an 18-page opinion ordered the release of those emails between Trump and attorney John Eastman to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He said those communications cannot be withheld because they include evidence of potential crimes. “The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” Carter wrote."

Sad, isn't it? A congenital liar.

"Though the judge’s conclusion has no practical bearing on a separate Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the election, any evidence that Trump signed documents he knew to be false could at minimum be a notable data point for criminal prosecutors trying to sort out culpability for far-ranging efforts to undo the results. The judge specifically cited claims from Trump’s attorneys that Fulton County in Georgia had improperly counted more than 10,000 votes of dead people, felons and unregistered voters. Those false allegations were part of a filing that Trump’s legal team made in Georgia state court on Dec. 4, 2021. Later that month, Eastman warned in a message that Trump had been made aware that “some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts)” in that Georgia filing “has been inaccurate.” Yet even after the message from Eastman, Trump and his team filed another legal complaint that had “the same inaccurate numbers,” the judge wrote. Trump under oath verified the complaint was true to the best of his knowledge. Carter wrote that the emails are “sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

Why hasn't Trump been indicted? Why is he receiving special treatment? In a democratic republic, no one is above the law. No one.

"Representatives for Trump and Eastman did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. The ruling is the latest development in a monthslong legal battle between Eastman — a conservative lawyer and lead architect of Trump’s last-ditch efforts to stay in office — and congressional investigators. Eastman has been trying to withhold documents from the committee on the basis of attorney-client privilege claims. The committee has argued that there is a legal exception allowing the disclosure of communications regarding ongoing or future crimes. And Carter has mostly agreed, ordering the release of hundreds of emails to the House committee since the spring. In a stunning ruling in March, the judge had asserted that it is “more likely than not” that Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election. Carter in his ruling Wednesday said the messages he has reviewed from Eastman and other attorneys show that the “primary goal” for some of their litigation was to stop the certification of President Joe Biden’s election win. The totality of the evidence makes clear that “Trump filed certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6 congressional proceedings through the courts,” the judge wrote."

No question.

"The emails from Eastman are part of the House committee’s investigation into a multi-part plan by Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election and the ensuing violence at the Capitol. The release of the emails could be critical for the committee as it enters the last few months of its probe when lawmakers will have to decide whether to send a criminal referral against Trump and his allies to the Justice Department. The judge ordered Eastman to give the documents to the committee by the afternoon of Oct. 28."

The foot dragging and stonewalling remain stunning. Highly indicative of determined, massive failure within the judicial system.

10-28-22

Update on Trump Mar-a-Lago search. The Washington Post reports:

"Some of the classified documents recovered by the FBI from Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club included highly sensitive intelligence regarding Iran and China, according to people familiar with the matter. If shared with others, the people said, such information could expose intelligence-gathering methods that the United States wants to keep hidden from the world. At least one of the documents seized by the FBI describes Iran’s missile program, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation. Other documents described highly sensitive intelligence work aimed at China, they said. Unauthorized disclosures of specific information in the documents would pose multiple risks, experts say. People aiding U.S. intelligence efforts could be endangered, and collection methods could be compromised. In addition, other countries or U.S. adversaries could retaliate against the United States for actions it has taken in secret."

Get this:

"The warrant authorizing the search of former president Donald Trump’s home said agents were seeking documents possessed in violation of the Espionage Act. The classified documents about Iran and China are considered among the most sensitive the FBI has recovered to date in its investigation of Trump and his aides for possible mishandling of classified information, obstruction and destruction of government records, the people said. The former president has denied wrongdoing in having the documents at Mar-a-Lago, claiming in a recent television interview that he declassified any documents in his possession, and that a president can declassify information “even by thinking about it.” National security lawyers have derided those claims."

Raw insanity.

"A Trump spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday morning. But after this article published, Trump posted on social media, decrying what he called leaks “on the Document Hoax” and suggesting that the FBI and the National Archives and Records Administration were trying to frame him. “Who could ever trust corrupt, weaponized agencies, and that includes NARA,” Trump wrote. “...Also who knows what NARA and the FBI plant into documents, or subtract from documents — we will never know, will we?"

Raw insanity. Can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit, right, Mr.'President?'

"Some of the most sensitive materials were recovered in the FBI’s court-approved search of Trump’s home on Aug. 8, in which agents seized about 13,000 documents, 103 of them classified and 18 of them top secret, according to court papers. Those papers were the third batch of classified documents recovered in the course of the investigation. Boxes voluntarily sent from Mar-a-Lago to the National Archives and Records Administration earlier this year were found to contain 184 classified documents, 25 of which were marked top secret, according to court records. In June, Trump’s representatives responded to a subpoena by giving investigators 38 additional classified documents."

What was he doing with this material in an insecure facility?

"The Washington Post has previously reported that one of the documents seized in the FBI search described a foreign country’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities. The people discussing the case would not say if that intelligence related to Iran, China or some other nation. Iran’s missile program and nuclear capabilities are closely watched by the Western world; U.S. intelligence agencies believe Tehran is close to having enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, but has not demonstrated the mastery of some technologies necessary to deploy such weapons, such as the ability to integrate a nuclear warhead with a long-range delivery system. The people familiar with the matter said that many of the more sensitive documents Trump or his aides apparently took to Mar-a-Lago after he left the White House are top-level analysis papers that do not contain sources’ names. But even without individual identifiers, such documents can provide valuable clues to foreign adversaries about how the United States may be gathering intelligence, and from whom, the people said."

A threat to national security.

"Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are not informed about them, The Post reported in September. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet-level official could authorize government officials to know details of these special-access programs, people have said. Investigators conducting the Mar-a-Lago probe did not initially have the authority to review that material. The new information about the documents obtained by The Post highlight what current and former intelligence officials say was the inherent risk posed by removing highly classified material from strictly guarded government buildings and keeping them in a private club filled with staffers, guests and visitors."

Treasonous, traitorous behavior.

"David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official who handled cases involving mishandling of classified information, said the “exceptional sensitivity” of the material found at Mar-a-Lago will count as an aggravating factor as prosecutors weigh whether to file charges in the case. “The exceptional sensitivity of these documents, and the reckless exposure of invaluable sources and methods of U.S. intelligence capabilities concerning these foreign adversaries, will certainly influence the Justice Department’s determination of whether to charge Mr. Trump or others with willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act,” Laufman said."

What are they waiting for?

"Trump and his most ardent supporters have dismissed the criminal probe as an effort to undermine the former president — who remains the most influential figure in the Republican Party and talks openly about running for the White House again in 2024."

Certainly, according Trump special treatment denied the bottom and middle class.

Readers will recall:

"Officials at the National Archives began seeking the return of government records from the Trump administration last year, after officials came to believe that some records — such as letters from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un — were unaccounted for, and perhaps in Trump’s possession. After months of back and forth, Trump agreed in January to turn over 15 boxes of material. When archivists examined the boxes, they found 184 documents marked classified, including 25 marked top secret, which were scattered throughout the boxes in no particular order, according to court filings. Archives officials notified the Justice Department, and authorities soon came to believe that Trump had not turned over all the classified material in his possession. Justice officials secured a grand jury subpoena in May, seeking any documents still at Mar-a-Lago that bore classified markings. In response, Trump’s advisers met with government agents and prosecutors at Mar-a-Lago in early June, handing over a sealed envelope containing another 38 classified documents, including 17 marked top secret, according to court papers. According to government filings, Trump’s representatives claimed at the meeting that a diligent search had been conducted for all classified documents at the club. That meeting, which included a visit to the storage room where Trump’s advisers said the relevant boxes of documents were kept, did not satisfy investigators, who were not allowed to inspect the boxes they saw in the storage room, according to government court filings."

Why no inspection allowed? What were they hiding?

"Five days later, senior Justice Department official Jay Bratt wrote to Trump’s lawyers to remind them that Mar-a-Lago “does not include a secure location authorized for the storage of classified information.” Bratt wrote that based on the visit, it appeared classified documents “have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location.” “Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.” Agents continued to gather evidence that Trump was apparently not complying with either government requests or subpoena demands. According to people familiar with the investigation, security camera footage showed boxes being carried from the storage area after the May subpoena was issued — and a key witness told the FBI that he moved the boxes at Trump’s instruction. With that evidence in hand, the Justice Department decided to seek a judge’s approval to search the former president’s home."

Why has Trump not been prosecuted? Why does he continue to receive special treatment?

10-28-22

Think it ultimately pays to be an associate of Donald Trump? ABC News reports:

"Former President Donald Trump's longtime friend Tom Barrack on Monday denied charges that he illegally lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of the United Arab Emirates and said that supporting Trump for president was "disastrous" for him professionally. Barrack, who was the chair of Trump's 2016 inaugural committee, took the stand in his own defense in his trial on charges that he acted as a foreign agent for the UAE from 2016 to 2018 yet failed to register with the Department of Justice, which they say constitutes a crime. Speaking from the witness stand, Barrack said his interactions with UAE officials were part of the longstanding business relationships he had cultivated over decades while serving as the head of a multibillion-dollar real estate company that sought investments from around the world. "Could you, as you understand your business, agree to operate as an agent of one investor?" Barrack's attorney, Michael Schachter, asked him. "Impossible," replied Barrack, who said that type of relationship would "chill" other investors, who would think, "If you are acting for them, you are not acting for us." Barrack also offered criticism of the former president whose administration he is accused of illegally lobbying, telling the jury that it would have been "unquestionably" better had he thrown his support behind a different candidate."

You think? LOL.

"Barrack already had a decades-long relationship with Trump before he began to advise Trump early in his 2016 campaign. He told the jury he initially thought the idea of Trump as president was a "far-out thought," but that he "knew him to be bold, smart, instinctively brilliant, and more resilient than anybody that I ever knew" -- and that Barrack saw opportunity in the Middle East."

Talking out your sorry ass? Or, are you that poor a judge of character?

"This amazingly good businessman become the president of the United States who could not spell the Middle East," Barrack said."

What does that say about you? Not only that, how is this man a 'good businessman' when he didn't allegedly play by the rules?

The following speaks volumes:

"But Barrack said that his support of Trump was ultimately "disastrous" for his work, and appeared to at least partly blame his association with the former president for the charges he now faces."

'Stupid is as stupid does,' to quote a brilliant actor.

"What effect did your assistance with the Trump campaign ultimately have on you professionally?" Schachter asked. "I'm sitting with all of you today," Barrack replied, prompting an objection from the prosecutor."

No shit. LOL. Sadder still? Get this:

"Barrack's comments came a day after Trump expressed his support for his longtime friend on social media. The DOJ has "has accused him of being an agent of the UAE, which I do not believe he was," Trump said of Barrack Sunday on his Truth Social platform. Calling him a "highly respected businessman," Trump said that Barrack "NEVER spoke to me about 'speeches' and what to say on this subject" -- a likely reference to prosecutors' allegation that Barrack inserted language favorable to the UAE into one of Trump's early campaign speeches on energy."

Think Trump has any credibility?

"At the trial, prosecutors showed emails between Barrack and then-Trump aide Paul Manafort discussing the speech. They also showed a clip of Trump delivering the speech, which included a reference to "our gulf allies." Prosecutors earlier presented hundreds of communications Barrack had with his UAE contacts. “I have had the privilege of dealing with so many [world leaders],” Barrack said, while ticking through nearly a dozen countries around the world in which he has traveled for business. “All of the top people in those places at some point in time I have had the privilege of the opportunity to deal with.” Barrack in his testimony also offered a fierce defense of his codefendant Matthew Grimes, who had come to work for Barrack in what Barrack called the "ultimate gopher job" just after college. Grimes has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. "One of the worst feelings in my life is him sitting in this court today -- it's ridiculous," Barrack said, prompting an objection from prosecutors."

Pitiful, isn't it?

"Barrack, whose family is from Lebanon, testified that his ties to the UAE go back to when he first worked there in the 1970s, and said that the nearly $400 million invested in his firm from two UAE sovereign wealth funds during the time in question was also business and not personal. "They are investing, they are not giving us the capital," Barrack said. "They are investing." Barrack also denied one of the prosecution's central allegations: that Barrack's decision to act on behalf of the UAE stemmed from a spring 2016 meeting with a UAE official. "Did he ask you if you wanted to be a UAE foreign agent?" Schachter asked of the official. "No," replied Barrack. "Did he ask you if you would agree to operate subject to the UAE's direction or control?" Schachter continued. "Absolutely not," Barrack said."

What do you think? Believe it? Credible?

"Barrack remained on the stand for nearly five hours, offering detailed answers to questions from his attorney and at times cracking jokes. Attorneys said in court that they expect Barrack to remain on the stand through Thursday."

10-21-22

Update on Trump Mar-a-Lago search. The Associated Press reports:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former President Donald Trump’s plea to step into the legal fight over the FBI search of his Florida estate. The justices did not otherwise comment in turning away Trump’s emergency appeal. Trump had pressed the court on an issue relating to classified documents seized in the search authorized by a federal judge of Mar-a-Lago. The Trump team was asking the justices to overturn a lower court ruling and permit an independent arbiter, or special master, to review the roughly 100 documents with classified markings that were taken in the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago. The move Thursday appears to greatly reduce the potential impact of the special master process to the ongoing Justice Department criminal investigation into the classifed documents."

What choice did they have? Trump? Way out of line. This is supposed to be a democratic republic, -- not an anarchy.

"A federal appeals court had already restored the department’s access to the classified documents, which had been investigators’ primary goal. And the Supreme Court’s decision to stay out of the fray ensures that the special master will not have access to those same records as the FBI and Justice Department evaluate if criminal charges are merited."

Readers will recall:

"A three-judge panel from the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last month limited the special master’s review to the much larger tranche of non-classified documents. The judges, including two Trump appointees, sided with the Justice Department, which had argued there was no legal basis for the special master to conduct his own review of the classified records. But Trump’s lawyers said in their application to the Supreme Court that it was essential for the special master to have access to the classified records to “determine whether documents bearing classification markings are in fact classified, and regardless of classification, whether those records are personal records or Presidential records.” The Justice Department said in a Supreme Court filing that Trump’s request had no merit. The FBI says it seized roughly 11,000 documents, including about 100 with classification markings, during its search. The Trump team asked a judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, to appoint a special master to do an independent review of the records."

Anything to stall, stonewall, and obfuscate:

"Cannon subsequently assigned a veteran Brooklyn judge, Raymond Dearie, to review the records and segregate those that may be protected by claims of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. The Justice Department objected to Dearie’s ability to review the classified records, prompting the 11th Circuit to side with the department. The department also is appealing Cannon’s entire ruling to the 11th Circuit."

Be interesting to see how that appeal turns out.

The Associated Press reports:

"Members of the far-right Oath Keepers were ecstatic when then-President Donald Trump invited supporters to a “wild” protest in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress would be certifying the results of the 2020 election, according to messages shown Thursday during the seditious conspiracy trial for the militia group’s founder and four associates. During an FBI agent’s testimony, jurors saw a string of online posts that Oath Keepers members in Florida exchanged after Trump’s tweet on Dec. 19, 2020, about a “big protest” at the upcoming joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. “Be there, will be wild!” Trump said. “He wants us to make it WILD,” Kelly Meggs, an Oath Keepers leader from Dunnellon, Florida, wrote in a message to other group members. “He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!!”

To say the least:

"Trump’s words appeared to energize Oath Keepers members. They used an encrypted messaging app to discuss their plans to be in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6, when, after a Trump rally near the White House, a mob stormed the Capitol and disrupted Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over the Republican incumbent. “These will be flying Jan. 6 in front of the Capitol,” Meggs wrote in a post that included the image of an Oath Keepers flag. Graydon Young, an Oath Keepers member from Florida who has pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge, said he was going to Washington even though it “feels like a fool’s errand.” Oath Keepers founder and national leader Stewart Rhodes responded on Dec. 25, 2020, that he disagreed with that assessment. “Trump needs to know we support him in using the Insurrection Act,” Rhodes wrote. “And he needs to know that if he fails to act, then we will.” Rhodes added that he believed the Secret Service would be “happy to have us out there” if Trump “calls us up as militia.”

Traitors. In a supposed democratic republic that does not happen. In an autocracy, it does.

"A key argument for Rhodes’ lawyers is that the Oath Keepers founder believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president broad authority to call up the military and decide what shape that force will take. Trump did float that kind of action at other points in his presidency."

Called abuse of power. Has no place in what is supposed to be a democratic republic.

"Meggs and Rhodes, who’s from Granbury, Texas, are on trial with Thomas Caldwell of Berryville, Virginia; Kenneth Harrelson of Titusville, Florida; and Jessica Watkins of Woodstock, Ohio. They are the first Capitol riot defendants to be tried on seditious conspiracy charges for what prosecutors said was a plot to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power. The Civil War-era charge carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. As testimony continued Thursday, the House Jan. 6 committee played a recording at its public hearing of Watkins saying, “It has spread like wildfire that (Vice President Mike) Pence has betrayed us” and “100 percent” of the crowd would be going to the Capitol right after a Trump tweet that had criticized Pence, as the Senate’s presiding officer, for not delaying or rejecting the certification of the Electoral College vote by Congress. Defense lawyers have accused prosecutors of cherry-picking messages and have said there is no evidence the Oath Keepers had a plan to attack the Capitol."

That's a crock. The following is but a small part of the reason why:

"Trump’s Dec. 19 tweet also was a focus of a July hearing by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. One committee member, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., said the tweet “served as a call to action and in some cases as a call to arms.” A second, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said it “electrified and galvanized” Trump supporters, including the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and other far-right extremists. Several members of the Proud Boys, including former national chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, also are charged with seditious conspiracy for their alleged roles in the Jan. 6 attack and await a trial in December. Thursday’s testimony for the Oath Keepers trial focused on members of the group’s Florida contingent and their communications in the days leading up to the riot. In a chat for Oath Keepers members in Florida on the Signal messaging app, Rhodes said they should adopt the QAnon slogan “WWG1WGA,” which stands for “Where we go one, we go all.” QAnon is a conspiracy theory that has centered on the baseless belief that Trump was secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping “deep state” enemies, Hollywood elites and prominent Democrats. “They come for one of us, they come for all of us,” Rhodes posted on Dec. 21, 2020. “When they come for us, we go for them.” Kelly Meggs responded: “It’s easy to chat. The real question is who’s willing to DIE.” Three days before the Capitol attack, Meggs sent a message to an associate that said, “1776 we are going to make history.” “What happened in 1776?” Justice Department prosecutor Louis Manzo asked FBI Special Agent Kelsey Harris. “The American revolution,” the agent replied."

The Associated Press reports:

"The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court on Friday to shut down the work of an independent arbiter who was appointed last month to review documents seized during an FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate. The appeal is the latest salvo in weeks of litigation over the scope of duties of the arbiter, also known as a special master, who was assigned to inspect the records taken in the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago and weed out any that may be protected by claims of legal privilege. The special master process has caused some delays to the Justice Department’s investigation into the holding of top-secret documents at the home. But a major hurdle was cleared last month when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit lifted a temporary bar on the department’s ability to use the seized classified documents as part of its criminal probe. The move permitted a core aspect of the probe to resume, greatly reducing the odds that the process could have a significant impact on the investigation. Even so, department lawyers returned to the court Friday to ask for the entire special master review to be shut down, saying the judge who made the appointment had no basis for doing so and that Trump was not entitled to an independent review of the seized records or to claim privilege over them."

What took so long?

“Plaintiff has no plausible claim of executive privilege as to any of the seized materials and no plausible claim of personal attorney-client privilege as to the seized government records — including all records bearing classification markings,” according to the department’s brief. “Accordingly,” they added, ”the special-master review process is unwarranted.”

No more than a stalling tactic.

"The Justice Department has repeatedly rejected the idea that a special master review was needed, and though it has been able to resume its review of the classified records, it said its investigation remains slowed by its inability to use the much larger set of non-classified documents as part of its probe. “The district court’s injunction barring review and use of the other seized records harms the government and the public as well,” the department said. “A magistrate judge has already found probable cause to believe that those records may constitute evidence of crimes, and the government has demonstrated a clear need for them.”

Unbridled greed. The Washington Post reports:

"Former president Donald Trump’s company charged the Secret Service as much as five times more than the government rate for agents to stay overnight at Trump hotels while protecting him and his family, according to expense records newly obtained by Congress. The records show that in 40 cases the Trump Organization billed the Secret Service far higher amounts than the approved government rate — in one case charging agents $1,185 a night to stay at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The new billing documents, according to a congressional committee’s review, show that U.S. taxpayers paid the president’s company at least $1.4 million for Secret Service agents’ stays at Trump properties for his and his family’s protection. “The exorbitant rates charged to the Secret Service and agents’ frequent stays at Trump-owned properties raise significant concerns about the former President’s self-dealing and may have resulted in a taxpayer-funded windfall for former President Trump’s struggling businesses,” Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) wrote to Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle."

A chip off the old block? Get this:

"The records contradict the repeated claim made by Eric Trump, the president’s son and the Trump Organization’s executive vice president, that the family’s company often gave the Secret Service agents the hotel rooms “at cost” or sometimes free, providing steep discounts for the security team to stay at Trump properties. The Secret Service did not immediately respond to a message from The Washington Post about the new congressional report. Eric Trump disputed that the Trump Organization profited off Secret Service stays at his family’s properties. “Any services rendered to the United States Secret Service or other government agencies at Trump owned properties, were at their request and were either provided at cost, heavily discounted or for free,” he said in a statement. “The company would have been substantially better off if hospitality services were sold to full-paying guests, however, the company did whatever it took to accommodate the agencies to ensure they were able to do their jobs at the highest levels.”

Think so?

"While the documents do not cover all Secret Service expenses at Trump properties during his presidency and reflect only a fraction of those expenses since he left office, they offer a more detailed financial accounting than previously known of what taxpayers paid for Trump’s frequent choice to stay at his properties. Trump visited his properties more than 500 times during his presidency. Maloney, chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, obtained the records as part of her investigation into how Trump may have profited off his security agents’ duty to follow him wherever he traveled. She wrote a letter Monday to Cheatle demanding a complete accounting of what taxpayers have paid — and continue to pay — the Trump Organization. “Given the long-standing concerns surrounding the former President’s conflicts of interest and efforts to profit off the presidency, the committee has a strong interest in obtaining a complete accounting of federal government spending at Trump properties,” Maloney wrote. “The Committee continues to examine potential legislation to prevent presidential self-dealing and profiteering, as well as to curb conflicts of interest by ensuring that future presidents are prevented from exercising undue influence on Secret Service spending. ”

What took so long?

"In 2019, Eric Trump said the Trump Organization was saving the Secret Service agents — and taxpayers who paid the bill — huge sums. “If my father travels, they stay at our properties free,” he said. “So everywhere that he goes, if he stays at one of his places, the government actually spends, meaning it saves a fortune because if they were to go to a hotel across the street, they’d be charging them $500 a night, whereas, you know we charge them, like $50.” In 2020, Eric Trump reiterated that Trump Organization was giving these public servants — and ultimately taxpayers — discounted rates. “We provide the rooms at cost and could make far more money renting them to members or guests,” he said. But the reality was different, the records reveal. During Trump’s presidency, Secret Service supervisors frequently asked for special waivers to let the agency pay far more than the government-approved nightly rate for a hotel in D.C. — usually $195 to $240. Instead, they paid the higher costs the Trump Organization was charging. In April 2017, when Eric Trump and his wife, Lara, were staying at the Trump International Hotel in D.C., the president’s company charged the Secret Service agents $1,160 — more than four times the government rate at the time — the records show. In November 2017, when Donald Trump, Jr., stayed at the same hotel, the government was charged $1,185 a night for his security detail staying overnight at the hotel to protect him — almost six times the government rate, which varies based on time and location."

How about that? Nothing quite like the truth, is there?

"Maloney stressed that the Secret Service continues to pay the Trump Organization while protecting Trump since he left office, and she is concerned by reports of excessive fees the agency is charged for the former president’s travels. Her committee obtained records that stretch over his four-year presidency and continue from President Biden’s inauguration to September 2021. Maloney noted in her letter to the Secret Service director that records turned over to her committee do not include the agency’s payments for a series of visits to Trump’s private club at Mar-a-Lago; some visits to his property at Bedminster, N.J.; and for stays at Trump properties outside the United States during frequent foreign travel by Trump and his family."

10-14-22

Follow-up to Trump Mar-a-Logo search. NBC News reports:

"Christina Bobb, the attorney who signed a letter certifying that all sensitive records in former President Donald Trump's possession had been returned to the government, spoke to federal investigators Friday and named two other Trump attorneys involved with the case, according to three sources familiar with the matter. The certification statement, signed June 3 by Bobb, indicated that Trump was in compliance with a May grand jury subpoena and no longer had possession of a host of documents with classification markings at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation. Their accounts correspond with federal court records, though the Justice Department did not name her as the attorney who signed the statement, or identify any others involved, in its filings."

Readers will recall:

"After Justice Department officials were given the statement, the FBI subsequently determined the substance of the certification was untrue and, on Aug. 8, agents executed a search warrant and seized 103 more records with classification markings, court documents show. Bobb, who was Trump’s custodian of record at the time, did not draft the statement, according to the three sources who do not want to comment publicly because of the sensitive nature of the sprawling federal investigation. Instead, Trump’s lead lawyer in the case at the time, Evan Corcoran, drafted it and told her to sign it, Bobb told investigators according to the sources. Bobb also spoke to investigators about Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn, who she said did not help draft the statement but was minimally involved in discussions about the records, according to the sources. Epshteyn’s cellphone was seized last month by the FBI, according to a New York Times report, citing sources familiar with the matter. Two sources confirmed to NBC News that his phone was seized. Bobb did not return messages seeking comment, nor did Corcoran. The Justice Department did not comment."

Fascinating, isn't it? Plot thickens:

"Before Bobb signed the document, she insisted it be rewritten with a disclaimer that said she was certifying Trump had no more records “based upon the information that has been provided to me,” the sources said of what she told investigators. Bobb identified the person who gave her that “information” as Corcoran, the sources said. “She had to insist on that disclaimer twice before she signed it,” said one source who spoke with Bobb about what she told investigators."

Wisely, covered her gluteus maximi.

"The source said she spoke freely without an immunity deal. “She is not criminally liable," the source said. "She is not going to be charged. She is not pointing fingers. She is simply a witness for the truth.” The certification said that a “diligent search was conducted” for records requested in a May 11 grand jury subpoena and that all relevant requested records were turned over. In an Aug. 31 court filing, which included a copy of the certification, the Justice Department called the statement's veracity into question. “That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter,” the Justice Department wrote."

No question. Called stonewalling. To protect the ass of the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Represented by Tampa attorney John Lauro, Bobb gave her testimony Friday in Washington and spoke to federal investigators, not the grand jury investigating Trump, the source with knowledge of her testimony said. The information she gave could play a crucial part in the widening investigation into Trump concerning his possession of records that the federal government alleges he should not have kept after he left office. In total since January, Trump in his post presidency possessed 325 records with classification markings that were either labeled “TOP SECRET” (60 of them), “SECRET” (162) or “CONFIDENTIAL” (103), the government has indicated in court filings."

Outrageously:

"At his campaign-style rallies, Trump has suggested without evidence that the FBI planted some of the documents while simultaneously arguing he had a right to possess the records anyway. The Justice Department has in court filings pushed back against the claims of evidence-planting, and Trump’s attorneys have so far not raised those claims in court."

Not surprising, is it? The attorneys are covering their ass.

"On Sunday, Trump amplified his unsubstantiated allegations in an Arizona rally that Bobb, a right-wing media commentator, had attended, according to her Twitter feed. The day after Bobb spoke to investigators, The New York Times reported how Trump resisted the federal government’s longstanding requests for the documents, involving aides and lawyers. Meanwhile, the Times and The Washington Post, citing people familiar with the deliberations, have also reported infighting on Trump’s legal team that involves Epshteyn, Corcoran and a new lawyer hired to take over the case, Chris Kise, who could not be reached for comment. “People made [Bobb] the fall guy — or fall gal, for what it’s worth — and it’s wrong,” the source said. “Yes, she signed the declaration. No one disputes that. But what she signed is technically accurate. ... The people who told her to sign it should know better.”

Pressure is ramping up. Screws tightening.

ABC News reports:

"The Department of Justice on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to avoid intervening in the government's ongoing documents dispute with Donald Trump, asserting that the former president is not entitled to have the court put the materials before an independent arbiter. Trump had asked the court to put more than 100 documents with classification markings back in the hands of the special master appointed to review the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago. The DOJ said in their latest filing that Trump "has no plausible claims of ownership or privilege in the documents bearing classification markings" and said that he has never represented in court that he declassified any of the documents -- "much less supported such a representation with competent evidence." A federal appeals court last month excluded those documents from the special master's review and restored the government's access to them as federal prosecutors decide whether any criminal charges are warranted. "Most notably, applicant has not even attempted to explain how he is irreparably injured by the court of appeals' partial stay, which simply prevents disclosure of the documents bearing classification markings in the special-master review during the pendency of the government's expedited appeal," the DOJ's Tuesday filing stated."

Get this:

"The department said Trump "has no basis to demand special master review" of any classified documents. Trump's application was made to the Supreme Court's Clarence Thomas, the justice for the 11th Circuit. Thomas could rule on his own or refer the matter to the full court. In the next 48 hours, the Trump team will file a reply to the DOJ's brief. Then the court could act at any time, though it has not yet shown any indication that it sees this issue as an "emergency" in the way that Trump does."

10-7-22

Update on Trump Mar-a-Lago search. The Associated Press reports:

"The parallel “special master” process spawned by the FBI search of Donald Trump’s Florida estate has slowed the Justice Department’s criminal investigation and exposed simmering tensions between department prosecutors and lawyers for the former president. The probe into the presence of top-secret government information at Mar-a-Lago continues. But barbed comments in the past week’s court filings have laid bare deep disagreements related to the special master’s work. And the filings have made clear that a process the Trump team initially sought has not been playing to the president’s advantage."

Doesn't your heart bleed? Nothing more than egregious stonewalling.

Readers will recall:

"A federal judge in Florida appointed at the Trump team’s request an independent arbiter to inspect the thousands of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago and to weed out from the investigation any that might be protected by claims of either attorney-client privilege or executive privilege. That arbiter, formally known as a special master, is Raymond Dearie. He’s a former federal prosecutor who was appointed a U.S. District judge in Brooklyn by then-President Ronald Reagan. He also has served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. However, since his current appointment by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the scope of his responsibilities has been hemmed in by a federal appeals court. That court last week ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the Justice Department, concluding that it did not have to share with Dearie for his review the roughly 100 documents with classified markings taken during the Aug. 8 search."

Think Trump's a happy camper?

Get this:

"The past week or so has revealed stark divisions in how both sides envision the process playing out, as well as the precise role the special master should have. An early hint surfaced when the Trump team resisted Dearie’s request for any evidence that the documents, as Trump has asserted, had been declassified. A lawyer for Trump, James Trusty, said that inquiry was “premature” and “a little beyond” what Cannon, had had in mind at the time she appointed the special master. Dearie mused aloud that “my view of it is you can’t have your cake and eat it,” by ducking that question."

Doesn't appear Dearie is bought and paid for, does it?

"The following day, in a setback for the Trump team, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overruled an order from Cannon that had temporarily halted the Justice Department’s ability to use the classified documents taken from Mar-a-Lago as part of its criminal investigation. Besides restoring the department’s access, the order also lifted Cannon’s mandate that investigators provide the special master with those records."

How about that?

"More conflict followed, this time related to the scanning and processing of non-classified government records taken from Mar-a-Lago. Government lawyers revealed in a letter Tuesday that none of the five document-review vendors it had recommended for the job was “willing to be engaged” by the Trump team. The Justice Department said it was confident that it would be able to secure the arrangements on its own while noting that it continued to expect the Trump team to pay. But Trusty responded with his own letter Wednesday attributing the difficulty in securing a vendor to the sheer quantity of documents, which he said totaled roughly 200,000 pages. He said the department’s deadlines for the production of documents was overly “aggressive” — “It would be better to base deadlines on actual data and not wistful claims by the Government” — and scolded the department for what he said were its “antagonistic” comments. “DOJ continues to mistake itself as having judicial authority. Its comments are not argument, but proclamations designed to steamroll judicial oversight and the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” Trusty wrote."

Certainly, rattled the shyster's cage, didn't it?

"The FBI’s investigation into the retention of classified records at Mar-a-Lago took a major step forward when the appeals court lifted Cannon’s hold on its ability to use those documents in evaluating whether Trump or anyone else should face criminal charges. Dearie’s work as special master will continue alongside that probe but there’s little chance any action he takes at this point could substantially alter the outcome of the investigation or affect major decisions that lie ahead. Even so, there’s a pending request from Dearie that has attracted significant attention — and any answer to it could prove illuminating. He has given the Trump team until Oct. 7 — the first deadline had been Friday, but has now been pushed back — to raise any objections to the detailed property inventory of documents and items taken by the FBI. That filing matters because Trump and some of his allies have raised unsupported suggestions that the agents who searched his home may have planted evidence. If his lawyers affirm the inventory’s accuracy, they will be contradicting their own client’s claims and also acknowledging the presence of classified materials in the home."

How about that?

"The Justice Department this week made what it called minor revisions to the inventory, but said it was an otherwise full and accurate accounting of what was taken. Yet newly disclosed correspondence suggests the Trump team is balking at making its own public assessment of the inventory’s accuracy. Trusty said in a letter Sunday that the directive that it do so goes beyond what Cannon had envisioned when she appointed Dearie and that, besides, the Trump team does not have access to the classified documents it would need for such a review. The Justice Department, for its part, suggested that the Trump team should not be able to avoid stating its position on the record or following other of Dearie’s directives. “The Special Master needs to know that he is reviewing all of the materials seized from Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022 — and no additional materials — before he categorizes the seized documents and adjudicates privilege claims,” the department said. The letter Tuesday ended with this tart reminder to Trump and his lawyers: “Plaintiff brought this civil, equitable proceeding. He bears the burden of proof.”

Clearly, Trump and his shysters continue to stall and stonewall.

The Washington Post reports:

"Judge Aileen M. Cannon told Donald Trump’s lawyers Thursday that they did not need to comply with an order from special master Raymond J. Dearie and state in a court filing whether they believe FBI agents lied about documents seized from the former president’s Florida residence."

The 'judge' is clearly in the pocket of the Trump nazi who appointed her. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Thursday’s ruling was the first clash between Cannon, a Trump appointee who has generally shown the former president deference in litigation over the Mar-a-Lago investigation, and Dearie, a federal judge she appointed as an outside expert in the case, who appears to be far more skeptical of Trump."

Dearie, unlike Cannon, is clearly not bought and paid for.

"After Trump’s lawyers requested a special master, Cannon chose Dearie to review approximately 11,000 documents seized Aug. 8 from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and residence and determine whether any should be shielded from investigators because of attorney-client or executive privilege."

Nothing more than a stonewalling tactic that clearly has not worked as expected under Dearie. LOL.

"An appeals court separately overruled Cannon’s decision that about 100 additional documents that the government says are classified — some of them top-secret — should be part of Dearie’s review. Dearie last week told the former president’s legal team that it couldn’t suggest in court filings that the government’s description of the seized documents — including whether they were classified — was inaccurate without providing any evidence. He ordered them to submit to the court by Oct. 7 any specific inaccuracies they saw in the government’s inventory list of seized items. It would have been a key test of Trump’s legal strategy, as his lawyers decided whether to back up Trump’s controversial public claims that the FBI planted items at his residence and that he had declassified all the classified documents before leaving office — or whether they would take a more conciliatory approach. But according to Cannon, who has the authority to overrule Dearie’s orders, such a decision is not required right now. “There shall be no separate requirement on Plaintiff at this stage, prior to the review of any of the Seized Materials, to lodge ex ante final objections to the accuracy of Defendant’s Inventory, its descriptions, or its content,” Cannon wrote. The Justice Department could appeal."

Certainly, should. The 'judge' appears to be bought and paid for. In the pocket of the Trump nazi. Justice? What's that?

"Trump’s legal team has argued that answering questions about the inventory list and whether the documents are classified could put them at a disadvantage in the face of a possible future criminal prosecution, or a future legal fight over getting the seized documents returned to Trump. When Trump defense attorney James M. Trusty told Dearie earlier this month that he should not be forced to disclose declarations and witness statements yet, Dearie replied: “My view is you can’t have your cake and eat it.”

Clearly, Dearie is an honest judge. Cannon is not:

"Cannon also addressed ongoing disputes Thursday over deadlines set by Dearie as part of his review, siding with Trump’s team and extending the special master review deadline to Dec. 16. She had originally said Dearie could have until around Thanksgiving to settle any disagreements the two parties had over privilege issues."

Stonewalling for her fuhrer, the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Dearie had suggested he could work on a more expedited schedule and told the parties they would need to finish their portions of the review by Oct. 21. Trump’s team had pushed back against that deadline, saying it was too fast and that they couldn’t find a vendor to scan the documents that was willing to work on that timeline. “This modest enlargement is necessary to permit adequate time for the Special Master’s review and recommendations given the circumstances as they have evolved since entry of the Appointment Order,” Cannon wrote in her order."

Stonewalling for her fuhrer. Bought and paid for.

Readers will recall:

"When Cannon decided to appoint a special master, she said the review should include the seized classified documents. She also barred the Justice Department from accessing the classified documents for its criminal probe until they were reviewed. But the Justice Department successfully appealed that part of the decision, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruling last week that the classified material should not be part of the special master review and that the FBI could use it right away. Trump’s lawyers argued in court filings against the Justice Department’s appeal, saying that the government “has not yet proven” that the documents in the case are classified. The Washington Post has reported that among the classified materials the FBI retrieved from Mar-a-Lago was a document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation. Some of the documents were so highly restricted that only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet-level official could authorize other government officials to know details of them, the people said. One government filing noted that counterintelligence FBI agents and prosecutors investigating the Mar-a-Lago documents were not authorized at first to review some of the material seized."

Still believe Trump fit for office? Not a treasonous autocrat who was an unmitigated disaster as President? Not an exigent threat to life, liberty, all civil and constitutional rights and liberties? Think the families, loved ones who died as a result of Trump's incitement of the 1-6-21 Capitol insurrection support the re-election of this traitorous monster?

The Associated Press reports:

"Lawyers for former President Donald Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to step into the legal fight over the classified documents seized during an FBI search of his Florida estate, escalating a dispute over the powers of an independent arbiter appointed to inspect the records. The Trump team asked the justices to overturn a lower court ruling and allow the arbiter, called a special master, to review the roughly 100 documents with classification markings that were taken in the Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago. A three-judge panel from the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit last month limited the special master’s review to the much larger tranche of non-classified documents. The judges, including two Trump appointees, sided with the Justice Department, which had argued there was no legal basis for the special master to conduct his own review of the classified records. But Trump’s lawyers said in their application to the Supreme Court that it was essential for the special master to have access to the classified records to “determine whether documents bearing classification markings are in fact classified, and regardless of classification, whether those records are personal records or Presidential records.”

Blatant stonewalling:

“Since President Trump had absolute authority over classification decisions during his Presidency, the current status of any disputed document cannot possibly be determined solely by reference to the markings on that document,” the application states. It says that without the special master review, “the unchallenged views of the current Justice Department would supersede the established authority of the Chief Executive.” An independent review, the Trump team says, ensures a “transparent process that provides much-needed oversight.”

Can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit, right, Mr. 'President?'

Readers will recall:

"The FBI says it seized roughly 11,000 documents, including about 100 with classification markings, during its search. The Trump team asked a judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, to appoint a special master to do an independent review of the records. Cannon subsequently assigned a veteran Brooklyn judge, Raymond Dearie, to review the records and segregate those that may be protected by claims of attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. She also barred the FBI from being able to use the classified documents as part of its criminal investigation. The Justice Department appealed, prompting the 11th Circuit to lift Cannon’s hold on investigators’ ability to scrutinize the classified records. The appeals court also ruled that the department did not have to provide Dearie with access to the classified records. Trump’s lawyers submitted the Supreme Court application to Justice Clarence Thomas, who oversees emergency matters from Florida and several other Southern states. Thomas can act on his own or, as is usually done, refer the emergency appeal to the rest of the court."

10-7-22

Think Trump does not present an exigent threat to life, liberty, all civil and constitutional rights and liberties? The Washington Post reports:

"Former president Donald Trump is facing blowback for an inflammatory online message attacking Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that many viewed as a threat. “He has a DEATH WISH,” Trump posted late Friday on his Truth Social platform, criticizing McConnell for agreeing to a deal to fund the government through December. He also disparaged McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, who served as Trump’s transportation secretary and was born in Taiwan, in racist terms, calling her “his China loving wife, Coco Chow!”

Think Trump fit for re-election?

"The post marked a further escalation in an increasingly strained relationship between the two Republican leaders. Trump has repeatedly impugned McConnell’s negotiating positions and called on GOP senators to replace him as their leader. They often had a tense working relationship during Trump’s presidency and fell out in the aftermath of the 2020 election, when Trump refused to concede and tried to overturn the results, and the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday. A Trump spokesman said it was “absurd” to interpret the post as a threat or call for violence, suggesting the reference to a death wish was “political” rather than literal. “Mitch McConnell is killing the Republican Party through weakness and cowardice,” spokesman Taylor Budowich wrote in a statement. “He obviously has a political death wish for himself and Republican Party, but President Trump and the America First champions in Congress will save the Republican Party and our nation.”

Delusionally, think so?

Readers will recall:

"Incendiary statements from Trump have repeatedly inspired his supporters to turn to violence. Jan. 6 rioters, in the moment and in court proceedings, have said they believed they were acting on Trump’s wishes. Lawmakers of both parties have faced increasing threats after crossing Trump. More recently, following Trump’s attacks on the FBI in response to a search of his Mar-a-Lago resort, a gunman tried to breach the bureau’s Cincinnati office while posting about it on Truth Social. He was later killed by police. “He knows exactly what he’s doing, and his recklessness knows no bounds,” prominent Republican lawyer Robert Kelner wrote on Twitter, responding to Trump’s latest post about McConnell. “Despicable.”

Why is Trump receiving special treatment? Why hasn't he been indicted and prosecuted?

"Chao resigned from Trump’s Cabinet shortly after the Jan. 6 attack, saying the assault “deeply troubled me in a way I simply cannot set aside.” McConnell, in a speech after the following month’s impeachment trial, condemned Trump as “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” although he did not vote to convict."

Gutless. Has himself to blame. Failed to stand tall. Placed politics ahead of principle.

9-23-22

Update on the Trump Mar-a-Lago search. NBC News reports:

"A federal judge appointed a special master to review documents the FBI seized from former President Donald Trump's Florida estate while denying the Justice Department continued access to roughly 100 classified documents for use in its criminal investigation."

Outrageous. No more than obstruction of justice and determined stonewalling by a bought and paid for Trump 'jurist.' ... Forget? Trump appointed her.

"In an order Thursday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon named Raymond J. Dearie, a senior U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York, to review all of the materials seized on Aug. 8. The Trump team had proposed Dearie, and Justice officials had previously signaled its approval for him as a potential arbiter to determine if any of the documents are protected by attorney-client or executive privileges. The Justice Department had asked for a stay of the judge's previous motion so it could continue to review the seized documents for use in a criminal investigation. Cannon denied that request, saying she isn’t prepared to accept all of the department's assertions at face value without the special master review process."

Expect better of a bought and paid for Trump 'jurist?'

“The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” Cannon wrote in the Thursday evening ruling."

What a crock of shit. Called stonewalling. For her fuhrer, the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"The Justice Department had argued that the Sept. 5 order impeded the intelligence community’s review of any national security risks posed by improper storage of the documents. Cannon on Thursday, however, insisted that her order didn't restrict the government from continuing to review the seized materials for intelligence classification and national security assessments or from briefing members of Congress. The order, she said, blocked the government "from further use of the content of the seized materials for criminal investigative purposes," such as presenting the materials to a grand jury and using them for witness interviews for a criminal investigation pending Dearie's recommendations. "

Stonewalling for her fuhrer, the Trump nazi, by a bought and paid for 'jurist.'

"The government is likely to challenge Thursday’s decision. The Justice Department said in a court filing last week that it would appeal Cannon’s previous order to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."

As well, it should. Already been far too much delay and special treatment for the top of the food chain, -- the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

No more than blatant stonewalling for her fuhrer, the Trump nazi:

"Cannon laid out the duties of the special master to include conducting a "privilege review" of the documents and checking them against the property inventory, as well as making recommendations about personal items, documents and presidential records that might be under dispute between the parties. Cannon said the special master would also be responsible for evaluating any claims about the return of property. The judge set a deadline of Nov. 30 for Dearie to conclude his review and classifications."

The screws are certainly tightening on the Trump nazi and his henchmen. The Washington Post reports:

"Dozens of subpoenas issued last week show that the Justice Department is seeking vast amounts of information, and communications with more than 100 people, as part of its sprawling inquiry into the origins, fundraising and motives of the effort to block Joe Biden from being certified as president in early 2021. The subpoenas, three of which were reviewed by The Washington Post, are far-reaching, covering 18 separate categories of information, including any communications the recipients had with scores of people in six states where supporters of then-President Donald Trump sought to promote “alternate” electors to replace electors in those states won by Biden. One request is for any communications “to, from, or including” specific people tied to such efforts in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Most of the names listed were proposed fake electors in those states, while a small number were Trump campaign officials who organized the slates. Taken together, the subpoenas show an investigation that began immediately after the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and has cast an ever-widening net, even as it gathers information about those in the former president’s inner circle."

The Associated Press reports:

"The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court Friday to lift a judge’s order that temporarily barred it from reviewing a batch of classified documents seized during an FBI search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida home last month. The department told the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta that the judge’s hold, imposed last week, had impeded the “government’s efforts to protect the nation’s security” and interfered with its investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago. It asked the court to remove that order so work could resume, and to halt a judge’s directive forcing the department to provide the seized classified documents to an independent arbiter for his review. “The government and the public would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay” of the order, department lawyers wrote in their brief to the appeals court."

Here's the problem:

"U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s appointment of a so-called special master to review the documents, and the resulting legal tussle it has caused, appear certain to slow by weeks the department’s investigation into the holding of classified documents at the Florida property after Trump left office. The Justice Department has been investigating possible violations of multiple statutes, including under the Espionage Act, but it remains unclear whether Trump — who has been laying the groundwork for a potential presidential run — or anyone else might be charged."

Readers are reminded the 'judge' is indeed a Trump appointee and certainly appears to have been figuratively bought and paid for, that is, in his pocket.

"The FBI says it took about 11,000 documents, including roughly 100 with classification markings found in a storage room and an office, while serving a court-authorized search warrant at the home on Aug. 8. Weeks after the search, Trump lawyers asked a judge to appoint a special master to conduct an independent review of the records."

Called stonewalling.

"Cannon granted the request last week, assigning a special master to review the records and weed out any that may be covered by claims of attorney-client or executive privilege. She directed the department to halt its use of the classified documents for investigative purposes until further court order, or until the completion of the special master’s work. On Thursday night, she assigned Raymond Dearie, the former chief judge of the federal court based in Brooklyn, to serve in the role. She also declined to lift her earlier order, citing ongoing disputes about the nature of the documents that she said merited a neutral review by an outside arbiter. “The Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” she wrote."

The bought and paid for 'judge?' Clearly, in the pocket of Trump and his henchmen.

"The Justice Department on Friday night told the appeals court that Cannon’s injunction “unduly interferes with the criminal investigation,” prohibiting investigators from “accessing the seized records to evaluate whether charges are appropriate.” It also prevents the FBI from using the seized records in its criminal investigation to determine which documents, if any, were disclosed and to whom, the department said. Though Cannon has said investigators are free to do other investigative work that did not involve a review of the documents, the department said Friday that that was largely impractical. Noting the discovery of dozens of empty folders at Mar-a-Lago marked classified, it said the judge’s hold appeared to bar it from “further reviewing the records to discern any patterns in the types of records that were retained, which could lead to identification of other records still missing.” The department also asked the appeals court to reject Cannon’s order that it provide the newly appointed special master with the classified documents, suggesting there was no reason for the arbiter to review highly sensitive records that did not involve questions of legal privilege. “Plaintiff has no claim for the return of those records, which belong to the government and were seized in a court-authorized search,” department lawyers wrote. “The records are not subject to any possible claim of personal attorney-client privilege. And neither Plaintiff nor the court has cited any authority suggesting that a former President could successfully invoke executive privilege to prevent the Executive Branch from reviewing its own records.” Cannon has directed Dearie to complete his work by Nov. 30 and to prioritize the review of the classified documents. She directed the Justice Department to permit the Trump legal team to inspect the seized classified records with “controlled access conditions” — something government lawyers said Friday was needless and harmful. On Friday, Dearie, a former federal prosecutor, scheduled a preliminary conference with Trump lawyers and Justice Department lawyers for Tuesday afternoon."

While the Justice Department quickly investigated and prosecuted Trump's supporters after the 1-6-21 Capitol insurrection, it foolishly accorded the Trump kingpin special treatment. Dragged its feet. Now, is dearly paying the consequences of that special treatment. In a supposed democratic republic, no one is above the law. From the bottom of the food chain to the very top.

Get this. Quite a stunning development. -- Though not surprising. The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump’s legal team has told a newly appointed independent arbiter that it does not want to answer his questions about the declassification status of the documents seized last month from the former president’s Florida home, saying that issue could be part of Trump’s defense if he’s indicted. Lawyers for Trump and for the Justice Department are to appear in federal court in Brooklyn on Tuesday before a veteran judge named last week as special master to review the roughly 11,000 documents — including about 100 marked as classified — taken during the FBI’s Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago. Ahead of the status conference, Raymond Dearie, the special master, requested the two sides to submit a proposed agenda and also provided a draft plan for how he envisions the process moving forward over the next two months. Trump’s lawyers signaled in a Monday evening letter their objection to several aspects of that draft plan, including a request from Dearie that they disclose to him and to the Justice Department information about the classification status of the seized documents."

The screws are certainly tightening on Trump and his henchmen:

"The resistance to the judge’s request was notable because it was Trump’s lawyers, not the Justice Department, that had requested the appointment of a special master to conduct an independent review of the documents so that any material covered by claims of legal privilege could be segregated from the investigation — and because the former president’s team’s recalcitrance included an acknowledgment that the probe could be building toward an indictment. Trump has maintained without evidence that all of the records were declassified; his lawyers have not echoed that claim, though they have asserted that a president has absolute authority to declassify information."

Certainly, protecting their collective legal ass. -- Apparently, know full well Trump is lying like hell.

"In the letter, Trump’s lawyers say the time for addressing that question would be if they file a motion seeking the return by the Justice Department of some of the property taken from Mar-a-Lago. “Otherwise, the Special Master process will have forced the Plaintiff to fully and specifically disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment.” the lawyers wrote. The Trump team also asked the judge to consider pushing back all of the deadlines for his review. Also Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers asked a federal appeals court to leave in place a different judge’s order that temporarily barred the Justice Department from using the classified documents it seized as part of its criminal investigation. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, in the same order appointing the special master, directed the department to halt its use of the records until Dearie does his own review. The Justice Department challenged that order Friday to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, saying the ruling had impeded the investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago."

Egregious, desperate stonewalling to protect the ass of their fuhrer, the Trump nazi. So is the following:

"Trump lawyers on Tuesday called those concerns overblown, saying the Justice Department has not yet proven that the records remain classified and arguing that, in any event, investigators could still do other work on the probe even without scrutinizing the seized records. “Ultimately, any brief delay to the criminal investigation will not irreparably harm the Government,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “The injunction does not preclude the Government from conducting a criminal investigation, it merely delays the investigation for a short period while a neutral third party reviews the documents in question.”

Disingenuous bullshit by shysters paid to protect the sorry ass of the Trump nazi, -- which, apparently, is in exponentially increasing legal jeopardy. It is egregious stonewalling imposed by Trump's bought and paid for 'judge' that is preventing the Justice Department from resolving precisely what happened to those missing classified records. Indeed, a ludicrous "Catch-22."

NBC News reports:

"The special master appointed to review documents seized by federal agents who searched former President Donald Trump's Florida estate appeared doubtful Tuesday about Trump's contention that he had declassified the various top secret and other highly sensitive documents found there. The special master, Senior U.S. District Judge Raymond J. Dearie, had previously asked Trump's attorneys for more information about which of the over 100 sensitive documents federal agents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate might have been declassified. Trump's attorneys had told the judge in a letter Monday night they didn't want to disclose that information yet because it could force them to prematurely "disclose a defense to the merits of any subsequent indictment." During a hearing in a Brooklyn federal court, Dearie noted the current case is a civil dispute, not a criminal one, but that he was taking the government's concerns about national security seriously. "We should not forget that we are dealing with classified information and the government has an obligation that information doesn’t get in the wrong hands," Dearie said. While Trump's filing claimed neither side had provided a showing that the documents are classified, Dearie said the government had presented "prima facie evidence" that the documents are, because they bear classification markings. "As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it," Dearie said, unless Trump's team has some evidence to the contrary."

Trump's shysters continue to stonewall.

"Trump has claimed on social media that he declassified all the records he had in his possession, but his lawyers have yet to formally make that argument in any sworn court filings in the case."

Apparently, they know Trump's lying.

"Trump attorney James Trusty maintained that "we should not be in a position to have to disclose declarations" and witness statements on the classification issue. Dearie suggested their not doing so could be problematic for their current case. "My view is you can’t have your cake and eat it too," Dearie said. Justice Department lawyer Julie Edelstein noted that some of the documents that were recovered "are so secret some of our team has not seen them" and they can only be reviewed on a "need to know basis." "We have a need to know," Trusty countered. The judge told Trump's lawyer “it’s a need to know basis and if you need to know, you will know.” Dearie said he would issue a scheduling order in the case later Tuesday, and noted that "there are 11,000 documents" at issue in the case and "we have a short period of time" to review them for privilege issues. Trusty urged Dearie not to move too quickly. “We are starting from scratch and we would be well served to have time to look at the documents," Trusty said."

Egregious stonewalling.

Think Trump rational? The Associated Press reports:

"After winking at QAnon for years, Donald Trump is overtly embracing the baseless conspiracy theory, even as the number of frightening real-world events linked to it grows. On Tuesday, using his Truth Social platform, the Republican former president reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.” In QAnon lore, the “storm” refers to Trump’s final victory, when supposedly he will regain power and his opponents will be tried, and potentially executed, on live television. As Trump contemplates another run for the presidency and has become increasingly assertive in the Republican primary process during the midterm elections, his actions show that far from distancing himself from the political fringe, he is welcoming it. He’s published dozens of recent Q-related posts, in contrast to 2020, when he claimed that while he didn’t know much about QAnon, he couldn’t disprove its conspiracy theory. Pressed on QAnon theories that Trump allegedly is saving the nation from a satanic cult of child sex traffickers, he claimed ignorance but asked, “Is that supposed to be a bad thing?” “If I can help save the world from problems, I’m willing to do it,” Trump said. Trump’s recent postings have included images referring to himself as a martyr fighting criminals, psychopaths and the so-called deep state. In one now-deleted post from late August, he reposted a “q drop,” one of the cryptic message board postings that QAnon supporters claim come from an anonymous government worker with top secret clearance."

Pressure increasing on Trump. The Associated Press reports:

"New York’s attorney general sued former President Donald Trump and his company Wednesday, alleging business fraud involving some of their most prized assets, including properties in Manhattan, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit, filed in state court in New York, is the culmination of the Democrat’s three-year civil investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization. Three of Trump’s adult children, Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump, were also named as defendants, along with two longtime company executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney. The lawsuit seeks to strike at the core of what made Trump famous, taking a blacklight to the image of wealth and opulence he’s embraced throughout his career — first as a real estate developer, then as a reality TV host on “The Apprentice” and “Celebrity Apprentice,” and later as president. James, a Democrat, announced details of the lawsuit at a news conference on Wednesday. The case showed up on a court docket Wednesday morning. James said Trump “falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars.” The goal, the attorney general’s office has said, was to burnish Trump’s billionaire image and the value of his properties when doing so gave him an advantage, while playing down the value of assets at other times for tax purposes. “This investigation revealed that Donald Trump engaged in years of illegal conduct to inflate his net worth, to deceive banks and the people of the great state of New York,” James said at the news conference. “Claiming you have money that you do not have does not amount to the art of the deal. It’s the art of the steal.”

No shit. LOL. Sadly, goes on throughout the entire business community. -- Though no one seems to have done it better than Trump and his cronies.

"James is seeking to remove the Trumps from businesses engaged in the alleged fraud and wants an independent monitor appointed for no less than five years to oversee the Trump Organization’s compliance, financial reporting, valuations and disclosures to lenders, insurers and tax authorities. She is seeking to replace the current trustees of Trump’s revocable trust, which controls his business interests, with independent trustees, to bar Trump and the Trump Organization from entering into commercial real estate acquisitions for five years, from obtaining loans from banks in New York for five years and permanently bar Trump and three of his adult children from serving as an officer or director in any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State. She also seeks to permanently bar Weisselberg and McConney from serving in the financial control function of any New York corporation or similar business entity registered and/or licensed in New York State."

More importantly?

"James said her investigation uncovered potential criminal violations, including falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements, insurance fraud, conspiracy and bank fraud. She said her office is referring those findings to federal prosecutors and the Internal Revenue Service."

What took so long? LOL.

Not to be outdone, a Trump shyster came out swinging:

"Alina Habba, an attorney for Trump, said the lawsuit “is neither focused on the facts nor the law — rather, it is solely focused on advancing the Attorney General’s political agenda.” “It is abundantly clear that the Attorney General’s Office has exceeded its statutory authority by prying into transactions where absolutely no wrongdoing has taken place,” Habba said. “We are confident that our judicial system will not stand for this unchecked abuse of authority, and we look forward to defending our client against each and every one of the Attorney General’s meritless claims.”

Her client, sadly, is a congenital liar. Think defending him will be easy? Especially, since the screws are tightening:

"James’ lawsuit comes amid a swirl of unprecedented legal challenges for a former president, including an FBI investigation into Trump’s handling of classified records and inquiries into his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The Trump Organization is set to go on trial in October in a criminal case alleging that it schemed to give untaxed perks to senior executives, including its longtime finance chief Weisselberg, who alone took more than $1.7 million in extras. Weisselberg, 75, pleaded guilty Aug. 18. His plea agreement requires him to testify at the company’s trial before he starts a five-month jail sentence. If convicted, the Trump Organization could face a fine of double the amount of unpaid taxes. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has been conducting a parallel criminal investigation of the same business practices at the heart of James’ civil lawsuit. That probe lost momentum earlier this year after Bragg raised questions internally about whether a criminal case was viable, but the Democrat has said it has not been abandoned. At the same time, the FBI is continuing to investigate Trump’s storage of sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, and a special grand jury in Georgia is investigating whether Trump and others attempted to influence state election officials.

"State law allows a broad range of civil remedies against companies committing commercial fraud, including revoking licenses to conduct business in the state, removing company officers and forcing the payment of restitution or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. James’ office could also seek to ban Trump from being involved in certain types of businesses, as happened in January when a judge barred ex-drug company CEO Martin Shkreli from the pharmaceutical industry for life. In a previous clash with Trump, James oversaw the closure of his charity, the Trump Foundation, after her predecessor in the attorney general’s office, Barbara Underwood, filed a lawsuit alleging he misused its assets to resolve business disputes and boost his run for the White House. A judge ordered Trump to pay $2 million to an array of charities to settle the matter. James, who campaigned for office as a Trump critic and watchdog, started scrutinizing his business practices in March 2019 after his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen testified to Congress that Trump exaggerated his wealth on financial statements provided to Deutsche Bank when he was trying to obtain financing to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills. Since then, James’ office and Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly sparred over the direction of the investigation and Trump’s unwillingness to comply with subpoenas for his testimony and records. Trump spent months fighting the subpoena that led to his August deposition, his lawyers unable to convince courts that he should be excused from testifying because his answers could be used in Bragg’s criminal probe. In May, Trump paid $110,000 in fines after he was held in contempt of court for being slow to respond to a subpoena James’ office issued seeking documents and other evidence. The contempt finding was lifted in June after Trump and his lawyers submitted paperwork showing they had made a good faith effort to find relevant documents."

The Associated Press reports:

"In a statement posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump called the lawsuit “Another Witch Hunt by a racist Attorney General” and called James, who is Black, “a fraud who campaigned on a ‘get Trump’ platform, despite the fact that the city is one of the crime and murder disasters of the world under her watch!”

The Associated Press reports:

"In a stark repudiation of Donald Trump’s legal arguments, a federal appeals court on Wednesday permitted the Justice Department to resume its use of classified records seized from the former president’s Florida estate as part of its ongoing criminal investigation. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit amounts to an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department, clearing the way for investigators to continue scrutinizing the documents as they consider whether to bring criminal charges over the storage of of top-secret records at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left the White House. In lifting a hold on a core aspect of the department’s probe, the court removed an obstacle that could have delayed the investigation by weeks. The appeals court also pointedly noted that Trump had presented no evidence that he had declassified the sensitive records, as he maintained as recently as Wednesday, and rejected the possibility that Trump could have an “individual interest in or need for” the roughly 100 documents with classification markings that were seized by the FBI in its Aug. 8 search of the Palm Beach property. “If you’re the president of the United States, you can declassify just by saying ‘It’s declassified.’ Even by thinking about it...You’re the president, you make that decision,” Trump claimed in a Fox News Channel interview recorded Wednesday before the appeals court ruling."

Raw insanity of a dictator.

"The government had argued that its investigation had been impeded, and national security concerns swept aside, by an order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that temporarily barred investigators from continuing to use the documents in its inquiry. Cannon, a Trump appointee, had said the hold would remain in place pending a separate review by an independent arbiter she had appointed at the Trump team’s request to review the records. The appeals panel agreed with the Justice Department’s concerns. “It is self-evident that the public has a strong interest in ensuring that the storage of the classified records did not result in ‘exceptionally grave damage to the national security,’” they wrote. “Ascertaining that,” they added, “necessarily involves reviewing the documents, determining who had access to them and when, and deciding which (if any) sources or methods are compromised.” An injunction that delayed or prevented the criminal investigation “from using classified materials risks imposing real and significant harm on the United States and the public,” they wrote. Two of the three judges who issued Wednesday’s ruling — Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher — were nominated to the 11th Circuit by Trump. Judge Robin Rosenbaum was nominated by former President Barack Obama. Lawyers for Trump did not return an email seeking comment on whether they would appeal the ruling. The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment.

"Though Trump’s lawyers have said a president has absolute authority to declassify information, they have notably stopped short of asserting that the records were declassified. The Trump team this week resisted providing Dearie with any information to support the idea that the records might have been declassified, saying the issue could be part of their defense in the event of an indictment. The Justice Department has said there is no indication that Trump took any steps to declassify the documents and even included a photo in one court filing of some of the seized documents with colored cover sheets indicating their classified status. The appeals court, too, made the same point. “Plaintiff suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was President. But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified,” the judges wrote. “In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal.”

9-16-22

Update on the Trump Mar-a-Lago search. NBC News reports:

"The Justice Department will appeal a judge's ruling for a special master to look at the documents seized during the search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, according to a notification filed Thursday. The Justice Department will file their appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the filing said. The Justice Department also asked for a partial stay of the judge's ruling while the appeal is pending, saying "the government and the public are irreparably injured when a criminal investigation of matters involving risks to national security is enjoined."

Readers will recall:

"U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, a 41-year-old Trump appointee who was confirmed to the Southern District of Florida at the tail-end of the Trump administration, granted Trump's request for a special master on Monday. Her ruling was widely panned by the legal community, especially given her unprecedented decision to give a special master authority not only over documents protected by attorney-client privilege but over Trump's purported claims of executive privilege. "The classification markings establish on the face of the documents that they are government records, not Plaintiff’s personal records," the government wrote Thursday. "The government’s review of those records does not raise any plausible attorney-client privilege claims because such classified records do not contain communications between Plaintiff and his private attorneys. And for several reasons, no potential assertion of executive privilege could justify restricting the Executive Branch’s review and use of the classified records at issue here."

Readers will also recall:

"When the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago one month ago, the Justice Department says it found more than 11,000 pages of government documents that — under the Presidential Records Act — belonged in the custody of the National Archives. They also found hundreds of pages on documents with classified markings, despite the fact that a Trump lawyer attested that the former president no longer possessed classified records after turning over 38 classified documents in June in response to a grand jury subpoena. Earlier in the year, Trump turned over boxes of documents to the National Archives that contained more than 700 pages of classified records. The government argued that there was evidence that the Trump team "concealed and removed" additional classified documents that had been stored at Mar-a-Lago before the FBI's August search took place. A federal magistrate judge found probable cause that evidence of crimes would be found at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate and signed off on the FBI's warrant to search the property. In fact, the FBI found more than 100 classified records that Trump was not supposed to have, DOJ said in a court filing last week, along with the more than 11,000 government documents that properly belonged in the National Archives."

NPR reports:

"The Justice Department is appealing part of a judge's order that would give a special master authority to review documents the FBI collected at Mar-a-Lago last month. Prosecutors say they have serious concerns about handing government secrets to a third party. In her order from Monday, Cannon, a Trump appointee, also ordered federal prosecutors to pause using those documents in their investigation into obstruction and mishandling of government secrets. But she allowed the intelligence community continue its review to determine potential national security risks from the classified material being kept outside of a secure government facility. The decision from the DOJ to appeal was expected."

No more than a delaying tactic sought by Trump, his henchmen, and his bought and paid for 'judge.'

"In their filing Thursday, the government is asking for a stay on the judge's order to halt its use of these classified records for its criminal investigation and that it turn over these documents to a special master for review. Authorities want to be able to review those classified papers freely and don't want to give them to any third party right now. In its filing the government says the intelligence community has paused its security review because it is impossible to segregate it from the criminal probe. Additionally the government said it wants to know what was in the empty folders marked classified, which were also seized at Mar-a-Lago. The Justice Department is asking that Cannon rule on both these matters by Thursday September 15th and failing that, it "intends to seek relief from the Eleventh Circuit." Cannon had set a deadline of Friday, Sept. 9, for the two parties to submit a joint filing with a list of proposed candidates to be named special master. In the filing, the government said it "will provide its views on those issues by Friday."

ABC News reports:

"About 40 subpoenas were issued by the Justice Department last week as part of its criminal investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. Among those subpoenaed are close advisers to former President Donald Trump, as well as former White House officials and staffers from his 2020 presidential campaign ranging from lower-level staffers to those at the highest levels of the campaign. At least one top Trump adviser, Boris Epshteyn, recently had his phone seized as part of this effort, the sources said. Epshteyn did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News. The New York Times first reported news of the roughly 40 subpoenas. As ABC News has previous[ly] reported, the subpoenas are seeking information from witnesses about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the events leading up to and surrounding the Jan. 6 attack, and the fundraising and spending efforts of the Trump-aligned Save America PAC."

9-16-22

Trump gets his. The Associated Press reports:

"A federal judge in Florida has dismissed Donald Trump’s lawsuit against 2016 Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and former top FBI officials, rejecting the former president’s claims that they and others acted in concert to concoct the Russia investigation that shadowed much of his administration. U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks said in a sharply worded ruling on Thursday that Trump’s lawsuit, filed in March, contained “glaring structural deficiencies” and that many of the “characterizations of events are implausible.”

LOL.

"He dismissed the idea that Trump had sued to correct an actual legal harm, saying that “instead, he is seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.”

LOL.

"The lawsuit had named as defendants Clinton and some of her top advisers, as well as former FBI Director James Comey and other FBI officials involved in the investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign had coordinated with Russia to sway the outcome of the election. Other defendants include the founders of a political research firm that hired a former British spy to investigate ties between Trump and Russia, and a well-connected Democratic lawyer who was recently acquitted on a charge of lying to the FBI during a 2016 meeting in which he presented the bureau with information he wanted it to investigate. But none of the claims, the judge wrote, supported Trump’s claims of a conspiracy against him."

Surprised?

“What the Amended Complaint lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” Middlebrooks wrote."

LOL.

"A 2019 Justice Department inspector general report did identify certain flaws by the FBI during the Russia investigation, but did not find evidence that the bureau’s leaders were motivated by political bias in opening the probe and said the inquiry was started for a legitimate purpose. A separate investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller produced criminal charges against nearly three dozen people and entities and found pervasive Russian interference in the election, but did not establish a criminal conspiracy with the Trump campaign. Alina Habba, a lawyer for Trump, said Friday that Trump would appeal the dismissal."

Surprised? LOL.

9-9-22

More on the Trump Mar-a-Lago search. NBC News reports:

"In addition to troves of information marked "secret" and "top secret," the FBI's search of former President Donald Trump's Florida home turned up over 10,000 U.S. government documents and photographs without classification markings, a newly unsealed Justice Department inventory of the seized items shows. The Justice Department court filing, filed under seal earlier this week but unsealed by a judge Friday, also shows investigators found more than 40 empty folders with "classified" banners on them at Mar-a-Lago. It's unclear what happened to the information that had been inside the folders. They also found almost four dozen empty folders marked "Return to Staff Secretary/Military Aide," according to the detailed property inventory. The government has not publicly indicated that it believes any classified documents are missing. In a court filing earlier this week, it noted that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is leading a damage assessment of the documents removed from Mar-a-Lago, to determine the potential risk to national security that "improper storage of these highly sensitive materials may have caused" and identify "measures to rectify or mitigate" such damages."

Readers will recall:

"Trump's lawyers had complained that the initial property receipt the government had given them after the search — which showed that federal agents had removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some labeled secret and top secret — was too vague and didn't say which items were found where. The new version doesn't shed much more light on the documents that investigators found, but it does show that a large number of them were found inside boxes and containers inside Trump's "45 office" in the resort. The receipt said 17 documents marked "secret" were found in the office as well as seven marked "top secret." That's significant because Trump's attorneys had told investigators that all the records that had come from the White House were being kept in a Mar-a-Lago storage room, which agents had asked be kept secure, according to the government's court filings. That exchange happened in June, after the government subpoenaed Trump to turn over all documents with classification markings and Trump's lawyer assured them that they had."

Somebody lie?

"The Justice Department said the August search turned over "one hundred unique documents with classification markings," and the new property receipt indicates some were kept in a haphazard manner. One "box/container" in the storage room contained 21 documents marked "Secret" and 11 documents marked "Confidential" alongside newspaper clippings, a book and three "articles of clothing/gift items."

"Lawyers for the Justice Department said all the government documents that were retrieved belong to the White House, not Trump, and that he and his lawyers flouted a subpoena demanding the return of all documents with classification markings."

The Associated Press reports:

" FBI agents who searched former President Donald Trump’s Florida home last month found top secret records in an office and storage room, along with folders with classified banners but nothing inside and more than 10,000 other government records with no classification markings, according to a more detailed inventory of the seized material made public on Friday. The inventory compiled by the Justice Department reveals in general terms the contents of 33 boxes and containers taken from an office and a storage room at Mar-a-Lago during the Aug. 8 search. Though the inventory does not describe the content of the documents, it shows the extent to which classified information — including material at the top-secret level — was stashed in boxes at the home and mixed among newspapers, magazines, clothing and other personal items. It also makes clear for the first time the volume of unclassified government documents at the home even though presidential records were to have been turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration. The Archives had tried unsuccessfully for months to secure their return from Trump and then contacted the FBI after locating classified information in a batch of 15 boxes it received in January."

The screws are certainly tightening. Pressure ratcheting up.

"The Justice Department has said there was no secure space at Mar-a-Lago for sensitive government secrets, and has opened a criminal investigation focused on their retention there and on what it says were efforts in the past several months to obstruct the probe. It is also investigating potential violations of a law that criminalizes the mutilation or concealment of government records, classified or not. Lawyers for Trump did not immediately return an email seeking comment Friday. Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich asserted that the FBI search was a “SMASH AND GRAB” — though the Justice Department had received court-authorized permission to search specific locations in the home. The inventory was released as the Justice Department undertakes its criminal investigation, as intelligence agencies assess any potential damage caused by mishandling of classified information and as a judge weighs whether to appoint a special master — essentially an outside legal expert — to review the records."

A delaying tactic sought by Trump and his henchmen.

"The inventory had been filed earlier under seal, but the Justice Department had said that given the “extraordinary circumstances,” it did not object to making it public. Trump himself has previously called for the disclosure of documents related to the search. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon said on Thursday that she planned to unseal the inventory and did so on Friday. All told, the inventory shows, the FBI seized more than 100 documents with classification markings in August, including 18 marked top secret, 54 secret and 31 confidential. The FBI identified 184 documents marked as classified in 15 boxes recovered by the National Archives in January, and received additional classified documents during a June visit to Mar-a-Lago."

Most disturbing of all?

"The court filings have not offered an explanation for why Trump had kept the classified documents, and why he and his representatives did not give them when requested. The inventory shows that 43 empty folders with classified banners were taken from a box or container at the office, along with an additional 28 empty folders labeled as “Return to Staff Secretary” or military aide. Empty folders of that nature were also found in a storage closet. It is not clear from the inventory list what might have happened to any of the documents that apparently had been inside."

Still think Trump fit for office?

"Separately Friday, the Justice Department said in a court filing that it had reviewed the records seized during the recent search and had segregated those with classified markings to ensure that they were being stored according to proper protocol and procedure. “The seized materials will continue to be used to further the government’s investigation, and the investigative team will continue to use and evaluate the seized materials as it takes further investigative steps, such as through additional witness interviews and grand jury practice,” the department said. It added that “additional evidence pertaining to the seized items,” including the manner in which they were stored, “will inform the government’s investigation.”

Why did it take well over a year and a half to get to this point? When his supporters who stormed the Capitol were quickly investigated, prosecuted, and sentenced? Why special treatment accorded the Trump nazi? Forget? In a supposed democratic republic, no one is above the law. From the bottom of the food chain to the very top.

Not all Republicans are part of the nazi element in the Republican Party. Several have indeed stood tall. Former Trump Attorney General William Barr is certainly one of them. NBC News reports:

"The former attorney general, who once had a reputation as a Trump yes man, believes the search of his home was justified and voiced skepticism of Trump's defenses. Former Attorney General William Barr suggested Friday that the president who appointed him misled the Justice Department in its investigation of government records and classified documents Donald Trump stored at his Florida home after he left office. For 16 months, Trump tussled with the National Archives and Records Administration and then the Justice Department when the agencies tried to hasten the return of the records from his Mar-a-Lago home. The dispute reached a crisis point Aug. 8 when the FBI searched the residence and found more presidential records and sensitive documents — despite a Trump attorney signing an attestation in June that no more material remained there."

Think that attorney may have a problem?

“They jawboned for a year, they were deceived on the voluntary actions taken, they then went and got a subpoena, they were deceived on that — they feel,” Barr said in an interview on Fox News on Friday of the government's action in the case. “The facts are starting to show they were being jerked around, so how long do they wait?” Barr also sided with Justice Department in saying that the documents belonged to the government, not Trump. It’s unclear what was in the classified records taken by Trump or why he took them, and Barr said he couldn’t figure out what Trump’s motives were. “I can’t think of a legitimate reason why” the documents were taken, Barr said, swiping at Trump’s defenders who said that he could declassify records en masse by mere verbal or mental fiat. “I, frankly, am skeptical of this claim that 'I declassified everything,'” Barr said. “I think it’s highly improbable … if in fact he sort of stood over scores of boxes, not really knowing what was in them, and said, 'I hereby declassify everything in here.' That would be such an abuse, and — that shows such recklessness that it’s almost worse than taking the documents.” Barr said that Trump's motion for a special master to review the documents taken at Mar-a-Lago was a "red herring" and a "waste of time," adding that he believed the search warrant was justified because “for them to have taken things to the current point they probably have pretty good evidence, but that’s speculation.”

Think the following is anything more than desperate stonewalling, -- as the walls close in on the Trump nazi?

"But Trump lawyer Chris Kise said there needs to be an independent review of the information seized at Mar-a-Lago. "I do not at all think this would be a waste of time," Kise said. "A special master would help identify the real issues, place those issues in the proper context and perhaps most importantly, give the American people greater confidence in the integrity of the process."

We already know the 'real issues,' Counselor. They're abundantly clear. Your client was in personal possession of highly classified material. Not to neglect to mention other presidential documents belonging to the American people by law, not the former president. -- After leaving office. Moreover, the only people questioning the 'integrity of the process' remain the nazi element in the Republican Party who have delusionally bought the bullshit of a congenital liar.

"Barr’s criticisms of his former boss are notable after earning a reputation as a loyalist in 2019 when he led the Justice Department and relied on a controversial memo to avoid charging Trump with obstructing justice following the Mueller investigation into Trump's ties to Russia."

Quite true. Better late than never. LOL. Clearly, at least, he's beginning to see the light:

"Barr, however, did appear to side to a degree with Trump’s legal defense, which partly seeks to cast the controversy as a records dispute gone awry. “Given the fact this is a former president, given the state of the nation … and given the fact that the government has gotten its documents back — does it really make sense to bring a case as a matter of prudential judgment?” Barr asked. “And that’s a question that I think will turn on how clear the evidence of obstruction or deceit is,” he said. “If they clearly have the president moving stuff around, and hiding stuff in his desk, and telling people to dissemble with the government, they may be inclined to bring that case. And, you know, there’s going to be differences of opinion whether that makes sense. But we really have to know the facts to see, you know, to make a judgment about that. I hope it doesn’t happen.”

Nothing quite like the double talk of an attorney, is there? LOL.

Gets worse. Get this:

"Pointing to Barr's question about "prudential judgment," Kise said, "My answer would be no. we’re talking about an extraordinary step here: indicting a former president over the handling of information that he was fully entitled to access in the first place.”

Jesus Christ. What a crock of disingenuous bullshit. Wake up, Counselor. The issue is not access. It's personal possession of highly classified material and presidential documents belonging by law to the American people long after the former president left office. Moreover, in a democratic republic, no one is above the law. From the bottom of the food chain to the very top.

"According to the government, however, the issue at hand was that Trump was not lawfully in possession of the records, some of which needed to be stored in secure facilities because they were so highly classified."

Exponentially growing desperation by Trump and his stooges:

"Trump spokesperson Taylor Budowich accused Barr of drawing attention to himself for profit. “Bill Barr is desperately trying to salvage his underperforming book, and is willing to do or say anything that will get himself in front of a camera,” Budowich said."

Isn't that precisely what Trump and his stooges are doing? LOL. The hypocrisy, stunning.

"Barr began to politically distance himself from Trump after the 2020 election when he stated publicly that the former president had no basis for claiming that widespread voter fraud cost him a second term. Barr also criticized Trump in testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol riot."

Hard to believe there aren't many others in the Republican Party beginning to see the light. That is, recognizing Trump for the congenital liar he is.

"Following the riot, Trump departed the White House for Mar-a-Lago and brought along loads of classified records and documents related to his presidency that the National Archives sought in 2021. After Trump surrendered some boxes of documents to the agency that had classified records, NARA notified the Justice Department, which opened a formal investigation, subpoenaed Trump and then received more records in June from the former president. Trump’s custodian of records at the time, Christina Bobb, signed an attestation guaranteeing that all responsive records had been given to the government, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter. But the Justice Department soon determined that wasn’t true, leading to the search warrant, according to legal filings made by the Justice Department. The attestation Bobb signed was drafted by another Trump attorney, Evan Corcoran, who remains on the former president's legal team but could leave the team if he becomes a witness in the case. Neither could be reached for comment."

Both appear to be in legal jeopardy.

The following is a serious problem:

"It’s unclear why Trump had the records, why he didn’t give them all back or why his representatives apparently misled the government. Trump's legal team has denied he lied about the records he possessed and instead described the imbroglio as a misunderstanding that went awry."

Clearly, that's nonsense. Does not jive with reality from all that's transpired to date.

Gets worse. More delusional and desperate:

“We’ve characterized it at times as an overdue-library-book scenario where there’s a dispute — not even a dispute — but ongoing negotiations with NARA that has suddenly been transformed into a criminal investigation,” Trump lawyer Jim Trusty said in court Thursday."

Again, clearly, does not jive with reality from all that's transpired to date.

"Barr on Friday said it’s a unique situation, but he faulted Trump for that — not the government. “I think the driver on this from the beginning was loads of classified information sitting in Mar-A-Lago,” Barr said. “People say this was unprecedented, well, it’s also unprecedented for a president to take all this classified information and put them in a country club.”

No question. None of this makes sense. None of it rational.

Yet, the 'judge' bought Trump's bullshit. Think not? Wake up. The Associated Press reports:

"In a legal victory for former President Donald Trump, a federal judge on Monday granted his request for a special master to review documents seized by the FBI from his Florida home and also temporarily halted the Justice Department’s own use of the records for investigative purposes."

The 'judge' is in the pocket of Trump and his henchmen. Forget? A Trump appointee. Anything to protect her fuhrer. Sad, isn't it? Will certainly delay the investigation. -- An investigation of the kingpin already delayed more than a year and a half.

"The order came despite the strenuous objections of the Justice Department, which said a special master was not necessary in part because officials had already completed their review of potentially privileged documents. The department said it was reviewing the decision."

Here's the problem as clearly determined and deliberately imposed by a 'judge' with an agenda:

"The order almost certainly slows the pace of the department’s investigation into the presence of top-secret information at Mar-a-Lago, particularly given the judge’s directive that the Justice Department may not for the moment use any of the seized materials as part of its investigation into the storage of government secrets at the Florida property. That injunction is in place until the yet-to-be-named special master completes his or her work, “or further court order.”

Disingenuous bullshit, abject, clearly intended double talk:

“The Court is mindful that restraints on criminal prosecutions are disfavored, but finds that these unprecedented circumstances call for a brief pause to allow for neutral, third-party review to ensure a just process with adequate safeguards,” Cannon, a Trump appointee, wrote in her 24-page order."

Anything at all to stall, delay, obfuscate quick prosecution at the very top of the food chain. In a supposed democratic republic, justice applies equally to all from the bottom of the food chain to the highest pinnacles of power. Clearly, not so in our formerly great country. To date, Trump has been protected and coddled. Not so his supporters who stormed the Capitol. Indeed, nazi justice. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Even so, it is not clear that the decision will have a significant effect on long-term investigative or charging decisions or the ultimate outcome of the probe. A separate assessment by the U.S. intelligence community of the risk posed by the apparent mishandling of classified records will continue under the judge’s order. “While this is a victory for the former President, it is by no means an overwhelming win for him,” David Weinstein, a Florida criminal defense lawyer and former Justice Department prosecutor, said in an email. “While it is a setback for the government, it is also not a devastating loss for them.”

What it does is give the Trump nazi additional time to radicalize his henchmen in the Republican Party, provide his sick sycophants additional motivation to mobilize.

"Justice Department spokesman Anthony Coley said Monday that “the United States is examining the opinion and will consider appropriate next steps in the ongoing litigation.”

The following is disingenuous bullshit embraced by a 'judge' beholden to her fuhrer:

"Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump in 2020, had signaled in a brief order last month that she was inclined to appoint a special master and did so again during arguments last week, asking at one point, “Ultimately, what is the harm in the appointment of a special master to sort through these issues without creating undo delay?”

Truly believe the public buys your bullshit, 'Judge?' -- Not surprisingly, a Trump appointee. Without question, delay is clearly your intention. As you protect and coddle your fuhrer, the Trump nazi, in return. Proud of yourself?

NBC News reports:

"A judge's order approving a special master to review documents the FBI took from former President Donald Trump's Florida home is a deeply flawed and unworkable mess, legal experts told NBC News on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday granted Trump’s request to have a special master review all the evidence seized last month from his Mar-a-Lago estate and temporarily blocked parts of the Justice Department’s investigation into the trove of top secret and classified documents retrieved by federal agents. Cannon, 41, a Trump appointee, also put forth legal defense arguments that Trump's team hadn't made, among them that the former president could suffer reputational "injury" if the Justice Department indicted him."

'Judge' bought and paid for?

"Legal experts blasted the overall ruling and questioned how it could be implemented, while warning that an appeal by the government could drag the investigation out further. “I think it’s a corrupt decision. I think it is a special law just for Donald Trump by a Trump appointee, and it is unmoored from precedent, insupportable in law, will not be approved of by anybody who isn’t a Trump fanatic,” said Paul Rosenzweig, a Department of Homeland Security official under former President George W. Bush. “It is supremely disappointing, because up until now … the courts have been the last bulwark against excess, and this decision suggests that at least some of Trump’s judges put loyalty to the man over loyalty to the rule of law, and that’s deeply unfortunate,” said Rosenzweig, who was senior counsel to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security issues, said that Cannon's decision is “not well-founded in any law or legal theory” and that it included “far better advocacy for the former president’s legal position than anything his actual lawyers put forward.”

Fascinating, isn't it? Think we haven't lost our country?

“My view is that, at a minimum, the Justice Department is going to have to appeal” the part of the order that temporarily stops the Justice Department from using the seized documents to proceed with its criminal investigation, Moss said. But, he cautioned, an appeal is no easy path. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would hear any appeal in this case, "has taken a particular conservative turn, and the U.S. Supreme Court is 6-3 in favor the conservatives,” Moss said. “It’s not a foregone conclusion they’d win on appeal.” Brandon Van Grack, a former counterespionage prosecutor who worked on special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, said there “would be a strong impulse to appeal,” especially because the criminal investigation by the Justice Department and the damage assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are likely going hand in hand and “can’t be bifurcated.”

Get this:

"Part of Cannon's order gave the Office of the Director of National Intelligence permission to continue its review of documents for a damage assessment, a process the Justice Department has been playing a role in. “The criminal investigation is informing the intelligence investigation,” Van Grack said, adding that Justice Department investigators had likely been doing fingerprint searches on the classified documents to determine who handled them — a key step in determining how much they might have circulated. Cannon's ruling could also block investigators from asking witnesses about who had access to the documents. “It will delay and impair the investigation,” Van Grack said. “They won’t have complete information.”

... As intended by Trump and his bought and paid for 'judge?'

"Legal experts also took issue with Cannon’s saying the special master should review the documents for potential executive privilege claims, instead of limiting the examination to traditional attorney-client issues. Trump's team has argued that a special master — essentially a neutral third party appointed by the court — was necessary because they couldn’t rely on the so-called filter team the Justice Department used to separate out privileged documents, saying they couldn’t be expected to "trust the self-restraint of currently unchecked investigators."

Jesus Christ. What a crock of shit by the increasingly desperate Trump nazi and his henchmen.

"The Justice Department contends executive privilege isn’t up for debate, because the seized documents don’t belong to Trump. “He is no longer the president. And because he’s no longer the president, he had no right to those documents," Justice Department lawyer Jay Bratt told the judge at a hearing last week. Rosenzweig agreed, calling it "absurd" that a special master should be searching out potential executive privilege issues. "I don't think there is a good road map," Rosenzweig said, noting there's no body of law on executive privilege for a special master. "I don't know how a special master would proceed, which means inevitable delay and dispute," he said."

... As intended by Trump and his bought and paid for 'judge?'

"Before becoming a federal judge, Cannon worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida, focusing on criminal cases in the appellate division that included money laundering, child pornography and Fourth Amendment rights, according to her judicial nomination questionnaire. Cannon, who graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2007, had no prior experience as a judge, but fit the profile of Trump's nominees: young and with ties to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization. During the Senate confirmation process, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Cannon in written questions whether she had "any discussions with anyone — including, but not limited to, individuals at the White House, at the Justice Department, or any outside groups — about loyalty to President Trump?" Cannon replied: "No."

Believe it?

"She was confirmed by the Senate just after the November 2020 election in a bipartisan 56-21 vote. Feinstein was among the dozen Democrats who voted in her favor."

Huge mistake.

"But since the high-profile ruling in the biggest case yet of Cannon's judicial career, even some of Trump's former allies bashed her legal arguments. “The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. It’s deeply flawed in a number of ways,” former Attorney General William Barr said in an interview with Fox News. "I don’t think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up. And even if it does, I don’t see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. I don’t think it changes the ballgame so much as maybe we’ll have a rain delay for a couple of innings,” Barr said. Barr said the 11th Circuit could expedite the appeal, but he acknowledged "it could take several months to straighten out.” NBC News legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg, a former U.S. attorney, said: “There seems to be a trade-off between appealing a poorly reasoned judicial decision on one hand and further delaying a part of their investigation on the other. In the end, the government will very likely get to which it is entitled — one way or the other — but the path forward looks a bit murky.”

... As intended by Trump and his bought and paid for 'judge?'

The Washington Post reports:

"A document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities, was found by FBI agents who searched former president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence and private club last month, according to people familiar with the matter, underscoring concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about classified material stashed in the Florida property. Some of the seized documents detail top-secret U.S. operations so closely guarded that many senior national security officials are kept in the dark about them. Only the president, some members of his Cabinet or a near-Cabinet-level official could authorize other government officials to know details of these special-access programs, according to people familiar with the search, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive details of an ongoing investigation. Documents about such highly classified operations require special clearances on a need-to-know basis, not just top-secret clearance. Some special-access programs can have as few as a couple dozen government personnel authorized to know of an operation’s existence. Records that deal with such programs are kept under lock and key, almost always in a secure compartmented information facility, with a designated control officer to keep careful tabs on their location. But such documents were stored at Mar-a-Lago, with uncertain security, more than 18 months after Trump left the White House. After months of trying, according to government court filings, the FBI has recovered more than 300 classified documents from Mar-a-Lago this year: 184 in a set of 15 boxes sent to the National Archives and Records Administration in January, 38 more handed over by a Trump lawyer to investigators in June, and more than 100 additional documents unearthed in a court-approved search on Aug. 8. It was in this last batch of government secrets, the people familiar with the matter said, that the information about a foreign government’s nuclear-defense readiness was found. These people did not identify the foreign government in question, say where at Mar-a-Lago the document was found or offer additional details about one of the Justice Department’s most sensitive national security investigations."

9-2-22

Redacted Trump affidavit released. NBC News reports:

"A redacted copy of the FBI affidavit used to justify the Aug. 8 search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was unsealed Friday, revealing details of the federal government's efforts to recover classified documents, including top-secret information. The 36-page affidavit, much of which was heavily redacted, said that in mid-May, FBI agents conducted a preliminary review of the contents of 15 boxes Trump returned to the National Archives from his Florida property in January, and "identified documents with classification markings in fourteen of the FIFTEEN BOXES." The affidavit said that agents found 184 unique documents that had classification markings. It stated that 25 documents were marked as "TOP SECRET," 67 documents marked as "confidential" and 92 marked "secret." According to the affidavit, agents observed markings denoting various control systems designed to protect various types of sensitive information, including markings that designate intelligence gathered by "clandestine human sources," such as a report by a CIA officer or someone who works for the Defense Intelligence Agency."

Frightening, isn't it?

"The release of the FBI affidavit came after U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ruled Thursday that the document could be unsealed after the Department of Justice submitted proposed redactions. Reinhart approved the warrant that allowed federal agents to search Trump’s Florida property Aug. 8 after determining that the affidavit provided probable cause. He reiterated earlier this week that he found “probable cause that evidence of multiple federal crimes would be found” at Mar-a-Lago and that he “was — and am — satisfied that the facts sworn by the affiant are reliable.” The affidavit contains substantial redactions in its section on providing probable cause for the August search, which is about 20 pages. One almost completely blacked-out section is titled, “There is Probable Cause to Believe That Documents Containing Classified [National Defense Information] and Presidential Records Remain at the Premises.” Ultimately, FBI agents removed 11 additional sets of classified documents, including some labeled secret and top secret, during the Aug. 8 search, according to the property receipt of items that were recovered. There were also papers described as “SCI” documents, which stands for highly classified “sensitive compartmented information.”

Get this:

"The Justice Department had argued against releasing the affidavit. The document itself says that any “premature disclosure” of the affidavit and other related documents could "have a significant and negative impact on the continuing investigation and may severely jeopardize its effectiveness by allowing criminal parties an opportunity to flee, destroy evidence (stored electronically and otherwise), change patterns of behavior, and notify criminal confederates.”

The lack of transparency is a problem. Obliterates credibility. Law is far too complex. Favors the top of the food chain as intended by legislators who line their pockets courtesy of the very same people the law favors. Highly likely why Trump has yet to be charged over a year and a half after the insurrection while his supporters have been quickly prosecuted and sentenced.

"The affidavit noted that based on the federal investigation, the government believed that the storage room where boxes of presidential records were kept at Mar-a-Lago, as well as Trump's suite, his office and other spaces "within the premises are not currently authorized locations for the storage of classified information." In June, Justice Department lawyers sent Trump's attorneys a letter that reiterated that Mar-a-Lago couldn't be used to store classified information, according to the affidavit. The Justice Department asked in the letter that the room where the documents were stored "be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice." The government concluded in the affidavit that "probable cause exists to believe that evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation" of U.S. law will be found on the grounds of the property."

Why did it take over a year and a half to conduct the raid?

"Attached to the affidavit is a May 25 letter from Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran to Jay Bratt, chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in the Justice Department’s National Security Division. Corcoran characterized the interactions with the National Archives as "friendly, open, and straightforward," and called the transfer of presidential records — as required by the law — as "voluntary and open." He tried to argue that presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanctions, because Trump was not "an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States." In a separate 13-page filing Friday, the Justice Department reiterated its case for redacting parts of the affidavit, including “to protect the safety and privacy of a significant number of civilian witnesses in addition to law enforcement.” "If witnesses’ identities are exposed, they could be subjected to harms including retaliation, intimidation, or harassment, and even threats to their physical safety," the government wrote, noting recent threats to law enforcement following the Mar-a-Lago search. The Justice Department also argued that revealing certain information could "severely disadvantage the government as it seeks further information from witnesses." And it said the government has "well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed."

Without transparency, the public has no way of determining the credibility of any of this. Has lied too many times in the past. To cover its ass and others.

"Reinhart, in his order Thursday, said that the Justice Department had shown sufficient cause to redact portions of the affidavit, agreeing that releasing the document in whole would reveal the identities of witnesses, law enforcement and “uncharged parties,” as well as the scope and methods of the investigation. The Justice Department had also shown that its redactions were “narrowly tailored,” he wrote."

How does the public know that's true without transparency? Trump has clearly to date already received special treatment not accorded his supporters who executed the insurrection immediately after listening to his speech urging them on to the Capitol.

"The Presidential Records Act mandates that all presidential records be properly preserved by each administration so that a complete set is transferred to the National Archives at the end of an administration. Trump also received a federal grand jury subpoena in the spring for sensitive documents the government believed he retained after his departure from the White House, NBC News previously reported. A source who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the subpoena was related to documents that Trump’s legal team discussed with Justice Department officials at a meeting in early June."

The Associated Press reports:

"Fourteen of the 15 boxes recovered from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate early this year contained classified documents, many of them top secret, mixed in with miscellaneous newspapers, magazines and personal correspondence, according to an FBI affidavit released Friday. No space at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate was authorized for the storage of classified material, according to the court papers, which laid out the FBI’s rationale for searching the property this month, including “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found.” The 32-page affidavit — heavily redacted to protect the safety of witnesses and law enforcement officials and “the integrity of the ongoing investigation” — offers the most detailed description to date of the government records being stored at Mar-a-Lago long after Trump left the White House. It also reveals the gravity of the government’s concerns that the documents were there illegally. The document makes clear how the haphazard retention of top secret government records, and the failure to return them despite months of efforts by U.S. officials to get them back, has exposed Trump to fresh legal peril just as he lays the groundwork for another potential presidential run in 2024. “The government is conducting a criminal investigation concerning the improper removal and storage of classified information in unauthorized spaces, as well as the unlawful concealment or removal of government records,” an FBI agent wrote on the first page of the affidavit in seeking a judge’s permission for a warrant to search the property."

Fascinating, isn't it? Get this:

"Documents previously made public show that federal agents are investigating potential violations of three federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations. Trump has long insisted, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that he fully cooperated with government officials. And he has rallied Republicans behind him by painting the search as a politically motivated witch hunt intended to damage his reelection prospects. He repeated that refrain on his social media site Friday, saying he and his representatives had had a close working relationship with the FBI and “GAVE THEM MUCH.”

Sadly, Trump remains a congenital liar.

"The affidavit does not provide new details about 11 sets of classified records recovered during the Aug. 8 search at Mar-a-Lago but instead concerns a separate batch of 15 boxes that the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved from the home in January. The National Archives then sent the matter to the Justice Department, indicating in its referral that a review showed “a lot” of classified materials, according to the affidavit. The affidavit argues a search of Mar-a-Lago was necessary due to the highly sensitive material found in the boxes recovered by the National Archives. Of 184 documents marked classified, 25 were at the top secret level, the affidavit says. Some had special markings suggesting they included information from highly sensitive human sources or the collection of electronic “signals” authorized by a special intelligence court. Some of those classified records were mixed with other documents, including newspapers, magazines and miscellaneous print-outs, the affidavit says, citing a letter from the Archives. Douglas London, a former senior CIA officer and author of “The Recruiter,” said this showed Trump’s lack of respect for controls. “One of the rules of classified is you don’t mix classified and unclassified so there’s no mistakes or accidents,” he said."

Clearly, indicative of Trump's unfitness for office.

"The affidavit shows how agents were authorized to search a large swath of Mar-a-Lago, including Trump’s official post-presidential “45 Office,” storage rooms and all other areas in which boxes or documents could be stored. They did not propose searching areas of the property used or rented by Mar-a-Largo members, such as private guest suites. The document notes that no space at Mar-a-Lago had been authorized for the storage of classified information at least since the end of Trump’s term in office.

"The second half of the affidavit is almost entirely redacted, making it impossible to discern the scope of the investigation or where it might be headed. It does not identify by name any people who may be subjects of the investigation and it does not answer core questions, such as why top secret documents were taken to Mar-a-Lago at the end of the president’s term even though the government regards them as presidential records that belong to the National Archives and require special storage. It also does not include details about the interactions between Trump representatives and the Justice Department in the months leading up to the search, including a subpoena in May for records and a visit to the property in June by the department’s top counterintelligence official. The back-and-forth culminated in the Aug. 8 search in which agents retrieved the 11 sets of classified records. Still, the document unsealed Friday does offer insight into arguments the Trump legal team is expected to make as the case moves forward. It includes a letter from Trump lawyer M. Evan Corcoran in which he asserts that a president has “absolute authority” to declassify documents and that “presidential actions involving classified documents are not subject to criminal sanction.” Mark Zaid, a longtime national security lawyer who has criticized Trump for his handling of classified information, said the letter was “blatantly wrong” to assert Trump could declassify “anything and everything.” “There are some legal, technical defenses as to certain provisions of the espionage act whether it would apply to the president,” Zaid said. “But some of those provisions make no distinction that would raise a defense.”

More on this as the story develops.

CBS News reports:

"A "limited set" of material taken by the FBI in its search of former President Donald Trump's South Florida residence may contain information covered by attorney-client privilege, the Justice Department revealed in a court filing Monday. Federal prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in the filing that a so-called Privilege Review Team, which is examining some of the documents seized from the former president to identify those that may contain privileged information, found "a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information." The team has completed a review of the materials, the filing said. The team is also in the process of following procedures laid out in an affidavit detailing the justification for the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago this month to "address potential privilege disputes, if any," wrote Juan Antonio Gonzalez, the U.S. Attorney in Miami, and Jay Bratt, the top counterintelligence official at the Justice Department. The Justice Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) are also undertaking a classification review of materials recovered by the FBI from Mar-a-Lago, they said. "As the Director of National Intelligence advised Congress, ODNI is also leading an intelligence community assessment of the potential risk to national security that would result from the disclosure of these materials," Gonzalez and Bratt told the court."

Readers will recall:

"A federal magistrate judge on Friday unsealed a redacted version of the 38-page affidavit used to justify the search warrant executed by the FBI at the former president's Florida home. The FBI said the National Archives and Records Administration determined that 15 boxes it retrieved from the property in January contained "highly classified documents intermingled with other records." Within the 15 boxes provided to the National Archives, 184 documents had classification markings, including 67 marked "confidential," 92 marked as "secret," and 25 marked as "top secret," the FBI said in its affidavit. Agents who conducted a preliminary review of the boxes in mid-May also found some of the documents were marked "HCS," or HUMINT Control System, which the affidavit said is "designed to protect intelligence information derived from clandestine human sources."

What was Trump doing with classified material since leaving office? Why did the FBI wait over a year and a half to conduct the raid? Why afford the top of the food chain special treatment not accorded his supporters who conducted the Capitol insurrection?

Sadly and without merit:

"Trump has criticized the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, claiming without evidence it is a politically motivated attack by the Justice Department ahead of a potential 2024 campaign for president."

In view of the above report submitted to the court vis a vis the Privilege Review Team, be interesting to see how it will affect the judge's pending decision regarding appointment of a "special master" requested by Trump:

"Trump has also claimed some of the documents taken by the FBI are covered by attorney-client privilege and asked Cannon last week to appoint a "special master" to review the records seized from Mar-a-Lago. In a preliminary order issued Saturday, Cannon said it is her "preliminary intent to appoint a special master" in response to Trump's request, though her decision is not yet final. She also set a Tuesday deadline for the Justice Department to provide a more detailed description of the property seized by the FBI from Trump's Palm Beach residence."

The Associated Press reports:

"The Justice Department has completed its review of potentially privileged documents seized from former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate this month and has identified “a limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information,” according to a court filing Monday. The filing from the department follows a judge’s weekend order indicating that she was inclined to grant the Trump legal team’s request for a special master who would oversee the review of documents taken during the Aug. 8 search of the Mar-a-Lago estate and ensure that any that might be protected by claims of legal privilege be set aside. In revealing that the department had completed its review of potentially privileged communications, law enforcement officials appeared to be suggesting that the appointment of a third-party special master might now be moot. The department had been relying on a specialized team to filter out potentially privileged communications and said Monday that it had completed its review of those materials before the judge’s order."

The Associated Press reports:

"The Justice Department says classified documents were “likely concealed and removed” from a storage room at former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate as part of an effort to obstruct the federal investigation into the discovery of the government records. The FBI also seized boxes and containers holding more than 100 classified records during its Aug. 8 search of Mar-a-Lago and found classified documents stashed in Trump’s office, according to a filing late Tuesday that lays out the most detailed chronology to date of months of strained interactions between Justice Department officials and Trump representatives over the discovery of government secrets. The filing offers yet another indication of the sheer volume of classified records retrieved from Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida. It shows how investigators conducting a criminal probe have focused not just on why the records were improperly stored there but also on the question of whether the Trump team intentionally misled them about the continued, and unlawful, presence of the top secret documents."

Sad, isn't it? The screws are certainly tightening.

Gets worse. Get this:

"The timeline laid out by the Justice Department made clear that the extraordinary search of Mar-a-Lago came only after other efforts to retrieve the records had failed and that it resulted from law enforcement suspicion that additional documents remained inside the property despite assurances by Trump representatives that a “diligent search” had accounted for all of the material. It also included a picture of some of the seized documents with colored cover sheets indicating their classified status, perhaps as a way to rebut suggestions that whoever packed them or handled them at Mar-a-Lago could have easily failed to appreciate their sensitive nature. The photo shows the cover pages of a smattering of paperclip-bound classified documents — some marked as “TOP SECRET//SCI” with bright yellow borders and one marked as “SECRET//SCI” with a rust-colored border — along with whited-out pages, splayed out on a carpet at Mar-a-Lago. Beside them sits a cardboard box filled with gold-framed pictures, including a Time magazine cover."

Interestingly:

"Though it contains significant new details on the investigation, the Justice Department filing does not resolve a core question that has driven public fascination with the investigation — why Trump held onto the documents after he left the White House and why he and his team resisted repeated efforts to give them back. In fact, it suggests officials may not have received an answer."

Could it be there is no rational reason? That is, could it be the former president is insane?

"During a June 3 visit to Mar-a-Lago by FBI and Justice Department officials, the document states, “Counsel for the former President offered no explanation as to why boxes of government records, including 38 documents with classification markings, remained at the Premises nearly five months after the production of the Fifteen Boxes and nearly one-and-a-half years after the end of the Administration.” That visit, which came weeks after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for the records, receives substantial attention in the document and appears to be a key investigative focus. Though Trump insisted again Wednesday that he had declassified the documents at Mar-a-Lago, his lawyers did not suggest that during the visit and instead “handled them in a manner that suggested counsel believed that the documents were classified,” the Justice Department said."

Could it be the shysters bought Trump's bullshit that he supposedly declassified them? Or, could it be they're grossly incompetent? ... Both? Again, there appears to be no rational explanation for any of this.

"FBI agents who went there to receive additional materials were given “a single Redweld envelope, double-wrapped in tape, containing the documents,” the filing states. That envelope, according to the FBI, contained 38 unique documents with classification markings, including 16 documents marked secret and 17 marked top secret. The investigators were permitted to visit the storage room but were not allowed to open or look inside any of the boxes, “giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the Justice Department says. During that visit, the document says, Trump’s lawyers told investigators that all the records that had come from the White House were stored in one location — a Mar-a-Lago storage room — and that “there were no other records stored in any private office space or other location at the Premises and that all available boxes were searched.”

Interestingly:

"After that, though, the department, which had subpoenaed video footage for the property, “developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation.” The filing does not identify the individuals who may have relocated the boxes. In their August search, agents found classified documents both in the storage room as well as in the former president’s office — including three classified documents found not in boxes, but in office desks. “That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the ‘diligent search’ that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter,” the document states."

Certainly, appears to be the case. The unanswered question remains: Why?

"It says, “In some instances, even the FBI counterintelligence personnel and DOJ attorneys conducting the review required additional clearances before they were permitted to review certain documents.” The investigation began from a referral from the National Archives and Records Administration, which recovered 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago in January that were found to contain 184 documents with classified markings, including top secret information. The purpose of the Tuesday night filing was to oppose a request from the Trump legal team for a special master to review the documents seized during this month’s search and to return to him certain seized property. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is set to hear arguments on the matter on Thursday."

Readers will recall:

"Cannon on Saturday said it was her “preliminary intent” to appoint such a person but also gave the Justice Department an opportunity to respond. On Monday, the department said it had already completed its review of potentially privileged documents and identified a “limited set of materials that potentially contain attorney-client privileged information.” It said Tuesday that a special master was therefore “unnecessary” and that the presidential records that were taken from the home do not belong to Trump."

NBC News reports:

"The Justice Department said Tuesday night that it had evidence classified documents at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate were "likely concealed and removed" before the FBI search to retrieve them. In its late-night court filing, the Justice Department said that Trump's request to appoint a special master to review the documents “is unnecessary and would significantly harm important governmental interests, including national security interests.” Some of the documents were so sensitive and classified that FBI agents and Justice Department attorneys needed additional security clearances to review them after the raid earlier this month. The department also argues that it gathered evidence “that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation,” with government records “likely concealed and removed” in the months leading up to the search. The Justice Department attempted to bolster its case to the court by including an FBI photo showing documents and "classified cover sheets recovered from a container" in Trump's "45 office," a reference to his being the 45th president. The photo shows documents marked “secret,” “top secret” and “SCI” — which stands for highly classified “sensitive compartmented information.” The filing came in response to Trump’s Aug. 22 request— two weeks after the Mar-a-Lago search — for a special master to review the documents seized from his Florida estate. Justice officials said the appointment of a special master would impede the government’s criminal investigation. Such a review of classified documents “would impede the Intelligence Community from conducting its ongoing review of the national security risk that improper storage of these highly sensitive materials may have caused and from identifying measures to rectify or mitigate any damage that improper storage caused,” the Justice Department document states."

Interestingly:

"The Justice Department said it could not trust information that came from Trump's orbit ahead of the Florida search and that a representative for the former president falsely asserted that classified documents had been turned over to the government. The fact that so many documents were found "casts serious doubt" on the Trump team's claim that there had been "a diligent search" for documents responsive to the grand jury subpoena in May. "That the FBI, in a matter of hours, recovered twice as many documents with classification markings as the 'diligent search' that the former President’s counsel and other representatives had weeks to perform calls into serious question the representations made in the June 3 certification and casts doubt on the extent of cooperation in this matter," the Justice Department said in the filing. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, signaled over the weekend that she was inclined to grant the former president's request and appoint a third party to review the documents to ensure they don't include information protected by attorney-client privilege. The Justice Department has said a government filter team that's separate from the investigation had already identified "a limited set of materials" potentially containing privileged information. In Tuesday night’s filing, the Justice Department argued a special master is unnecessary because government review teams have already finished their work. “It would do little or nothing to protect any legitimate interests that Plaintiff may have while impeding the government’s ongoing criminal investigation,” the filing says."

Get this:

"In Tuesday night’s filing, the Justice Department stated that more than 100 unique classified documents were seized from Mar-a-Lago this month. “Three classified documents that were not located in boxes, but rather were located in the desks in the '45 Office,' were also seized,” the Justice Department wrote. The DOJ took the dramatic step of seeking a search warrant after obtaining evidence that classified information remained at Mar-a-Lago, despite the assurances of Trump’s team that all classified documents had been turned over pursuant to a May 11 grand jury subpoena, according to Tuesday’s filing. "The government also developed evidence that government records were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room and that efforts were likely taken to obstruct the government’s investigation," the DOJ filing says. Among the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago were Roger Stone's clemency paperwork, information about the president of France and a trove of confidential and classified documents, along with presidential records. FBI agents seized 26 boxes, as well as a leather-bound box of documents containing Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, according to the property receipt of items recovered which was previously filed. The Justice Department also argued in Tuesday’s filing that Trump has no standing over presidential records, “because those records do not belong to him.” Under the Presidential Records Act, the records belong to the United States, the filing states."

The following? Uncommon Valor. Highly reminiscent of an earlier time a half century ago when Republicans indeed stood tall against President Richard Nixon:

"In a separate filing Tuesday, several former federal prosecutors who served during Republican administrations — Donald B. Ayer, Gregory A. Brower, John J. Farmer Jr., Stuart M. Gerson, Peter D. Keisler, William F. Weld and Christine Todd Whitman — wrote that "regardless of one’s political views, it is clear that there is no legal support for the relief requested by the former President."

ABC News reports:

"Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is facing backlash after claiming political violence will break out if former President Donald Trump is indicted for mishandling presidential records."

What could Graham possibly been thinking? Used to be considered a moderate Republican. Clearly, no longer. Why is he protecting and coddling a former president who appears to have broken the law?

"President Joe Biden on Tuesday, while not mentioning Graham by name, appeared to call him out at a political rally in Pennsylvania, saying, "the idea you turn on a television and see senior senators and congressmen saying if such and such happens, there'll be blood in the street. Where the hell are we?" Graham's comments came at a time when Trump supporters' threats against law enforcement have escalated following the Mar-a-Lago search and at least one man citing it attacked an FBI field office in Cincinnati, Ohio, and was later killed by police. Law enforcement officials told ABC News they were investigating social media posts apparently linked to the suspect that called for violence in the days after the FBI search. During an appearance on Fox News on Sunday, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said there "will be riots in the street" if Trump faces legal ramifications for taking at least 184 classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office."

Time to wake up, Senator.

"After months of the Justice Department and National Archives negotiating with Trump's legal teams to get him to return the documents, the FBI executed a search warrant on Aug. 8 at Mar-a-Lago. But since then, Graham and many other Republicans have argued that Trump is facing a double standard from how the DOJ treated Hillary Clinton. Specifically, Clinton, Trump's 2016 Democratic rival for president, was not charged after probes into her use of a private email server containing classified information while she was secretary of state. The two cases are not the same, however. In both cases, the FBI launched criminal investigations, obtaining search warrants to obtain or access relevant documents. But in Clinton's case, the FBI said in findings released in July 2016, the classified information had been improperly transmitted via carelessness, not in an attempt to circumvent the law. The caliber of "classified information" found on Hillary Clinton’s private servers was not the same as what was found at Mar-a-Lago, particularly as it relates to highly-sensitive Special Access Programs. According to the Department of Justice's report on the Clinton case, investigators found seven email chains on Clinton’s servers that were “relevant to” and “associated with a Special Access Program, while it appears Trump was keeping SAP materials themselves at Mar-a-Lago. Trump's case is ongoing, but an unsealed search warrant and property receipt from the FBI raid confirmed that the former president took properly marked classified documents from the White House. Experts have said it's highly unlikely that the Justice Department would have pursued such a search warrant without significant evidence. "The department does not take such a decision lightly," Garland said during the press conference following the FBI search."

Here's the problem. Severe distortion of reality, not to neglect to mention Graham's faulty equivalence between the Trump and Clinton cases:

"If they try to prosecute President Trump for mishandling classified information after Hilary Clinton set up a server in her basement, there literally will be riots in the street. I worry about our country," Graham said to Fox News host and former South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy. Later in the program, Graham repeated the threat of violence again. Graham again doubled down on his earlier remarks in Charleston on Monday, again likening Trump's FBI search to the probe into Clinton, saying: "America cannot live with this kind of double standard. I thought what she did was bad, but she got a pass at the end of the day." Using less inflammatory language, he said that that there would be many "upset people" if Trump was prosecuted. "I reject violence. I'm not calling for violence. Violence is not the answer, but I'm just telling you," he said."

Time to wake up, Senator. Smell the coffee. Figuratively, remove your head from your ass, sir:

"Despite growing evidence against the former president, Trump and allies like Graham have repeatedly accused the Justice Department of being biased against him."

You swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and rule of law. Conveniently, forget? Or, does partisanship now trump principle? No pun intended.

The following is highly demonstrative of the insanity currently gripping the nazi element in the Republican Party:

"Most Republicans, including me, believes when it comes to Trump, there is no law. It's all about getting him. There's a double standard when it comes to Trump," Graham said. Trump posted a video clip of Graham's comments on his Truth Social media platform but without comment."

Sadly, 'two peas in the same pod.' Hopelessly, f--ked up.

"A new joint intelligence bulletin obtained by ABC News confirms that the FBI has seen an uptick in threats and acts of violence, including armed encounters, to its agents and law enforcement since their search of Trump's Florida home. Since the search, the FBI and DHS have identified multiple articulated threats and calls for the targeted killing of judicial, law enforcement, and government officials associated with the Palm Beach search, including the federal judge who approved the Palm Beach search warrant, according to the bulletin."

Inexcusable.

"Graham has been a staunch defender of the former president, despite briefly breaking with Trump right after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He's currently resisting a grand jury probe into potential election interference in Georgia, fighting a subpoena to testify in connection with the investigation into Trump's alleged effort to intimidate Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other state officials into overturning his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden, asking Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to ensure his victory. Graham had recently hired former president Trump's first White House counsel, Donald McGahn, to be part of his legal team. The probe is led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who subpoenaed Graham in July. In fighting the order, Graham has argued, among other things, that he was acting "within [his] official legislative responsibilities" as a senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee when he allegedly made calls to Georgia officials in the wake of the 2020 election. On Monday, new court filings from the Fulton County District Attorney's office blasted the temporary subpoena block granted to Graham by a federal appeals court. The motion mentions that the strength of Trump and Graham's relationship weakens the senator's push against testifying. "Senator Graham's repetition of his previous arguments does not entitle him to partial quashal, and the District Attorney respectfully requests that his motion be denied," Donald Wakeford, Fulton's chief senior assistant district attorney, wrote in a motion filed on Monday. The Fulton County DA's response comes after Graham told Gowdy on Sunday that he's got a "good legal case" against testifying before a grand jury. "If we let county prosecutors start calling senators and members of Congress as witnesses when they're doing their job, then you've got out of kilter our constitutional balance here," Graham said about the probe on Sunday to Gowdy. "I've got a good legal case, I'm going to pursue it …. You love the law, I love the law. I've never been more worried about the law and politics as I am right now. How can you tell a conservative Republican that the system works when it comes to Trump?"

You're not a 'conservative,' Senator. You're well to the right of conservatism, sir. Not only that, why are you protecting and coddling a former president who apparently has engaged in criminal activity? What does that say about you, sir? You swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and rule of law. Time for you to do so. Instead of behaving like an autocrat. Certainly, egregiously unacceptable in what is supposed to be a democratic republic where no one is above the law. From the very bottom to the very top of the food chain.

8-19-22

Follow-up on Trump FBI raid. The Associated Press reports:

"The Justice Department has asked a court to unseal the warrant the FBI received before searching the Florida estate of former President Donald Trump, Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday, acknowledging the extraordinary public interest in the case. The request was striking because such documents traditionally remain sealed during a pending investigation. But the Justice Department appeared to recognize that its silence since the search had created a vacuum for bitter attacks from the former president and his allies, and Garland felt it wise to respond to the widespread demands for details about what led to the FBI action."

Clearly, without transparency there is no credibility, no trust. What took so long? Hard to believe you didn't anticipate the strong reaction Trump, his henchmen, and supporters would have to the raid.

“The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” said a motion filed in federal court in Florida on Thursday seeking the the unsealing. Garland also cited the fact that Trump himself had provided the first public confirmation of the FBI search, and the attorney general said that disclosing information about it now would not harm the court’s functions. Garland also said he personally approved the search warrant, which was part of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into the discovery of classified White House records recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home in Palm Beach, Florida, earlier this year. It was not immediately clear when — or if — the unsealing request might be granted or when the documents could be released. Trump will also have a chance to object. The attorney general condemned verbal attacks on FBI and Justice Department personnel over the search. “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked,” he said, calling them “dedicated, patriotic public servants.”

NBC News reports:

"Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that he "personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant" for former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort and that the Justice Department filed a motion earlier in the day to make the warrant public. Speaking about his decision during a press conference on Thursday, Garland said the department "does not take such actions lightly" and first pursues "less intrusive" means to retrieve material. Garland noted that it was Trump's "right" to reveal Monday's FBI search of his property and that all Americans are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Garland also said that Justice Department has also asked to make public the property receipt detailing what agents found inside the Trump property. Trump received a federal grand jury subpoena this spring for sensitive documents the government believed he retained after his departure from the White House, a source familiar with the matter confirmed to NBC News. Garland's nod to "less intrusive" avenues for recovery of documents appeared to be a reference to the subpoena and suggested that Trump had not turned over all of the material sought by the Justice Department."

Fascinating, isn't it?

"Conservative journalist John Solomon first reported Thursday afternoon that Trump was sent the subpoena months before the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Monday. The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the subpoena was related to documents that Trump’s legal team discussed with Justice Department officials at a previously reported [meeting] on June 3. The federal officials who went to Mar-a-Lago for the June meeting were "coming down to retrieve the documents that were being requested" in the subpoena, the source familiar with the matter said, adding that the meeting was arranged with the Trump team's understanding that turning over relevant documents that day would fulfill the subpoena. Citing "two sources briefed on the classified documents" sought in the subpoena, The New York Times reported Thursday that federal officials were prompted to conduct the search of Mar-a-Lago because uncollected material was particularly sensitive to national security."

Get this:

"The source familiar with the matter told NBC News that Trump's lawyers last heard from the Justice Department before the FBI search shortly after the June meeting when federal officials asked for additional security in the storage facility where documents were held. Trump's team added a second lock to the basement storage area, the source said. Trump attacked the FBI in a post on his Truth Social media platform earlier this week. “Everyone was asked to leave the premises, they wanted to be alone, without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or, hopefully not, ‘planting,’” he wrote. "Why did they STRONGLY insist on having nobody watching them, everybody out?” At his press conference, Garland defended the Justice Department against “unfounded” attacks made by Trump and his allies. “I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked,” he said. “Every day they protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights.”

Somebody's lying. Guess who.

"According to the Justice Department's Thursday motion, a federal judge signed off on the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 5. The filing notes that Trump and his lawyers have copies of both the warrant and a "redacted Property Receipt listing items seized pursuant to the search" — and they can object to the public release of those documents. “Given the intense public interest presented by a search of a residence of a former President, the government believes these factors favor unsealing the search warrant" and related materials, the filing says. “That said, the former President should have an opportunity to respond to this Motion and lodge objections, including with regards to any ‘legitimate privacy interests’ or the potential for other ‘injury’ if these materials are made public.”

Amazing how truth remains a moving target, isn't it? Sad, as well.

The Washington Post reports:

"Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation. Experts in classified information said the unusual search underscores deep concern among government officials about the types of information they thought could be located at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and potentially in danger of falling into the wrong hands. The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation. Nor did they say if such documents were recovered as part of the search. A Trump spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department and FBI declined to comment. Attorney General Merrick Garland said Thursday that he could not discuss the investigation. But in an unusual public statement at the Justice Department, he announced he had personally authorized the decision to seek court permission for a search warrant. Garland spoke moments after Justice Department lawyers filed a motion seeking to unseal the search warrant in the case, noting that Trump had publicly revealed the search shortly after it happened. “The public’s clear and powerful interest in understanding what occurred under these circumstances weighs heavily in favor of unsealing,” the motion says. “That said, the former President should have an opportunity to respond to this Motion and lodge objections, including with regards to any ‘legitimate privacy interests’ or the potential for other ‘injury’ if these materials are made public.” Late Thursday night, Trump said on social media that he agreed the document should be made public. In another post early Friday, he called the nuclear weapons issue a “hoax” and accused the FBI of planting evidence, without offering information to indicate such a thing had happened. Trump said agents did not allow his lawyers to be present for the search, which is not unusual in a law enforcement operation, especially if it potentially involves classified items."

NBC News reports:

"Allies of former President Donald Trump say that any sensitive White House documents he brought with him to his Mar-a-Lago estate had been declassified, but some legal and presidential record experts are skeptical of that claim — and say that Trump could be in criminal jeopardy regardless. While the Justice Department has a long history of prosecuting cases involving the mishandling of classified information, no such case has ever been brought against a former president — the one government official who can declassify information at will. "As the facts stand now, his defense would be, ‘I declassified those documents. I am not therefore in possession of classified documents now,'” said Charles Stimson, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former federal prosecutor. Others take a different view — including, it seems, the FBI, which executed a search warrant at Trump's Florida resort on Monday tied to classified information Trump allegedly took with him from the White House in January 2021. Trump lawyer Christina Bobb said Tuesday that the warrant left by agents indicated they were investigating possible violations of laws dealing with the handling of classified material and the Presidential Records Act. The 1978 Presidential Records Act, which requires presidents to turn over documents to the National Archives at the end of their administration, lacks an enforcement mechanism, but there are multiple federal laws regarding the handling of classified documents. Trump signed one such law in 2018, increasing the penalty for "unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" from one year to five years in prison."

Fascinating, isn't it? So is the following:

"But those in Trump’s orbit say that no president is personally bound by the removal and retention rules governing classified documents, which can be declassified if the president simply says they are, according to Ric Grenell, who was Trump’s acting director of national intelligence and who handled highly classified information. “There is no approval process for the president of the United States to declassify intelligence. There is this phony idea that he must provide notification for declassification but that’s just silly. Who is he supposed to notify? I think it’s the height of swampism to think the president should seek bureaucrats’ approval,” Grenell told NBC News, emphasizing that he wasn’t personally speaking for the president. Richard Immerman, a historian and an assistant deputy director of national intelligence in the Obama administration, disagreed and said that, while the president has the authority to declassify documents, there’s a formal process for doing so, and there's no indication Trump used it. “He can’t just wave a wand and say it’s declassified,” Immerman said. “There has to be a formal process. That’s the only way the system can work,” because otherwise there would be no way of knowing who could handle or see the documents. “I’ve seen thousands of declassified documents. They’re all marked ‘declassified’ with the date they were declassified,” Immerman said. That does not appear to have been the case with some of the documents that were returned to the National Archives from Mar-a-Lago this year. Archivist David S. Ferriero, an Obama appointee, said in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in February that his agency had "identified items marked as classified national security information within the boxes” from Mar-a-Lago."

The following is appalling. The Associated Press reports:

"An armed man decked out in body armor tried to breach a security screening area at an FBI field office Thursday, then fled and was injured in an exchange of gunfire in an hourslong standoff with law enforcement that persisted into late afternoon, authorities said. The confrontation that began at the FBI’s Cincinnati office came as officials warned of an increase in threats against federal agents in the days following a search of former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Federal officials said the man “attempted to breach” the visitor’s screening area at the FBI office and fled when agents confronted him. After fleeing onto Interstate 71, he was spotted by a trooper and fired shots as the trooper pursued him, said Lt. Nathan Dennis, a Ohio State Highway Patrol spokesperson. The suspect left the interstate north of Cincinnati and abandoned his car on rural roads, where he exchanged gunfire with police. The man has “unknown injuries,” but no one else was hurt, the patrol said. The standoff remained in progress as of midafternoon Thursday near roads bordered by woods and farm fields just off I-71 and about 45 miles (72 kilometers) northeast of Cincinnati. State highway workers blocked off roads leading to the scene as a helicopter flew over the area. Officials in Ohio have locked down a mile radius near the interstate and urged residents and business owners to lock doors and stay inside. The interstate has been reopened."

The following is particularly egregious:

"There have been growing threats in recent days against FBI agents and offices across the country since federal agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago. On Gab, a social media site popular with white supremacists and antisemites, users have warned they are preparing for an armed revolution. Federal officials have also been tracking an array of other concerning chatter on Gab and other platforms threatening violence against federal agents. FBI Director Christopher Wray denounced the threats as he visited another FBI office in Nebraska on Wednesday. “Violence against law enforcement is not the answer, no matter who you’re upset with,” Wray said Wednesday in Omaha. The FBI on Wednesday also warned its agents to avoid protesters and ensure their security key cards are “not visible outside FBI space,” citing an increase in social media threats to bureau personnel and facilities. It also warned agents to be aware of their surroundings and potential protesters. The warning did not specifically mention this week’s search of Mar-a-Lago but attributed the online threats to “recent media reporting on FBI investigative activity.”

The public has a right to this information. First Amendment Freedom of the Press. While that is certainly true, online threats of violence against law enforcement are unacceptable and should be fully prosecuted.

The Washington Post reports:

"In the minutes after an armed man in body armor tried to breach an FBI field office in Cincinnati, an account with the suspect’s name, Ricky Shiffer, posted to former president Donald Trump’s social network, Truth Social: “If you don’t hear from me, it is true I tried attacking the F.B.I.” The Shiffer account appeared to be one of Truth Social’s most prolific posters, writing 374 messages there in the past eight days — mostly to echo Trump’s lies about election fraud and, in the hours after FBI agents searched Trump’s Florida home, calling for all-out war. “Be ready to kill the enemy,” Shiffer had posted on Tuesday. “Kill [the FBI] on sight.”

Traitorous. Treasonous. Un-American.

"Shiffer was killed Thursday in a shootout, police said, and the Truth Social account has since been taken down. But the calls for pro-Trump violence are still a common presence online — including on Truth Social, where the top “trending topics” Friday morning were “#FBIcorruption” and “DefundTheFBI.” Truth Social’s parent company, Trump Media & Technology Group, did not respond to requests for comment."

What could they say? Not possible to credibly defend the indefensible.

"The Cincinnati shooting offers a glimpse at the real-world dangers of constant attacks from Trump and allied Republicans against federal officials in the days since FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Palm Beach estate and the center of his post-presidential operations. It also showcased how such violent anger could be encouraged in plain sight in loosely moderated online refuges like Truth Social, where Trump supporters frequently tear down perceived enemies and call for civil war. Trump has repeatedly attacked the FBI and Justice Department officials in public messages, including on Truth Social, where he told his more than 3 million followers Thursday that the Mar-a-Lago search was “a surprise attack, POLITICS, and all the while our Country is going to HELL!”

Sadly, the former president is a congenital liar. His supporters remain determinedly oblivious.

"People familiar with the investigation told The Washington Post that the FBI had searched the home while seeking classified documents relating to nuclear weapons that could pose a grave harm to national security. A Twitter account with Shiffer’s name included many messages mimicking Trump’s false claims of a stolen election. But a review of his social media accounts show Shiffer was most active recently on Truth Social, the Twitter clone Trump created after most social networks blocked him in the aftermath of the U.S. Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021. In April, Shiffer tweeted at Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., that he had just opened his account there, adding, “I’m just waiting for your Dad.”

Sadly, insanity runs rampant.

"Authorities declined to comment on whether Shiffer was connected to Truth Social and Twitter accounts, but both featured his name, photo and general location and had been active before the shooting. A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told The Post that agents are investigating Shiffer’s possible ties to extremist groups, including the Proud Boys — a far-right group whose leaders are accused of helping launch the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. A review of the Shiffer account’s Truth Social activity showed he had posted dozens of times a day to the site, replying to pro-Trump influencers, attacking the government and suggesting violence was the most important way true Trump believers could defend the former president. Similar messages are common on the site, including from Trump himself. In May, Trump reposted — or, in Truth Social terminology, “ReTruthed” — a message from another user that read, “Civil war.” But Shiffer’s Truth Social account, which had 23 followers, showed him not just voicing anger but calling for direct action to bring on armed conflict, urging Trump followers to stock up on bullets and to “have your heart, mind, and body ready to jump into civil war.”

Sadly, insanity runs rampant.

"On Aug. 5, he posted, “This country has never had a worse enemy. 1776 was for far less, even World War II was for less.” That day, he also wrote, “Save ammunition and be ready and willing to hit the road as soon as you hear it has started. Someone who wanted to be a hero could not have lived in a better time period.” The post was ‘liked’ 24 times. Shiffer’s posts appeared to regard the Mar-a-Lago search as a triggering event. On Aug. 8, the day of the search, he posted, “People, this is it. … This is your call to arms from me. Leave work tomorrow as soon as the gun shop … opens, get whatever you need to be ready for combat. We must not tolerate this once.” On Aug. 9, he posted that “patriots are heading to Palm Beach” and that, if “the feds” try to break it up, “kill them.” “Damn straight insurrection against the people who usurped our government,” he wrote in a separate post that day. “I hope to see you there (I won’t be unarmed this time).”

Clearly, the nazi element in our formerly great country presents an exigent threat to a democratic republic.

"His second-most recent public post was a meme image showing Trump in the White House: “Retruth To If You Want President Donald Trump Back In Office!” His last post on Aug. 11, the day police said he tried to breach the FBI office, said, “Well, I thought I had a way through bullet proof glass, and I didn’t. If you don’t hear from me, it is true I tried attacking the F.B.I., and it’ll mean either I was taken off the internet, the F.B.I. got me, or they sent the regular cops while,” before ending abruptly. All of the posts were visible Thursday night, and there’s no indication Truth Social had ever sought to remove them before their vanishing. Shiffer’s profile said he was a construction electrician in Columbus, Ohio, who previously had accounts on Twitter, the video site Rumble and other sites blocked or deleted. In his biography, he wrote, “I am ready to handle this like an American.” The FBI said Thursday that Shiffer had tried to break into the field office’s visitor-screening area before fleeing onto an interstate. He stopped and raised a gun at police before officers shot and killed him, the authorities said."

The Washington Post reports:

"Law enforcement leaders are raising alarms about threats to federal agents as prominent Republicans attack the FBI for its search of Donald Trump’s residence and as authorities investigate an attempted breach at an FBI field office in Ohio. In interviews Thursday, Larry Cosme, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, expressed alarm at GOP warnings to Americans that federal agents are “coming for you.” Politicians’ rhetoric could lead to more violence, regardless of what fueled the Ohio attack, he said, noting that online messages have advocated killing FBI agents. “The rank-and-file officers on the street and agents, they are career employees that … cherish the Constitution like the average American,” he said. “So for them to be attacked by these individuals that believe something else — or they’re believing, you know, someone’s rhetoric that’s uncalled for — to me, it’s shameful and disgusting.”

"Even before details of that incident emerged, Cosme and others had warned about rising threats. Cosme said Wednesday that “the politically motivated threats of violence against the FBI this week are unprecedented in recent history and absolutely unacceptable.” He warned on Thursday, “Politicians need to be cautious when they’re critical of law enforcement … because, you know, they could potentially ignite something.” Brian O’Hare, president of the FBI Agents Association, said in a statement Thursday that “threats made recently contribute to an atmosphere where some have, or will, accept violence against law enforcement as appropriate.” Republican lawmakers and candidates have accused the agency, without evidence, of carrying out political retribution against a former president, tapping into long-running GOP hostility toward arms of the federal government that Trump and legions of his followers deride as part of a “Deep State.” Many Republican officials likened the search of Mar-a-Lago on Monday to the act of a “dictatorship” or even a Nazi regime, while some far-right lawmakers are calling on Congress to “defund the FBI.” Leaders throughout the GOP have been telling the public that the FBI is out to get them. An op-ed by Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, is titled, “Trump targeted by Biden administration, and they can do it to you, too.” The FBI is not the only target of such rhetoric: Republicans this week have also been warning Americans that an army of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) agents is “coming” for them, as Democrats seek to boost the tax agency’s funding and ability to pursue tax dodgers. Many in the GOP have zeroed in on the fact that certain special agents carry guns, casting them as a threat or falsely suggesting the IRS is arming tens of thousands of new employees. Treasury Department officials have said the proposed funding is meant to target high-income tax evasion."

The nazi element in the Republican Party can't, won't be confused by the truth.

The Washington Post reports:

"The FBI search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida home earlier this week found four sets of top-secret documents, and seven other sets of less-secret but still classified information, according to a list of items seized in the high-profile raid and unsealed by a federal magistrate judge on Friday. The written inventory — a document provided by investigators after a search — says the FBI took about 20 boxes of items from the Mar-a-Lago Club on Monday, including photo binders, information about the president of France, and a variety of classified material. One set of documents is listed as “Various classified TS/SCI documents,” a reference to top secret/sensitive compartmented information, one of the more closely-held forms of top-secret information. In addition to the four sets of top-secret papers, agents also took three sets of documents classified as secret, and three sets of papers classified as confidential — the lowest level of classification. The list doesn’t further describe the subject matter of any of the classified documents. The warrant signed by a federal magistrate judge authorized FBI agents to search Trump’s office and any “storage rooms and all other rooms or areas within the premises used or available to be used by [the former president] and his staff and in which boxes or documents could be stored, including all structures or buildings on the estate.” The warrant said it is seeking all “physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed in violation of three potential crimes, including a part of the Espionage Act outlawing gathering, transmitting, or losing national defense information.” The warrant also cites destruction of records and concealment or mutilation of government material. The contents of the warrant and the inventory were first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

"For most search warrants, the most detailed description of investigators’ suspicions and what they expect to find are provided in an affidavit from the agent requesting the warrant. In this case, neither the government nor Trump proposed releasing the affidavit, which is likely to contained far more information about the case. But several news organizations have made that request, and the judge overseeing the case has given the government until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to their motions."

The Associated Press reports:

"The FBI recovered documents that were labeled “top secret” from former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, according to court papers released Friday after a federal judge unsealed the warrant that authorized the unprecedented search this week. A property receipt unsealed by the court shows FBI agents took 11 sets of classified records from the estate during a search on Monday. The seized records include some that were marked classified as top secret and also “sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets and those that if revealed publicly would harm U.S. interests. The court records did not provide specific details about the documents or what information they might contain. The warrant details that federal agents were investigating potential violations of three different federal laws, including one that governs gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the Espionage Act. The other statutes address the concealment, mutilation or removal of records and the destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. The property receipt also showed federal agents collected other potential presidential records, including the order pardoning Trump ally Roger Stone, a “leatherbound box of documents,” and information about the “President of France.” A binder of photos, a handwritten note, “miscellaneous secret documents” and “miscellaneous confidential documents” were also seized in the search. Trump’s attorney, Christina Bobb, who was present at Mar-a-Lago when the agents conducted the search, signed both property receipts — one that was two pages long and another that is a single page. In a statement earlier Friday, Trump claimed that the documents seized by agents were “all declassified,” and argued that he would have turned over the documents to the Justice Department if asked. While incumbent presidents have the power to declassify information, that authority lapses as soon as they leave office and it was not clear if the documents in question have ever been declassified. Trump also kept possession of the documents despite multiple requests from agencies, including the National Archives, to turn over presidential records in accordance with federal law."

NBC News reports:

"The property receipt of items recovered by FBI agents who searched former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort shows that agents recovered a trove of top secret and other heavily classified documents, according to court documents unsealed Friday by a federal judge in Florida. Federal agents removed 11 sets of classified documents, including some that were labeled secret and top secret, according to documents obtained by NBC News shortly before the judge unsealed them. Among the items the FBI took was a handwritten note, information about the "President of France," an executive grant of clemency for Trump ally Roger Stone and binders of photos. There were also papers described as "SCI" documents, which stands for highly classified "sensitive compartmented information." One document attached to the search warrant said the agents were searching for “All physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime and other items illegally possessed in violation of” three laws, including a part of the Espionage Act that the Justice Department describes on its website as a "key national defense and national security" provision. The section cited in the search warrant "applies to activities such as gathering, transmitting to an unauthorized person, or losing, information pertaining to the national defense, and to conspiracies to commit such offenses." The other two laws referenced by the document attached to the search warrant pertain to the improper removal of records and concealing or destroying records to impede investigations. The court documents unsealed on Friday said investigators were searching for evidence of those crimes including “any physical documents with classification markings” and “any government and/or Presidential Records” from Trump’s time in office, in addition to any evidence of the “knowing alteration, destruction or concealment of any government and/or Presidential records, or of any documents with any classification markings.” While Trump and his allies have suggested that any documents in his possession had been declassified by him while he was in office, the three laws cited in the search warrant do not specify that the mishandled documents had to have been classified. NBC News and other news organizations obtained the documents shortly before the judge authorized their public release. The Justice Department filed a notice Friday saying Trump did not oppose the unsealing. Trump and his lawyers have had the search warrant and documents since Monday, but initially resisted calls to make them public. In a statement overnight on his social media platform, Trump said he did not oppose DOJ's motion to disclose the documents to the public."

CBS News reports:

"The Justice Department is investigating former President Donald Trump for potentially violating the Espionage Act, according to a search warrant that the FBI used to seize materials, including classified documents, from his Mar-a-Lago residence. The most notorious spies were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917, including Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames, who are serving life sentences in prison for spying for the Soviet and Russian intelligence services while they worked for the FBI and CIA, respectively. But while Hanssen and Ames were charged under Section 794 — gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government — Trump is being investigated for potentially violating Section 793 — gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, which also includes refusal to return information that is demanded by the government. The distinction is that Trump — as far as is publicly known — is not under investigation for giving national defense information to a foreign government with the intent to harm the U.S or aid a foreign nation, or traditional espionage, according to experts who spoke to CBS News. Though the 793 provision of the law references "transmitting" defense information, that refers to "any method of moving the document from the secure location to an unauthorized party or an unsecured location," national security lawyer Brad Moss said. Section 794 also carries a much steeper sentence of up to life in prison or the death penalty. The provision for which Trump is under investigation has a maximum 10-year prison sentence."

Fascinating, isn't it?

Get this:

"Despite its name, the Espionage Act isn't limited to traditional espionage. It's also used as a vehicle to prosecute cases of mishandling classified information. "The fact that it is still called the Espionage Act is really confusing for most people, because the law generally has nothing to do with spying at this point," said Moss. "It should be renamed the Official Secrets Act, not the Espionage Act." Congress enacted the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917, two months after the U.S. entered World War I, to stifle dissent of U.S. involvement in the war. In modern day, it's been used against those who leak classified information and those who remove classified information from secure facilities and store it at home. Trump is not the only high-profile political figure to be investigated under the Espionage Act."

Readers will recall:

"Former FBI Director James Comey controversially decided not to seek criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton under the Espionage Act for her private email server because there wasn't enough evidence of willful intent or gross negligence. Dozens of emails containing classified information were housed on the server. "The question for the Justice Department was, did she create this private server with the intent of people sending her unmarked classified information? And did she have any reason to suspect the information in those emails was in fact classified? And they concluded there was insufficient evidence of that," Moss said. After intensely criticizing Clinton for her handling of classified information, Trump signed a law upgrading the mishandling of secret records from a misdemeanor to a felony."

Most ironic, isn't it? Could certainly wind up figuratively biting him hard on the ass if ultimately indicted himself.

"Former CIA Director David Petraeus admitted to keeping classified information at home, which he shared with his biographer with whom he was having an affair, while lying to the government about returning all such information. "I think that's one of the closest precedents to the current situation," said Ryan Goodman, a New York University law professor. "And it's also one in which Petraeus could have been charged for the false statement, which is very similar to Trump potentially being charged with [obstruction]." According to the search warrant, Trump is also under investigation for two other potential crimes not related to the Espionage Act. They include 18 USC 2071, involving removing, falsifying or destroying public records; and 18 USC 1519, obstruction of justice. The latter carries a 20-year maximum prison sentence, double what someone would face under Section 793 of the Espionage Act."

Interesting, isn't it?

Readers will recall:

"In January, the National Archives and Records Administration said it retrieved 15 boxes of records from Mar-a-Lago, some of which contained classified national security material. It then asked the Justice Department to investigate. That led to the FBI executing a search warrant Monday at Mar-a-Lago, with the agents seizing 11 sets of classified documents, including four sets that were classified "top secret." Trump has claimed that all the documents were declassified."

To date, no evidence of this.

"Goodman said that the obstruction statute is not necessarily limited to obstruction of a Justice Department criminal investigation, but it could apply to the National Archive's ability to collect presidential records. "It could well be that what the Justice Department has in mind is not obstruction of an investigation, but simply interference or obstruction of the ability of the National Archives to properly administer government documents, presidential records," he said. Whether the Justice Department decides to bring charges under the Espionage Act against Trump ultimately comes down to intent, Goodman said. "Trump is in some ways adding to the incriminating evidence by claiming that he declassified information, because then it shows that he has knowledge of what was in the documents," Goodman said."

What webs we weave.

"Both Goodman and Moss noted that the documents at Mar-a-Lago do not have to be classified for the Espionage Act to apply. "I personally do not foresee the government bringing such a case here, unless the information is something they can also prove was classified," Moss said. "It's not something I see them trying with the former president."

Why not? Trump can't just wave a wand and pre-emptively declare them declassified.

ABC News reports:

"A redacted copy of the warrant and related papers from the FBI's search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago indicates that the Justice Department is investigating the potential violation of at least three separate criminal statutes, including under the Espionage Act. The filing -- released Friday by the court, at the government's request and with Trump's agreement -- includes the warrant, two attachments ("Attachment A" and "Attachment B") and an inventory of what was taken from Mar-a-Lago during the FBI operation on Monday in Palm Beach, Florida. Attachment B states that the property to be seized by agents includes "all physical documents and records constituting evidence, contraband, fruits of crime or other items illegally possessed" in violation of 18 USC 793, a statute under the Espionage Act involving the gathering, transmitting or loss of defense information; 18 USC 2071, which involves any federal government employee who willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies or destroys public records; and 18 USC 1519, obstruction of justice. Under the receipt, showing property that was seized from Trump's estate, agents note they recovered 11 sets of documents of various classifications ranging from confidential to top secret (TS) and sensitive compartmented information (SCI). The receipt identifies one set referring to "various classified/TS/SCI documents," four sets of top secret documents, three sets of secret documents and three sets of documents described as confidential. Other materials included in the receipt are an item labeled "Info re: President of France," an executive grant of clemency for Trump ally Roger Stone, binders of photos, a "potential presidential record" and a leather-bound box of documents. It appears that there were 27 boxes taken."

Readers will recall:

"The Washington Post previously reported that classified documents related to nuclear weapons were among the items sought by the federal agents at Mar-a-Lago. Sources had told ABC News that the search was in connection to documents that Trump took with him when he departed Washington, including some records the National Archives said were marked classified. In a statement on Friday, Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich contended that the documents were declassified and played down the items that were taken as "the President's picture books" and "a 'hand written note." "This raid of President Trump's home was not just unprecedented, but unnecessary—and now they are leaking lies and innuendos to try to explain away the weaponization of government against their dominant political opponent. This is outrageous," Budowich said."

What a crock of shit. No end to the lies and deception perpetrated by the nazi element in the Republican Party.

"Whether or not the materials taken by the government were classified may not matter for two of the criminal statutes cited in the warrant, according to ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams. "As I look at these statutes, I'm focused less on the question that the Trump team has been talking about, which is the classification of the documents -- which is obviously very important in a macro picture -- but in a strictly legal sense, [for] two of these three statutes, that may not even be the critical question," Abrams told ABC's David Muir in a special report on Friday following the release of the search warrant. One of the statutes, 18 USC 1519, relates to the destruction, alteration or falsification of records. "That is the statute I am singularly most interested in here," Abrams said. The other, 18 USC 793, a statute under the Espionage Act that involves the gathering, transmitting or loss of defense information, also doesn't specifically relate to classified information, Abrams said. "It can relate to anything related to the national defense," he said. "That could be a very serious felony there."

Interesting, isn't it? Amazing how complicated and convoluted the law has become courtesy of legislators who seem to do all they can to protect and coddle the top of the food chain.

NPR reports:

"An unsealed warrant for the search of former President Trump's home indicates the FBI is investigating a possible breach of the Espionage Act.

DANIEL ESTRIN, HOST:

The week that began with an unprecedented search of former President Trump's home ended with something even more shocking. The search warrant indicated the FBI was investigating a possible violation of the Espionage Act. Joining us to discuss this and other political events from the past week is NPR's senior editor and correspondent Ron Elving. Good morning, Ron.

RON ELVING, BYLINE: Good to be with you, Daniel.

ESTRIN: The unsealed warrant suggests that whoever was responsible for bringing those documents from the White House to Mar-a-Lago could have violated the Espionage Act and two other criminal statutes. What are the implications for Trump?

ELVING: Let's take this one step at a time and be cautious, because there's been a lot of loose talk and the stakes here are very high indeed. We have now the unsealed warrant for the search and the attachments to that warrant. So we know that highly restricted documents were removed from the White House. This is not a technicality or a marginal violation. Removing this information from what they call a secured compartmented information facility is a serious matter, and it can be a serious crime. That is why this search was conducted after repeated efforts to retrieve the information by less drastic measures had failed, measures that included lengthy negotiations and even a subpoena.

Now, let us note that we have seen no charges filed in this case, not as yet. We know the former president has said that it's all another witch hunt, and it's all OK because he declassified this material himself before leaving office. But that is not how it works. He cannot do that with a wave of his wand. So as it stands, the material is as classified as ever and is sensitive, and the former president is going to need another explanation for what's going on."

Clearly. No question.

"ESTRIN: But if this incident does lead to criminal charges, will that bring an end to the partisan split in this country? Couldn't Trump's backers downplay these laws and say they're essentially recordkeeping errors and that the Democratic administration just, you know, used them as a means to get at the former president?

ELVING: We have heard Republicans saying that, and they are likely to continue, but that position becomes less tenable as more facts come to light. Bookkeeping errors are one thing. Lawless use of information relating to national security is another. And if indeed, it does relate to nuclear weapons, that is an entirely different matter, politically speaking. Now, in all likelihood, many of these Republicans know that. Yes, they all pushed back on the earlier reports of the search last week and denounced it and echoed Trump. But the preponderance of information we have seen in the last 24 hours is more serious than we might have imagined. This is not like the Russia investigation from five years ago or the Ukraine military investigation three years ago. This is new and potentially more damning than that."

Clearly, the worst is yet to come. A half century ago, Republicans stood tall. Forced the resignation of Richard Nixon, -- although indeed a criminal, a choir boy compared to the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

NBC News reports:

"When it finally dawned on Donald Trump in the twilight of his presidency that he wouldn’t be living in the White House for another four years, he had a problem: he had barely packed and had to move out quickly."

An excuse?

"West Wing aides and government movers frantically tossed documents and other items into banker boxes that were shipped to a storage room at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida along with other, previously packed records set aside by Trump, sometimes erratically so, according to two sources with knowledge of Trump’s move and records issues. There, in that Mar-a-Lago room, some of the boxes contained documents with sensitive materials that the federal government appears to consider so important to national security that FBI agents Monday took the unprecedented step of executing a search warrant at the home of a former president to seize them. The records included 11 sets of classified documents, including some that were labeled secret and top secret, according to a property receipt from the search. Trump’s style of handling White House documents has been described by people who worked for him as slapdash and ad hoc, contributing to the debacle he now faces. He was known to rip up records that aides would have to retrieve from trash cans or from the floor and tape back together, according to former aides and multiple reports. “It worried people all the time,” John Bolton, one of Trump’s former national security advisers, recalled in an interview. “Trump had a habit of grabbing intelligence documents,” added Bolton, who has been a sharp critic of the former president. “God knows what he did with it.”

Sad, isn't it?

"The criminal investigation into how sensitive records moved from the White House to Trump’s beachfront club writes a new chapter of his political biography. It’s a story of his impulsive instincts and disregard for established rules or norms that repeatedly created trouble for him in office and now may jeopardize the 2024 bid that he could launch at any time."

Clearly, he's not fit. Nowhere near.

NBC News reports:

"Three separate criminal investigations swirl around the former president: the records case, the probe concerning his role in the attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, and his effort to nullify Biden’s victory in Georgia, a crucial swing state. In the runup to Congress’s certification of Biden’s victory on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump acted as if he had won the election — he hadn’t — and did little to ensure a smooth transition, according to the source familiar with Trump’s move who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the records investigation. The source said that it was only after Jan. 6 — two weeks before Biden’s swearing-in — that he began to make serious preparations to vacate the White House. And the process was a mess. “It was a chaotic exit,” this person said. “Everyone piled everything — staff, the White House movers — into the moving trucks. When they got to Mar-a-Lago, they piled everything there in this storage room, except for things like the First Lady’s clothes. Everything in a box went there.” “He didn’t care. He didn’t care about the boxes. He was in a dark place at the time, if you remember. He didn’t even unpack things,” the source added. “Over time, the staff moved them back in. If you had brought him in that storeroom, and asked, ‘Which are your presidential papers?’ he couldn’t tell you.”

An excuse?

"But Bradley Moss, an attorney who specializes in national security law, said the search warrant executed by the FBI raises a question whether Trump knew he had sensitive documents and was keeping them from the federal government. “Whether he was obstructing or whether it was Trump being Trump is the big unknown,” Moss said."

Is it? Think so?

"According to advisers, confidants and former aides, Trump is a “pack rat” who tends to leave the actual packing to underlings. At the end of the day, they clear his desk of paperwork — notes, scribbles, newspaper clippings, printed-out-emails, the new tree alignment for a golf course, a new grill for Mar-a-Lago — and the contents are placed in a box on the floor. When filled, the box is removed by an aide and stored elsewhere. When he travels, an aide sometimes brings boxes along. It was no different when he was president: Trump would board Air Force One or his Marine One helicopter, and his bodyman or valets would be toting boxes packed with briefing papers he’d ripped from binders, random papers that someone might have handed him, press clippings, defense memoranda daily intelligence briefings or other classified material, according to former White House aides. “They cover the gamut of everything,” a former White House aide who witnessed the spectacle said, declining to comment on the record because of the federal investigation. Another former White House aide said that Trump was never much concerned about record management."

Clearly. No question. LOL.

“He’d have no awareness,” this person said. “When he was done with a piece of paper, he’d rip it up and throw it on the ground. That was his way of saying he’s done …[but] the narrative he was ripping up documents like he was his own personal shredding machine is not accurate — he’d rip it in half, not usually a thousand pieces.” Sometime last year, the National Archives reached out and asked Trump to turn over documents he was supposed to relinquish under the Presidential Records Act, a statute meant to preserve records for posterity, according to the two sources familiar with the chaotic move to Mar-a-Lago and records issues. Trump initially said he had already given over everything, but then he checked and found some records during the 2021 winter holiday and turned them over, the sources said. But in January 2022, the National Archives insisted that more records were missing, and Trump provided 15 boxes worth. Some, however, contained classified information and the agency then referred the matter to the Justice Department for further investigation, setting up a June meeting that resulted in still more records being turned over to the government. Trump’s representatives said they believed the matter was closed, and that all documents were rendered. After the search and the rendering of documents in June, one of Trump’s lawyers signed a document indicating Trump had no more responsive records, according to The New York Times, citing four sources with knowledge of the document. NBC News has not independently seen or confirmed the document. But the FBI collected subsequent information that indicated there were more sensitive documents, leading it to get a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago Monday. At least two dozen FBI agents executed the search warrant and carted off more boxes and records, according to the search warrant’s property receipt. The Justice Department and the FBI declined to comment for this article. In an unusual public statement Thursday, Attorney General Merrick Garland called for the unsealing of the search warrant and property receipt and said federal law and department rules prevented him from providing further details as to the basis of the search."

Why is it Trump always seems to blame others for his f--k-ups?

"Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich said Trump had “great care” for the handling of presidential records and blamed the General Services Administration, which manages and supports the basic functioning of federal agencies, for a haphazard move. “President Trump has great care for the importance of presidential records and presidential record keeping, so much so that both himself and his representatives have spent nearly two years painstakingly working with appropriate entities to ensure any items improperly moved by the General Services Administration were appropriately returned,” Budowich said in a written statement."

Not credible. Here's why:

"The GSA said in a written statement that “the responsibility for making decisions about what materials are moved rests entirely with the outgoing president and their supporting staff.” Budowich noted that Trump gave documents willingly before and said that, in June, “DOJ and FBI officials were welcomed into Mar-a-Lago, provided with a tour, and given additional documents that had been requested.” Indeed, in a show of hospitality, Trump offered the officials a Coke before they began their search in June, according to a source familiar with that meeting."

Big of the bastard. LOL.

"When Trump first took office, his administration had a loose system for controlling the flow of paper to and from the president, according to former White House officials who spoke anonymously, citing the federal investigation. He was getting documents that didn’t go through the national security process or any other. When John Kelly became White House chief of staff in the summer of 2017, he said he would remind Trump about the importance of abiding by the Presidential Records Act. A newcomer to public office who was accustomed to running his business his own way, Trump chafed under the regimen, Kelly said."

Tough shit.

“When I got there,” said Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, the staff secretary was “taking stuff out of the trash cans and taping it back together. That continued while I was there.”

Goddamned outrageous. -- Trump egregiously unfit for office.

"A former senior White House aide who was there at the time told NBC News that internal procedures tightened for a bit, but there was invariably slippage. “We had something approximating a process,” this person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing criminal investigation. “He’s a total pack rat, keeps all sorts of stuff.” Trump could be cavalier about material, crumpling up his papers or tearing them into pieces and leaving them on the floor, the former aide said. Trump also saved sentimental items, advisers said. He would ask to keep items that were fun to show off: classified surveillance photos or letters from foreign leaders, like France’s Emmanuel Macron, Canada’s Justin Trudeau and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, they said. Trump seemed especially fond of his correspondence from Kim. Bolton, in an interview, mentioned a letter that Trump had gotten from the North Korean leader and said that “John Kelly took it from him and we put it back in the right place.” (Kelly confirmed the account). “We gave Trump a copy of it back. He had a habit of taking stuff and you’d never see it again.” (Some of the documents contained in the 15 boxes retrieved in January included correspondence from Kim, according to The Washington Post, citing two people familiar with the contents.)"

Clearly, Trump didn't understand as president he was working for the American people, NOT himself.

Get this:

"At the height of the 2020 campaign, Trump was also keenly interested in all of the records relating to the government’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. He sent out a tweet ordering all such documents immediately declassified. But when media organizations tried to gain access to the records, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows argued in court that the records were not instantly declassified. After he left office, Trump was unaware that the records hadn’t been declassified and angrily swore at Meadows, according to a Trump adviser. “What the f---, Mark?” Trump screamed on the phone, according to the adviser who heard the exchange. By the end of his presidency, Trump had come to believe that his word alone could declassify any record in any way he wanted and that he didn’t need to follow standard rules for records management. Many scholars and lawyers disagree, but they are in accord on one point: following policies and procedures is a best practice to avoid some of the problems Trump is now facing. “The reason you create a paper trail is so that people can go back and say, ‘Here’s the document, here’s the memo from the White House counsel. I declassified these documents, specifically laid out on this day when I was president,’” said Charles Stimson, a senior fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation and a former federal prosecutor. “It becomes murkier when a president says, ‘I looked at a box and I declassified everything in that box.’ Technically, he can do that,” Stimson added. “But the better course of action is to identify the document, make a contemporaneous memo through the White House counsel, the chief of staff or an aide who has clearance to see those documents and have that declassification memo.” Trump did none of that for many of the records."

Think him fit for office?

"In applying for the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, the FBI cited three laws concerning federal records that don’t specifically require the documents in question to be classified, which could make it tougher for Trump to raise his defense of presidential declassification powers, according to Moss and other attorneys. On Thursday, just hours after Garland spoke and said he personally had authorized the Mar-a-Lago search, The Washington Post reported that FBI agents were looking for classified documents related to nuclear weapons, citing people familiar with the investigation. NBC News has not independently verified the Washington Post report, and Trump denied it, though on Friday he inaccurately suggested it wouldn’t be unprecedented for a former president to possess nuclear-related documents. Still, even critics like Bolton say they’re not sure Trump was that careless. “We don’t know what Trump has at Mar-a-Lago and people shouldn’t hyperventilate over it until we know more. Just because a piece of paper has the word ‘nuclear’ on it somewhere doesn’t mean it’s apocalyptic if it gets out.”

An excuse?

ABC News reports:

"Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the chair and vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, respectively, have sent a private letter to top intelligence officials and the Justice Department asking for more information from last week's unprecedented FBI search at Mar-a-Lago. The letter, sent Sunday to Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Attorney General Merrick Garland, specifically seeks the classified documents that were seized and an analysis of any national security threat posed by the mishandling of the information. The request comes after it was revealed that 11 sets of classified information were seized from former President Donald Trump's Florida resort, including confidential, secret and top-secret documents. The letter, first reported by Axios, also is seeking to get to the heart of the rationale behind the search, which Garland said he personally approved. "The Senate Intelligence Committee is charged with overseeing counterintelligence matters, including the handling and mishandling of classified information, which appears to be at the core of the search of Mar a Lago," said Rachel Cohen, a spokesperson for Warner who confirmed the letter and its contents but would not share it."

Why not? Why no transparency? Lack of transparency destroys all credibility.

"The letter from Warner and Rubio is the first bipartisan outreach from Congress asking for more information from the search. Other House committees have requested information on the fuel behind the search and what was found, though those appeals were spearheaded by Democrats. Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairs of the House Oversight and Intelligence Committees, respectively, sent a letter over the weekend asking Haines to conduct a damage assessment on the classified information recovered from Mar-a-Lago. "In his remarks, Attorney General Garland claimed there was a substantial public interest in the execution of an unprecedented search warrant on President Trump. As such, the Intelligence Committee has asked the Department of Justice to share with us, on a classified basis, the specific intelligence documents seized from Mar-a-Lago," Rubio said through a spokesperson. Rubio also sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting a meeting to discuss the search. The search on Trump's Florida residence sparked both a backlash from Republican allies over claims that the investigation is a political effort and Democratic questions over the handling of the classified information found at Mar-a-Lago, which included top-secret, sensitive compartmented information (SCI) material, a classification of materials that sometimes involves nuclear secrets. SCI material is also intended to only be handled in secured locations."

Congress needs to get to the bottom of all this.

"Trump has offered an array of explanations over the search, including saying that evidence was planted, that he had declassified the documents prior to leaving the White House and that the documents obtained by the FBI were protected under attorney-client and executive privileges."

Trump has no credibility. None. Remains a congenital liar.

What webs we weave. Pressure tightens, exponentially increases. NBC News reports:

"Rudy Giuliani is a "target" of the criminal investigation into possible 2020 election interference in Georgia by former President Donald Trump and others, his attorney told NBC News. The lawyer, Robert Costello, said that as part of their efforts to compel Giuliani’s testimony, Georgia prosecutors initially told New York courts that Giuliani was a material witness. But Costello said Giuliani's lawyers were informed Monday that he is a "target" of the probe. Giuliani, Trump's former personal attorney and former mayor of New York City, was ordered last week to testify in person Wednesday before a grand jury handling the case."

... Can always do as his fuhrer, the Trump nazi. Plead the Fifth. LOL.

"The grand jury, called by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, subpoenaed Giuliani in July as a material witness as part of its investigation into "coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections." The subpoena said Giuliani made statements at legislative hearings in Georgia falsely claiming that there had been "widespread voter fraud" in the state. Giuliani was ordered to testify by a judge after he failed to appear at a July 13 hearing to challenge the subpoena. Costello said Monday that Giuliani still intends to testify before the grand jury this week. The New York Times was first to report that Giuliani was informed he was a target of the probe. Meanwhile, a federal judge on Monday denied Sen. Lindsey Graham's effort to quash a subpoena seeking his testimony in the Georgia investigation. In a 22-page order, U.S. District Court Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta rejected Graham's arguments against having to testify before a special grand jury, including his contention that the speech and debate clause of the Constitution shields the South Carolina Republican from providing testimony. Graham's lawyers had argued that a post-election phone call Graham made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in November 2020 had a legislative purpose and therefore was covered by the clause. The judge also rejected Graham's argument that sovereign immunity protects him from having to testify because he's a sitting U.S. senator. "If the court were to accept Senator Graham’s sovereign immunity argument, it would mean that U.S. senators would not be required to testify before state grand juries no matter the circumstances," May wrote. "The law would give them complete immunity based solely on their status as federal officials."

That's right. Frightening, isn't it?

"Lastly, the judge said Graham's reasoning for being exempt from testifying because he's a high-ranking official also doesn't hold weight. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has shown "extraordinary circumstances" necessitated the testimony of Graham, who has "unique personal knowledge about the substance and circumstances of the phone calls with Georgia election officials, as well as the logistics of setting them up and his actions afterward," May said. "Senator Graham’s potential testimony on these issues — in addition to his knowledge about topics outside of the calls such as his alleged coordination with the Trump campaign before and after the calls are unique to Senator Graham, and Senator Graham has not suggested that anyone else from his office can speak to these issues or has unique personal knowledge of them," the order said. Graham's office released a statement saying he will appeal the judge's decision."

Surprised? ... Got something to hide, Senator?

"The Constitution’s speech or debate clause prevents a local official from questioning a senator about how that senator did his job," the statement said. "Here, Senator Graham was doing his due diligence before the Electoral Count Act certification vote — where he voted to certify the election. Although the district court acknowledged that speech or debate may protect some of Senator Graham’s activities, she nevertheless ignored the constitutional text and binding Supreme Court precedent, so Senator Graham plans to appeal to the 11th Circuit."

To protect your fuhrer, the Trump nazi, Senator?

"Willis is looking into the call Graham made to Raffensperger in the days after the November 2020 election. Raffensperger has said Graham pressed him about whether he had the power to reject certain absentee ballots, which Raffensperger interpreted as a suggestion to toss out legally cast votes. The subpoena seeking Graham's testimony in the case said he "made at least two telephone calls" to Raffensperger and his staff. "During the telephone calls, [Graham] questioned Secretary Raffensperger and his staff about reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump. [Graham] also made reference to allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia, consistent with public statements made by known affiliates of the Trump Campaign," the subpoena said."

Walls appear to be closing in, don't they?

NBC News reports:

"Senior intelligence officials realized early on that President Donald Trump wasn’t going to read even short written summaries of his regular intelligence briefings. So the CIA officers who prepared the briefings made sure they came to the Oval Office laden with striking images, pared-down charts and slick graphics designed to grab the president’s fleeting interest, several officials familiar with the briefings told NBC News."

Think Trump fit for office?

“To secure his attention, you had to use images and catchy headlines, even better if they had his name in them,” said Doug London, a former CIA officer who helped assemble the briefing material."

Sad, isn't it?

"On Aug. 30, 2019, top spies learned the dangers of that approach. What unfolded that day became an infamous moment in the Trump presidency — one that former intelligence officials say perfectly illustrated his approach to dealing with state secrets. A former senior intelligence official with firsthand knowledge told NBC News that Trump did indeed tweet a highly classified image taken by a secret spy satellite, as many experts suspected at the time. And in doing so, the official and others said, Trump gave U.S. adversaries keen insights into the U.S. capabilities to spy from above. “The president tweeted a picture of an Iranian missile launch site that showed a failed ICBM test launch that everybody acknowledged was a highly classified picture taken from space,” former national security adviser John Bolton, who was in Poland when it happened, told NBC News Monday. “He tweeted it out, and that of course declassified it by definition, but also showed what could happen when such a picture, even on a Twitter attachment, was then able to be analyzed by foreign intelligence services.” Bolton and others familiar with it say the episode is emblematic of a mindset in which Trump or people close to him thought it was permissible to bring and store what the FBI says are highly classified documents to his compound in Mar-a-Lago. “He spent no time understanding what made something a secret and what we protected,” a second former senior intelligence official said."

Still think Trump fit for office?

"The former senior official directly familiar with the matter explained to NBC News that the president’s intelligence briefing that day included a photo from one of the America’s premier spy satellites — an image with resolution far superior to anything on the commercial market. The photo showed the aftermath of a catastrophic failure of an Iranian rocket launch. “We had this image of the Iranian missile blown up, and it was exquisite intelligence, and he didn’t even wait,” the former official said. “As soon as we showed him, he said, ‘Hey, I’m tweeting this.’” The official said CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire tried to talk Trump out of doing it, noting that the U.S. spent billions of dollars developing capabilities to capture images from space, and told Trump, “You can’t do this. If you put this out, they’re going understand what our capability is.” But the former official said Trump was unmoved. “He said, 'Look, I’m the president, I can declassify anything,'” the official said."

Still think Trump fit for office?

"Trump was told he was correct, but the intelligence officials asked Trump to wait, so they could provide the same image with less resolution, the official said. Robert O’Brien, who was soon to replace Bolton as national security adviser, and Vice President Mike Pence were also in the briefing, the former official said. Pence, O’Brien, Haspel and Maguire all declined to comment. Former President Trump’s office did not respond to a request for comment."

Still believe these gutless assholes fit for office? Not an exigent threat to national security?

"Presidents have declassified satellite photos in the past, as when President John Kennedy released photographs of Soviet missile sites during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. But in that and other cases, the government went through a process to make sure no sources or methods were exposed. The satellite photo wasn’t the only instance in which Trump was accused of releasing classified information. As NBC News reported at the time, Trump in May 2017 told the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office that the Islamic State had used stolen airport security equipment to test a bomb that could be hidden in electronic devices and slipped undetected into an airplane cabin, the officials said. And he named the city in ISIS-held Syria where the intelligence was gathered, the officials added. After the Iran photo incident, the former official said, senior intelligence officials resolved never again to bring highly classified images to the Oval Office."

Sad, isn't it? Trump should have been immediately impeached, convicted, and removed from office. An exigent threat to national security.

"Bolton, the former national security adviser, and London, the former CIA officer, said Trump would ask for highly classified images, charts or other documents. “The president had a habit of asking to retain sensitive documents and from time to time, he did that and we didn’t know what happened to them,” Bolton said. “And it was always a concern, because he didn’t really fully understand the risks to sources and methods and other dangers of revealing classified information that it might get out to the wrong people.” London said, “If he decided he liked something he saw, you would have to wrestle it back.”

Gets worse. Get this:

"To counter that, London said, briefers would use images blown up to the size of posters so Trump could not take them. Another former senior intelligence official said Trump “didn’t behave as if he felt an obligation to protect secrets. He didn’t seem to understand.” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who handles cases involving intelligence officers and classified information, told NBC News that Trump alone could not have been responsible for all the classified material that found its way to Mar-a-Lago. “I don’t think anyone realistically thinks that Donald Trump took the documents off of his desk, pack them in a U-Haul box, put them on the helicopter, picked it up off the helicopter, put it in Mar-a-Lago,” he said. “Others did it for him. There must be several other people at least, who are in the scope and eyes of the Justice Department for prosecution under the Espionage Act and other statutes.”

8-12-22

Trump's Florida estate searched for classified material. The Associated Press reports:

"The FBI searched Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate as part of an investigation into whether he took classified records from the White House to his Florida residence, people familiar with the matter said, a dramatic and unprecedented escalation of law enforcement scrutiny of the former president."

What took so long? Why the delay?

"Trump, disclosing the search in a lengthy statement, asserted that agents had opened a safe at his home and described their work as an “unannounced raid” that he likened to “prosecutorial misconduct.” He was in New York, planning to meet later Tuesday at his Bedminster, New Jersey, club with members of the Republican Study Committee, a group headed by Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana that says it is committed to putting forth his priorities in Congress. Monday’s search intensified the months-long probe into how classified documents ended up in boxes of White House records located at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year. A separate grand jury is investigating efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and it all adds to potential legal peril for Trump as he lays the groundwork for another run.

"The Justice Department has been investigating the potential mishandling of classified information since the National Archives and Records Administration said it had received from Mar-a-Lago 15 boxes of White House records, including documents containing classified information, earlier this year. The National Archives said Trump should have turned over that material upon leaving office, and it asked the Justice Department to investigate. There are multiple federal laws governing the handling of classified records and sensitive government documents, including statutes that make it a crime to remove such material and retain it at an unauthorized location. Though a search warrant does not necessarily mean criminal charges are near or even expected, federal officials looking to obtain one must first demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause that a crime occurred."

Wouldn't want to confuse Republicans with the truth, would we?

"Two people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation, said the search on Monday was related to the records probe. Agents were also looking to see if Trump had additional presidential records or any classified documents at the estate. Trump has previously maintained that presidential records were turned over “in an ordinary and routine process.” His son Eric said on Fox News on Monday night that he had spent the day with his father and that the search happened because “the National Archives wanted to corroborate whether or not Donald Trump had any documents in his possession.” Asked how the documents ended up at Mar-a-Lago, Eric Trump said the boxes were among items that got moved out of the White House during “six hours” on Inauguration Day, as the Bidens prepared to move into the building."

Give me a break. They were classified documents. Where was the security? Non-existent?

"Thomas Schwartz, a Vanderbilt University history professor who studies and writes about the presidency, said there is no precedent for a former president facing an FBI raid -- even going back to Watergate. President Richard Nixon wasn’t allowed to take tapes or other materials from the White House when he resigned in 1974, Schwartz noted, and many of his papers remained in Washington for years before being transferred to his presidential library in California."

While Nixon had indeed engaged in criminal activity, he was a choir boy compared to Trump. Unlike currently, Republicans a half century ago stood tall. Forced Nixon's resignation.

"The probe is hardly the only legal headache confronting Trump. A separate investigation related to efforts by him and his allies to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election — which led to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol — has also been intensifying in Washington. Several former White House officials have received grand jury subpoenas. And a district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, is investigating whether Trump and his close associates sought to interfere in that state’s election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden."

The Associated Press reports:

"The FBI’s unprecedented search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida residence ricocheted around government, politics and a polarized country Tuesday along with questions as to why the Justice Department — notably cautious under Attorney General Merrick Garland — decided to take such a drastic step. Answers weren’t quickly forthcoming. Agents on Monday searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, which is also a private club, as part of a federal investigation into whether the former president took classified records from the White House to his Florida residence, people familiar with the matter said. It marked a a dramatic escalation of law enforcement scrutiny of Trump, who faces an array of inquiries tied to his conduct in the waning days of his administration."

Why all the foot dragging? No one is above the law. -- From the bottom of the food chain to the very top.

"From echoes of Watergate to the more immediate House probe of the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Washington, a city used to sleepy Augusts, reeled from one speculative or accusatory headline to the next. Was the Justice Department politicized? What prompted it to seek authorization to search the estate for classified documents now, months after it was revealed that Trump had taken boxes of materials with him when he left the White House after losing the 2020 election?"

Again, what took so long?

"Garland has not tipped his hand despite an outcry from some Democrats impatient over whether the department was even pursuing evidence that has surfaced in the Jan. 6 probe and other investigations— and from Republicans who were swift to echo Trump’s claims that he was the victim of political prosecution. All Garland has said publicly is that “no one is above the law.”

Goddamned right.

"A federal judge had to sign off on the warrant after establishing that FBI agents had shown probable cause before they could descend on Trump’s shuttered-for-the-season home — he was in New York, a thousand or so miles away, at the time of the search. Monday’s search intensified the months-long probe into how classified documents ended up in boxes of White House records located at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year. A separate grand jury is investigating efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, and it all adds to potential legal peril for Trump as he lays the groundwork for a potential repeat run for the White House.

"Justice Department spokesperson Dena Iverson declined to comment on the search, including whether Garland had personally authorized it. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the West Wing first learned of the search from public media reports and the White House had not been briefed in the run-up or aftermath. Jean-Pierre refused to say whether Biden wanted the attorney general to explain publicly the rationale for the search amid the concerns about politicization of the probe. “The Justice Department conducts investigations independently and we leave any law enforcement matters to them,” she said. “We are not involved.”

CBS News reports:

"The FBI took boxes and documents while executing a search warrant at former President Donald Trump's home in Florida on Monday, two sources confirmed to CBS News. No electronics were taken, according to the sources. Trump said Monday night that his Mar-a-Lago resort was being "raided" by the FBI. Sources confirmed to CBS News that the search was connected to a Justice Department investigation that was prompted by the National Archives earlier this year, when the agency said it found 15 boxes of presidential records, including classified material, at Mar-a-Lago. One official said some or possibly all of the seized documents contained classified material. A source in Palm Beach, Florida, who is close to Trump told CBS News on Monday that the search was "related to PRA," or the Presidential Records Act. "When have you ever heard about a raid because of PRA?" the source asked. The Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978, governs the records-keeping responsibilities of former presidents. It requires any memos, letters, emails and other documents related to the president's duties to be preserved and given to the National Archives at the end of an administration."

Here's the problem:

"In February, the National Archives asked the Justice Department to investigate Trump's handling of documents. The National Archives said then that some of the documents Trump turned over to them had been ripped up and taped back together. On Monday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman released photos from her upcoming book that appeared to show at least two instances where Trump tried to flush documents down the toilet."

No problem with that?

"Nothing like this has ever happened to a President of the United States before," Trump said in a statement on Monday. "After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate."

Don't think so?

"Republicans blasted the search, with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy vowing that if the party takes back the House, "we will conduct immediate oversight of this department, follow the facts and leave no stone unturned." He warned, "Attorney General Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar."

The Aryan arrogance of the nazi element in the Republican Party knows no bounds.

8-12-22

Trump pleads the Fifth. The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination as he testified under oath Wednesday in the New York attorney general’s long-running civil investigation into his business dealings, the former president said in a statement. Trump arrived at Attorney General Letitia James’ Manhattan offices in a motorcade shortly before 9 a.m., before announcing more than an hour later that he “declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution.” “I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’ Now I know the answer to that question,” the statement said. “When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors and the Fake News Media, you have no choice.”

What a crock of shit. You reap what you sow, Mr.'President.'

"As vociferous as Trump has been in defending himself in written statements and on the rally stage, legal experts said answering questions in a deposition was risky because anything he said could potentially be used against him in a parallel criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney. The Fifth Amendment protects people from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in a criminal case. Still, New York University law professor Stephen Gillers said he was surprised, given Trump’s previous experience with depositions, a legal term for sworn testimony that’s not given in court. “Jousting with lawyers at depositions, while avoiding lying, is something he’s proud of,” Gillers said. “Perhaps his lawyers feared that his impetuosity would imperil him.”

Clearly, the walls are closing in.

"Trump has undergone many depositions, dating to his career as a real estate developer. He has sometimes seemed to relish giving answers: For example, he said he was “pleased to have had the opportunity to tell my side” last October in a lawsuit brought by protesters who say his security guard roughed them up outside Trump Tower in 2015. However, Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer 97 questions in a 1990 divorce deposition."

... Something to hide, Mr. Trump? Covering your ass, sir? 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?'

"Wednesday’s events unfolded as a flurry of legal activity surrounds the former president. Just days before, FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida as part of an unrelated federal probe into whether he took classified records when he left the White House. New York’s investigation, led by James, involves allegations that Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, misled lenders and tax authorities about the value of prized assets like golf courses and skyscrapers. “My great company, and myself, are being attacked from all sides,” Trump wrote beforehand on Truth Social, the social media platform he founded. “Banana Republic!”

What a goddamned blowhard.

"In May, James’ office said that it was nearing the end of an investigation against Trump, his company or both. The Republican’s deposition was one of the few remaining missing pieces. Once the investigation wraps up, the attorney general could decide to bring a lawsuit seeking financial penalties against Trump or his company, or even a ban on them being involved in certain types of businesses. Two of Trump’s adult children, Donald Jr. and Ivanka, testified in recent days, two people familiar with the matter said. The people were not authorized to speak publicly and did so on condition of anonymity. It’s unclear whether they invoked the Fifth Amendment during their depositions. When Eric Trump, their brother, sat for a deposition in the same investigation in 2020, he invoked the Fifth more than 500 times, according to court papers. James, a Democrat, has said in court filings that her office has uncovered “significant” evidence that Trump’s company “used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions.” James alleges the Trump Organization exaggerated the value of its holdings to impress lenders or misstated what land was worth to slash its tax burden. The company even exaggerated the size of Trump’s Manhattan penthouse, saying it was nearly three times its actual size — a difference in value of about $200 million, James’ office said. Trump has denied the allegations, contending that seeking the best valuations is a common practice in the real estate industry. He’s also accused James, who is Black, of racism in pursuing the investigation."

'Kettle calling the pot black.' Literally. LOL. What a crock of shit.

"People generally don’t have a constitutional right to avoid questions in a civil lawsuit, but Trump’s legal team fought James’ attempt to question him for months, arguing that the district attorney’s parallel investigation created a risk he could face criminal charges. Lawyers in James’ office have assisted with that criminal investigation. Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron ruled that James’ office had “the clear right” to question Trump and other principals in his company — though Trump also had a right to decline to answer questions because of the criminal case. That criminal probe had appeared to be progressing toward a possible criminal indictment, but stalled after a new district attorney, Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, took office in January. A grand jury that had been hearing evidence disbanded. The top prosecutor who had been handling the probe resigned after Bragg raised questions internally about the viability of the case. The district attorney’s investigation has already led to criminal charges against the Trump Organization and its longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, who are accused of tax fraud related to fringe benefits offered by the company. Weisselberg and the company’s lawyers are scheduled to be in court Friday to argue that the case should be dismissed."

7-29-22

1-6-21 Congressional Committee Update. The Associated Press reports:

"The House Jan. 6 committee closed out its set of summer hearings with its most detailed focus yet on the investigation’s main target: former President Donald Trump. The panel on Thursday examined Trump’s actions on Jan. 6, 2021, as hundreds of his supporters broke into the U.S. Capitol, guiding viewers minute-by-minute through the deadly afternoon to show how long it took for the former president to call off the rioters. The panel focused on 187 minutes that day, between the end of Trump’s speech calling for supporters to march to the Capitol at 1:10 p.m. and a video he released at 4:17 p.m. telling the rioters they were “very special” but they had to go home. Trump was “the only person in the world who could call off the mob,” but he refused to do so for several hours, said the committee’s chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, who participated in the hearing remotely due to a COVID-19 diagnosis. “He could not be moved.” The panel emphasized where Trump was as the violence unfolded — in a White House dining room, sitting at the head of the table, watching the violent breach of the Capitol on Fox News. He retreated to the dining room at 1:25 p.m., according to Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., one of two members who led the hearing. That was after some rioters had already breached barriers around the Capitol — and after Trump had been told about the violence within 15 minutes of returning to the White House."

Yet as he watched the bloody insurrection he had indeed incited, the treasonous, traitorous son of a bitch failed to do anything for over three hours as the rampage and killing continued unabated.

"Fox News was showing live shots of the rioters pushing past police, Luria said, showing excerpts of the coverage. In video testimony played at the hearing, former White House aides talked about their frantic efforts to get the president to tell his supporters to turn around. Pat Cipollone, Trump’s top White House lawyer, told the panel that multiple aides — including Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump — advised the president to say something. “People need to be told” to leave, Cipollone recalled telling the president, urging Trump to make a public announcement. “Fast.” Trump “could not be moved,” Thompson said, “to rise from his dining room table and walk the few steps down the White House hallway into the press briefing room where cameras were anxiously and desperately waiting to carry his message to the armed and violent mob savagely beating and killing law enforcement officers.”

Outrageously, treasonous. Traitorous.

"As he sat in the White House, Trump made no efforts to call for increased law enforcement assistance at the Capitol. Witnesses confirmed that Trump did not call the defense secretary, the homeland security secretary or the attorney general. The committee played audio of Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reacting with surprise to the former president’s reaction to the attack. “You’re the commander-in-chief. You’ve got an assault going on on the Capitol of the United States of America. And there’s Nothing? No call? Nothing Zero?” Milley said."

Yet, the nazi element in the Republican Party continues to support this traitorous, treasonous son of a bitch.

"As Trump declined to call for help, Vice President Mike Pence was hiding in the Capitol, just feet away from rioters who were about to breach the Senate chamber. The committee played audio from an unidentified White House security official who said Pence’s Secret Service agents “started to fear for their own lives” at the Capitol and called family members in case they didn’t survive. Shortly afterward, at 2:24 p.m., Trump tweeted that Pence didn’t have the “courage” to block or delay the election results as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory. “He put a target on his own vice president’s back,” said Luria."

Sad, isn't it? Pence stood tall. Stood his ground.

"Matt Pottinger, who was Trump’s deputy national security adviser at the time, and Sarah Matthews, then the deputy press secretary, testified at the hearing. Both resigned from their White House jobs immediately after the insurrection."

Truly, Uncommon Valor.

"Both Pottinger and Matthews told the committee of their disgust at Trump’s tweet about Pence. Pottinger said he was “disturbed and worried to see that the president was attacking Vice President Pence for doing his constitutional duty,” which he said was “the opposite of what we needed at that moment.” “That was the moment I decided I was going to resign,” Pottinger said. Matthews said the tweet was “essentially him giving the green light to those people,” and said Trump’s supporters “truly latch on to every word and every tweet.” She also described a debate within the press office about whether the violence should be condemned — and her frustration that such a debate was even happening, and that they were debating the politics of a tweet. Matthews said she pointed to the television. “Do you think it looks like we are effing winning? Because I don’t think it does,” she said."

No shit.

"The committee showed some of the texts that were sent to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as White House aides tried to get the president to act. Meadows turned the texts over to the panel before he stopped cooperating. “This is one you go to the mattresses on,” Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, texted Meadows. “They will try to f--- his entire legacy on this if it gets worse.” “Mark, he needs to stop this, now,” texted Mick Mulvaney, Meadows’ former GOP House colleague and the former director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Hey Mark, the president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home,” texted Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham."

Trump ignored family, friends, and allies pleas for hours.

"As some of the worst of the fighting at the Capitol was still underway, and had been going on for hours, Trump put out the video at 4:17 p.m. The committee showed video of Trump filming the statement, and a copy of the script that he ignored. “I am asking you to leave the Capitol Hill region NOW and go home in a peaceful way,” the script said. But the president did not actually say that, instead repeating baseless claims of voter fraud without condemning the violence. “So go home. We love you. You’re very special,” Trump ended up saying. “I know how you feel.” In video testimony, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said he got there as the filming ended, and “I think he was basically retiring for the day.” The committee showed video from the Capitol siege at that exact moment — rioters trying to violently push through the main doors, battering officers who had been fighting for hours. Police radio traffic relayed, “Another officer unconscious.” The committee showed never-before-seen outtakes of a speech prepared for Trump on Jan. 7 in which he was supposed to say the election was over. But he bristled at that line, telling a roomful of supporters, “I don’t want to say the election is over.” In the outtakes, Trump was visibly angry — at one point hitting his hand on the podium — as he worked through the prepared remarks, with his daughter Ivanka and others heard chiming in with suggestions. In the final video, Trump condemns the violence and says: “Congress has certified the results, and new administration will be inaugurated on January 20. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.”

Been over a year and a half since the insurrection Trump had incited. Yet, the kingpin himself has yet to be indicted for his crimes. Where's the justice? Why all the foot dragging? In a supposed democratic republic no one is above the law.

"At the beginning of the hearing, Thompson and Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the committee’s Republican vice chair, announced that the panel would “reconvene” in September to continue laying out their findings. “Doors have opened, new subpoenas have been issued and the dam has begun to break,” Cheney said of the committee’s probe. “We have considerably more to do. We have far more evidence to share with the American people and more to gather.”

7-29-22

Trump Associate Steve Bannon Convicted. The Associated Press reports:

"Steve Bannon, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was convicted on Friday of contempt charges for defying a congressional subpoena from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Bannon, 68, was convicted after a four-day trial in federal court on two counts: one for refusing to appear for a deposition and the other for refusing to provide documents in response to the committee’s subpoena. The jury of 8 men and 4 women deliberated just under three hours. He faces up to two years in federal prison when he’s sentenced on Oct. 21. Each count carries a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail. David Schoen, one of Bannon’s lawyers said outside the courthouse the verdict would not stand. “This is round one,” Schoen said. “You will see this case reversed on appeal.” Likewise, Bannon himself said, “We may have lost the battle here today; we’re not going to lose this war.” He thanked the jurors for their service and said he had only one disappointment — “and that is the gutless members of that show trial committee, the J-6 committee didn’t have the guts to come down here and testify.”

Testify for what? That the best you got, Steve? Sadly, lacking. Egregiously, so. Delusionally believe you're above the law? Your fuhrer, the Trump nazi, certainly thinks he is. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Prosecutors were just as firm on the other side of the verdict. “The subpoena to Stephen Bannon was not an invitation that could be rejected or ignored,” Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said in a statement. “Mr. Bannon had an obligation to appear before the House Select Committee to give testimony and provide documents. His refusal to do so was deliberate, and now a jury has found that he must pay the consequences.”

Readers will recall:

"The committee sought Bannon’s testimony over his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Bannon had initially argued that his testimony was protected by Trump’s claim of executive privilege. But the House panel and the Justice Department contend such a claim is dubious because Trump had fired Bannon from the White House in 2017 and Bannon was thus a private citizen when he was consulting with the then-president in the run-up to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Bannon’s lawyers tried to argue during the trial that he didn’t refuse to cooperate and that the dates “were in flux.” They pointed to the fact that Bannon had reversed course shortly before the trial kicked off — after Trump waived his objection — and had offered to testify before the committee. In closing arguments Friday morning, both sides re-emphasized their primary positions from the trial. The prosecution maintained that Bannon willfully ignored clear and explicit deadlines, and the defense claimed Bannon believed those deadlines were flexible and subject to negotiation. Bannon was served with a subpoena on Sept. 23 last year ordering him to provide requested documents to the committee by Oct. 7 and appear in person by Oct. 14. Bannon was indicted in November on two counts of criminal contempt of Congress, a month after the Justice Department received the House panel’s referral. Bannon’s attorney Evan Corcoran told jurors Friday in his closing arguments that those deadlines were mere “placeholders” while lawyers on each side negotiated terms."

What a crock of shit. Can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit? LOL. Wake up. Your client had since September 23, 2021 to comply with the subpoena but determinedly failed to do so. Spent the better part of a year stonewalling the subpoena.

Gets worse. Get this:

"Corcoran said the committee “rushed to judgment” because it “wanted to make an example of Steve Bannon.” Corcoran also hinted that the government’s main witness, Jan. 6 committee chief counsel Kristin Amerling, was personally biased. Amerling admitted on the stand that she is a lifelong Democrat and has been friends with one of the prosecutors for years. Corcoran also vaguely hinted that the signature of Jan. 6 committee chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss) looked different on the subpoena than on other letters but dropped that topic when the prosecution objected."

Fascinating, isn't it? If not a lie, Counselor, why back off?

"Prosecutors focused on the series of letters exchanged between the Jan. 6 committee and Bannon’s lawyers. The correspondence shows Thompson immediately dismissing Bannon’s claim that he was exempted by Trump’s claim of executive privilege and explicitly threatening Bannon with criminal prosecution. “The defense wants to make this hard, difficult and confusing,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Amanda Vaughn in her closing statement. “This is not difficult. This is not hard. There were only two witnesses because it’s as simple as it seems.” The defense Thursday motioned for an acquittal, saying the prosecution had not proved it’s case. In making his motion for acquittal before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, Bannon attorney Corcoran said that “no reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Bannon refused to comply.” Once the motion was made the defense rested its case without putting on any witnesses, telling Nichols that Bannon saw no point in testifying since the judge’s previous rulings had gutted his planned avenues of defense. Among other things, Bannon’s team was barred from calling as witnesses House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or members of the House panel."

7-22-22

1-6-21 Congressional Committee Update. The Associated Press reports:

"The House Jan. 6 committee’s investigation of the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election and the events leading up to the U.S. Capitol insurrection is raising questions about former President Donald Trump’s role and whether he committed crimes. The various schemes and talking points that witnesses have revealed also highlight what a president has the authority to do. Government and legal experts say the bigger question is: Can further limits be put on presidential authority to make sure there are no repeats of 2020 in future administrations?"

Good question.

"The Insurrection Act is a long-standing presidential power that gives the president wide latitude to use military forces to stop a rebellion or domestic violence. Military forces are normally barred by the Posse Comitatus Act from joining in civilian law enforcement actions. Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the liberty and national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said the insurrection “in my opinion” could have been the catalyst for the president to invoke the act and bring in the military to escort congressional lawmakers out of the proceedings for their safety. “That doesn’t mean Donald Trump would have been the president, but it would have thrown a wrench in the works,” she said. Under the NEA, dozens of statutory authorities become available to any president when national emergencies are declared. They include everything from severe weather responses to civil disorder. Congress can vote to terminate the declaration, but if the president vetoes, a two-thirds supermajority is required to overcome the veto. “The statute itself doesn’t say what an emergency is. It leaves it up to the president,” said Chris Edelson, assistant professor of government at American University. “That means an unscrupulous president can use it” for ill purposes. It is up to Congress to rein in the president, he said."

Readers will recall:

"In the most recent hearing, former White House counsel Pat Cipillone discussed a rancorous meeting in which Trump’s outside legal team brought a draft executive order to seize the states’ voting machines. In his testimony Cipollone said the plan was a terrible idea. It had been floated before. “You can’t preemptively seize voting machines. If there was a reason to do so, you need a court order,” Edelson said. At the same meeting, there were a range of theories pushed, including invoking martial law. It was an idea Trump adviser Michael Flynn had floated before, along with seizing the voting machines. Under the Insurrection Act the president can call on the military in certain circumstances, but they are intended to support civilian law enforcement. One example was the use of the military during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Under martial law the military takes over the function of the civilian government. Martial law, said Goitein, “gives me nightmares” because the law is unsettled. “The whole concept of martial law, there’s not even an agreed upon definition of what it is,” she said."

Interestingly:

"The House passed the Protecting Our Democracy bill last year and sent it to the Senate. The legislation would prevent presidents from pardoning themselves, strengthen reporting requirements for campaigns, and clarify and enhance criminal penalties for campaigns that accept foreign information sought or obtained for political advantage. The Senate has taken no action on the proposal. Without congressional action, the questions over presidential power and its expansiveness remain open. “The Constitution assumes that checks and balances work. If the president goes too far, Congress will rein him in,” said Edelson. In Trump’s case, Congress has not shown an appetite for doing that."

That's a problem. A big problem. Clearly, the nazi element in the Republican Party has traitorously, treasonously failed to act as check and balance in the Senate.

7-15-22

1-6-21 Congressional Committee Update. The Associated Press reports:

"The vice chair of the House Jan. 6 committee said Donald Trump has attempted to contact a witness who was talking to the panel investigating the attack on the Capitol. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said Tuesday that the Justice Department has been notified. “We will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney said.

"The Jan. 6 committee revealed details of an “unhinged” late night meeting at the White House with Donald Trump’s outside lawyers suggesting the military seize state voting machines in a last-ditch effort to pursue his false claims of voter fraud before the defeated president summoned a mob to the U.S. Capitol. The committee investigating last year’s attack at the Capitol is working to show how far-right extremists answered Trump’s call to come for a big rally in Washington. As dozens of lawsuits and his claims of voter fraud fizzled, Trump met late into the night of Dec. 18 with attorneys at the White House before tweeting the rally invitation — “Be there, will be wild!” Members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups are now facing rare sedition charges over the siege. “This tweet served as a call to action -- and in some cases a call to arms.” said one panel member, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla. Tuesday’s hearing was the seventh for the Jan. 6 committee. Over the past month, the panel has created a narrative of a defeated Trump “detached from reality,” clinging to false claims of voter fraud and working feverishly to reverse his election defeat. It all culminated with the attack on the Capitol, the committee says. The panel featured new video testimony from Pat Cipollone, Trump’s former White House counsel, recalling the explosive meeting at the White House when Trump’s outside legal team brought a draft executive order to seize states’ voting machines — a “terrible idea,” he said. “That’s not how we do things in the United States,” Cipollone testified. Cipollone and other White House officials scrambled to intervene in the late-night meeting Trump was having with attorneys Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, retired national security aide Michael Flynn and the head of the online retail company Overstock. It erupted in shouting and screaming, another aide testified. “Where is the evidence?” Cipollone demanded of the false claims of voter fraud. “What they were proposing, I thought, was nuts,” testified another White House official, Eric Herschmann. But Trump was intrigued and essentially told his White House lawyers that at least Powell and outside allies were trying to do something. “You guys are not tough enough,” Giuliani in video testimony recalled the president telling the White House attorneys. “You guys are p——-,” he said, using crass language. As night turned to morning, Trump tweeted the call for supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, when Congress would be tallying the Electoral College results. “Be there. Will be wild,” Trump wrote. Immediately, the extremists reacted. The panel showed graphic and violent text messages and played videos of right-wing figures, including Alex Jones, and others laying out that Jan. 6 would be the day they fight for the president. In vulgar and often racist language the messages beaming across the far-right forums planned for the big day that they said Trump was asking for in Washington. It would be a “red wedding,” said one, a reference to mass killing. “Bring handcuffs.”

Treason.

"The committee began the second half of the hearing making connections between Trump allies Flynn and Roger Stone and the extremist groups who were preparing to come to Washington. It showed showing a picture of Rhodes, the Oath Keeper leader, walking with Flynn, the former national security aide to Trump, outside the Capitol at some point. The committee also heard from Trump’s former campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson, who testified about her concerns about those planning for Jan. 6. And the panel showed anew that on the day of the rally, Trump intended to join the mob at the Capitol. “March to the Capitol after,” Trump said in a draft tweet about the rally."

The Associated Press reports:

"House investigators are laying out the origins of the violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, using video testimony and live witnesses to describe former President Donald Trump’s “call to action” in a December tweet and how White House advisers urged the president to drop his false claims of election fraud. At its seventh public hearing, the Jan. 6 panel is not only detailing the plans of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers ahead of the attack, but is keeping its focus on what was happening inside the White House at the time. A major focus of the hearing is Trump’s Dec. 19 tweet about a “big protest” at the coming joint session of Congress: “Be there, will be wild!” Florida Rep. Stephanie Murphy said the tweet “served as a call to action and in some cases as a call to arms.” She said the president “called for backup” as he said Vice President Mike Pence and other Republicans didn’t have enough courage to try to block President Joe Biden’s win at the Jan. 6 joint session. The tweet “electrified and galvanized” Trump’s supporters, said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, especially “the dangerous extremists in the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and other racist and white nationalist groups spoiling for a fight.” Raskin said Trump emboldened the groups around a common goal. “Never before in American history had a president called for a crowd to come contest the counting of electoral votes by Congress,” he said. The committee spliced together video clips from interviews to describe a meeting from Dec. 18, in the hours before Trump’s tweet, in almost minute-to-minute fashion. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who testified live before the panel two weeks ago, called the meeting between White House aides and informal advisers pushing the fraud claims “unhinged” in a text that evening to another Trump aide. Other aides described “screaming” as the advisers floated wild theories of election fraud with no evidence to back them up, and as White House lawyers aggressively pushed back. The video clips included testimony from lawyer Sidney Powell, who had pushed some of the wildest theories, including of breached voting machines and hacked thermostats that she somehow tied to the false claims of fraud. White House lawyer Eric Herschmann, one of the aides who pushed back, said the theories were “nuts” and “it got to the point where the screaming was completely, completely out there.” The aides described a chaotic six hours of back and forth, starting with Trump talking to a group of the informal advisers with no White House aides present. Both Cipollone and Powell said in interviews that Cipollone, the White House counsel, rushed in to disrupt the gathering. Powell said sarcastically that she thought Cipollone set a new “ground speed record” getting there. Cipollone, who sat with the committee for a private interview last week after a subpoena, said he didn’t think the group was giving Trump good advice and said he and the other White House lawyers just kept asking them, “where is the evidence?” But they did not receive any good answers, he said. Hours later, at 1:42 a.m., Trump sent the tweet urging supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6."

Sad, isn't it? Treason.

"As they have done several times before, the committee showed video testimony from White House aides who said they did not believe there was widespread fraud in the election and had told the president that. Many said they were firmly convinced Biden’s victory was a done deal after the states certified the electors on Dec. 14 and after dozens of Trump’s campaign lawsuits failed in court. Ivanka Trump, the former president’s daughter, said it was her sentiment that the election was over after Dec. 14 and “probably prior as well.” Former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said she planned for life after the White House at that point. Eugene Scalia, the Labor Secretary at the time, said he told the president in a call that it was time to say that Biden had won. Former Trump press aide Judd Deere said he told Trump “my personal viewpoint was that the electoral college had met” and the time to pursue litigation had closed. “He disagreed,” Deere said."

A change in strategy. Get this:

"The panel is holding the hearings in an effort to establish the truth about the events of Jan. 6, and the weeks beforehand, as Trump and some of his GOP allies try to downplay it or deny it altogether. Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, one of two Republicans on the panel, said at the beginning of the hearing that the committee had observed “a change in how witnesses and lawyers in the Trump orbit approach this committee and their strategy” over the past few weeks. Instead of denying involvement, Cheney said, witnesses and those in Trump’s orbit have increasingly tried to “blame people his advisers called ’the crazies.” “President Donald Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child,” Cheney said. “And just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices.” She also spoke to people who still believe his false claims of fraud. “These Americans did not have access to the truth, like Donald Trump did,” Cheney said, and they wanted to believe him. “For millions of Americans, that may be painful to accept. But it is true.”

NBC News reports:

"The day after an explosive Oval Office meeting in which a motley crew of outside advisers clashed with White House lawyers over a plan to seize voting machines, then-President Donald Trump turned his focus to riling up his supporters for the Jan. 6 push to stop the counting of electoral votes, according to evidence presented in Tuesday's House committee hearing. Two longtime Trump advisers, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, were in contact with leaders of the violent extremist groups The Proud Boys and The Oath Keepers, according to text messages and photographs produced by the committee — though Stone, through a lawyer, disputed participating in a group chat. The two groups began working together for the first time after Trump issued his call for a Jan. 6 rally in Washington, the panel said. One witness, Stephen Ayres, who has pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after entering the Capitol Jan. 6, said he didn't plan to march until Trump called on the crowd at a "Stop the Steal" rally to march to the Capitol to encourage Republican lawmakers to block certification. Ayres said he went thinking that Trump would accompany the mob. "We basically just followed on what he said," Ayres said. "I think everybody thought he was going to be coming down. ... I believed it." The evidence presented by the committee Tuesday is designed to fit into its broader case that Trump resorted to inciting violence after learning that he had lost the election and had no legal means to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. In that effort, the panel portrayed the weeks after the November 2020 election as a time of desperation for Trump, during which he considered strategies his own lawyers viewed as detrimental to the nation and his close confidants encouraged the extremist groups that led the attack on the Capitol. The committee zeroed in on a Dec. 18, 2020, Oval Office meeting, which Flynn attended, arguing it served as a turning point for Trump — the moment when he abandoned pursuing avenues to use his own power to overturn the election and trained his sights on Jan. 6 and the official congressional count of electoral votes. It was a wild meeting. “What they were proposing, I thought was nuts,” former White House counsel Pat Cipollone said in pre-recorded testimony. He described arriving in the Oval Office on Dec. 18, 2020, to find outside advisers Sidney Powell, Flynn and Patrick Byrne explaining false theories of voter fraud and a plan for Trump to use an executive order to declare a national emergency, take voting machines from states and remain in office. The hours-long shouting match included a moment when White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said he challenged Flynn to come across the room or “sit your ass down.” The two never came to blows. The meeting broke up after midnight, with Trump declining to use an emergency declaration to interfere with voting machines."

Get this:

“The meeting has been called, quote, ‘unhinged,’ ‘not normal,’ and the ‘craziest meeting of the Trump presidency,’” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said. That was a pivotal moment for Trump, according to the committee, which has produced evidence of the variety of means he pursued to remain in power: He pressured Justice Department officials to declare election fraud, state officials to reverse election results, allies in key states to create slates of “fake electors,” and Pence to halt the constitutionally required count of electoral votes in the Capitol, according to witness testimony. The committee argued that the meeting was when he abandoned his search for legal means to overturn the election and trained his sights on Jan. 6. On Dec. 19, just hours after the meeting ended, Trump tweeted to his followers that they should come to the nation’s capital. “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Be there, will be wild!” That turned into a “call to action” for some and a “call to arms” for others, said Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a member of the committee. Some Trump supporters came to see Jan. 6 as the last chance to stop his ouster by voters — and a moment that begged for violence, according to videos and online posts the committee played. There was at least one reference to a “red wedding” — the scene from the HBO show “Game of Thrones” in which members of a leading family are slaughtered by enemies. “I’m ready to die for my beliefs,” one person posted on social media in reference to Jan. 6. “Are you ready to die police?”

Raw insanity. Treason.

"In an effort to show Trump resisted his advisers as he rallied supporters, the committee detailed multiple drafts of his Jan. 6 speech. Against the recommendation of his lawyers, Trump revised his speech to add repeated references to his view that Vice President Mike Pence should refuse to certify the election. The fiery debate at the White House and the connections between informal Trump advisers and extremists are part of the committee’s ongoing effort to demonstrate that Trump, growing increasingly desperate to keep power, would use any means — including violence — to stay in power. In testimony that bolstered the panel’s contention that Trump was advised he had no path to remain in office, the committee played segments of Cipollone’s Friday closed-door interview with the committee. “If your question is ‘did I believe he should concede the election at a point in time?’ yes, I did,” Cipollone told the committee in pre-recorded testimony, adding that then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows repeatedly assured him and then-Attorney General William Barr that Trump would eventually concede."

7-15-22

Not all attorneys are shysters. Here's another example of the very best in lawyering. Indeed, Uncommon Valor. James D. Robenalt, attorney and author, opines for NBC News:

"I first met Pat Cipollone in 2004. We served as opposing counsel in a very large commercial arbitration that required us to live and work in a hotel in Cincinnati for a month. Seven years later, I started a continuing legal education program with President Richard Nixon’s White House counsel John W. Dean, which we called the Watergate CLE. I invited Pat to attend our program at the George Washington University School of Law, thinking he might find intriguing the lessons that Watergate might hold for lawyers, as seen from the vantage point of White House counsel themselves. Little did I guess that Pat would, a few years later, become President Donald Trump’s White House counsel. And now the Jan. 6 committee appears to have worked out a deal for Cipollone to testify in person. It has been suggested by witness Cassidy Hutchinson and others that Cipollone played a key role in attempting to control, if not stop, Trump. I highly encourage him to testify fully. As White House counsel, it has been suggested by witness Cassidy Hutchinson and others, Cipollone played a key role in attempting to control, if not stop, Trump in his allegedly illegal campaign to overturn the 2020 election. If that is so — and I hope it is — then it is Cipollone’s duty as a lawyer to testify about his former boss. Like all lawyers in this country, Cipollone took a solemn oath when was admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia and the state of Illinois. He pledged to “protect the Constitution of the United States.” Because the protection of our democratic form of government is one of the central obligations of all lawyers."

Sadly, many seem to have forgotten this.

"But it is not our only obligation. One of the core principles that emerged from Watergate was that lawyers cannot assist clients in ongoing crime or fraud. And they are allowed to testify despite the duty of confidentiality as to client crime or fraud. Stated succinctly, there is no attorney-client privilege when it comes to a client’s ongoing scheme to defraud someone or to commit a crime."

Nor should there be. Failure to honor this principle is called complicity.

"Further, a government lawyer has a very circumscribed attorney-client privilege — even where one does exist. During the Bill Clinton years, it was established in a case involving deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey that “White House lawyers cannot keep evidence of crimes committed by government officials to themselves.” The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia noted “openness in government has always been thought crucial to ensuring that the people remain in control of their government.”

No question. Absolutely critical to a democratic republic.

"Today, Trump’s course of conduct is continuing — he continues to falsely assert that the 2020 election was stolen, and he refuses to concede the election. Nor has he fully condemned the Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol. When John Dean testified in June 1973 before a Senate select committee, he produced a document that showed how many lawyers had crossed the line into criminal behavior, himself included. This revelation struck a nerve. The American Bar Association commissioned Robert Kutak and others to revise the ethical rules for lawyers, which resulted in what is known as the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Deeply embedded in these post-Watergate ethics rules is the proposition that attorneys representing organizations whose leaders are engaged in ongoing crime or fraud need not sit in a silence box. They can and should report the behavior if they cannot stop it internally. Based on what we have now already heard from Jan. 6 hearing witnesses like Cassidy Hutchinson, it is apparent that there likely was ongoing crime and fraud being orchestrated by Trump and that Cipollone was a firsthand, percipient witness to those events. Today, Pat Cipollone is a key witness to history. Our democratic form of government is still under attack, and it continues to be his highest duty as a lawyer to protect the Constitution of the United States. There are surely personal consequences he may suffer for testifying to the truth, as John Dean did in 1973, but our country and our now precarious democracy are worth the price."

Indeed. Certainly, yet another example of the very best in lawyering. Hat's off, Counselor. Uncommon Valor.

7-8-22

Update on 1-6-21 congressional panel. The Washington Post reports:

"Toward the end of 2020, then-President Donald Trump began raising a new idea with aides: that he would personally lead a march to the Capitol on the following Jan. 6. Trump brought it up repeatedly with key advisers in the Oval Office, according to a person who talked with him about it. The president told others he wanted a dramatic, made-for-TV moment that could pressure Republican lawmakers to support his demand to throw out the electoral college results showing that Joe Biden had defeated him, the person said. The excursion that almost happened came into clearer focus this week, as the House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 presented explosive testimony and records detailing Trump’s fervent demands to lead his supporters mobbing the seat of government. Though Trump’s trip was ultimately thwarted by his own security officers, the new evidence cuts closer to the critical question of what he knew about the violence in store for that day. Trump has acknowledged his foiled effort to reach the Capitol. “Secret Service wouldn’t let me,” he told The Washington Post in April. “I wanted to go. I wanted to go so badly. Secret Service says you can’t go. I would have gone there in a minute.” But as Trump repeatedly floated the idea in the weeks leading up to Jan. 6, several of his advisers doubted he meant it or didn’t take the suggestion seriously. One senior administration official said Trump raised the prospect repeatedly but in a “joking manner.” As a result, the White House staff never turned Trump’s stated desires into concrete plans."

Fortunately, so. Would have been traitorous, treasonous complicity in what turned out to be a violent criminal act.

"Press officers made no preparations for a detour to the Capitol, such as scheduling an additional stop for the motorcade and the pool of reporters who follow the president’s movements. There was no operational advance plan drafted for the visit. No speech was written for him to deliver on the Hill, and it wasn’t clear exactly what Trump would do when he got there, said the person who talked with Trump about the idea. This account of Trump’s ceaseless plotting to join the mob at the Capitol on Jan. 6 is based on committee testimony and evidence as well as 15 former officials, aides, law enforcement officials and others, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal internal details. Aides did not know where Trump got the idea, this person said, but it wasn’t from inside the White House. The chief of staff, Mark Meadows, discussed plans to bring Trump to the Capitol with Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who was leading the campaign’s efforts to overturn the election results, according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a close aide to Meadows. “I remember hearing a few different ideas discussed between Mark and Scott Perry, Mark and Rudy Giuliani,” Hutchinson said in videotaped testimony to the Jan. 6 committee played during Tuesday’s hearing. “I know that there were discussions about him having another speech outside of the Capitol before going in. I know that there is a conversation about him going into the House chamber at one point.” Meadows declined to comment through his attorney. Giuliani and a spokeswoman for Perry did not respond to requests for comment. Hutchinson’s attorneys said Wednesday that she “stands by all of the testimony she provided yesterday, under oath.”

Certainly, knows the consequences of perjury.

"Hutchinson’s account was supported by other testimony played at the hearing. “He brought it up, he said, ‘I want to go down to the Capitol,” Max Miller, a White House aide now running for Congress in Ohio, said in taped testimony. But Miller’s entire testimony wasn’t played, where he suggested it was a short-lived idea, according to people familiar with the matter. Some White House officials were out of the loop. Ordinarily, the White House’s legislative affairs staffers would be involved in a visit to Capitol Hill, but they were not briefed on any plans for him to go on Jan. 6, according to two senior administration officials. Aides to Vice President Mike Pence heard secondhand from other White House advisers that Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, but they were never given a formal plan and did not expect him to follow through, according to a Pence adviser with direct knowledge of their plans. “There was no plan for what to do if Trump showed up,” the Pence adviser said. “Frankly, we didn’t think it was going to happen. ”Some of his allies said Trump never brought up the idea of going to the Capitol with them, even as he bandied it about internally with his aides and Secret Service team. “Not to my knowledge was he ever coming up here,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who regularly talked with Trump in the days leading up to Jan. 6. “To me, I don’t see him going to a riot.”

You don't? LOL. Give me a break. Wake up. Conveniently, forget? Neither did he do anything to end it immediately. No problem with that?

"On Jan. 4, Trump raised the issue with several White House aides again, but Secret Service and senior staff warned him it would be logistically impossible and dangerous, a person familiar with the discussion said. Another adviser said the Secret Service was particularly skittish about a trip to the Capitol because a trip in November — when Trump went into a crowd of election fraud protesters in Washington — was viewed as nightmarish and difficult to manage. The next day, on the eve of the rally, Tony Ornato, the White House deputy chief of staff for operations, told a senior staffer there was no possibility they were going to the Capitol, saying, “That is not part of the plan,” the staffer recalled. Trump, though, seemed to have other ideas. Just before he addressed the rally on the Ellipse, Trump gathered with family members and close aides in a tent backstage. As Trump looked at monitors showing a video feed of the crowd, Hutchinson testified that she overheard him complaining about unoccupied space in the shot and wanting more people to enter. According to her testimony, Ornato explained to Trump that some people in the crowd couldn’t go through the security screening because they had weapons. “I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘I don’t care that they have weapons, they’re not here to hurt me,'” Hutchinson testified. She also recalled hearing Trump say, “Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol after the rally’s over.”

Armed, Mr. 'President?'

"The moment was captured in photographs that the committee obtained from the National Archives and displayed during the hearing. The scene in the tent also appeared in a video recorded by Donald Trump Jr., showing the president looking at the screens and talking to Meadows and his daughter Ivanka while Kimberly Guilfoyle danced to Laura Branigan’s “Gloria.” Other people in the tent at the time did not respond to requests for comment or declined to corroborate or dispute Hutchinson’s account on the record. Some Secret Service officials told the committee they did not recall Trump saying he wanted to admit more people despite being warned of weapons in the crowd, according to a person briefed on their testimony. Trump denied wanting to let in people with guns. “Who would ever want that? Not me!” he posted on his Truth Social platform."

Truth Social? LOL.

"When Trump took the stage, he told the rally, “We’re going to walk down and I’ll be there with you.” The remark stunned staffers who didn’t understand that to be the plan. “I told people we were not really going to the Capitol,” recalled the senior staffer who has spoken with Ornato. “It never crossed my mind that was legitimate.”

Trump, no liar? LOL.

Get this:

"But as Trump left the stage, he made clear he was serious. That’s when his personal assistant, Nick Luna, first became aware of Trump’s desire to go to the Capitol, according to his taped testimony played at Tuesday’s hearing. Hutchinson testified that she overheard Meadows tell the president he was still working on arranging the trip up Capitol Hill. According to Hutchinson, she told Meadows that Ornato said the movement wasn’t possible, and Meadows responded, “Okay,” before getting into the motorcade. “MOGUL’s going to the Capital [sic] … they are clearing a route now,” a National Security Council staffer posted to an internal chat obtained by the committee, using Trump’s Secret Service code name. “They are begging him to reconsider,” another message said. When a planned route was posted to the chat, the log shows a staffer responding, “So this is happening.” Inside the presidential SUV, Trump’s demands to go to the Capitol culminated in a dramatic showdown, according to Hutchinson, who said Ornato described the incident to her shortly afterward. By her account, Trump was under the impression from Meadows that his surprise trip to the Capitol was about to happen. In the car, Secret Service agent Bobby Engel told Trump the route to the Capitol could not be secured and they would return to the West Wing, Hutchinson said. “The president had a very strong, very angry response to that,” she testified. “Tony described him as being irate. The president said something to the effect of, ‘I’m the f-ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now.’” When Engel insisted that the car was instead bound for the White House, Hutchinson said Trump reached toward the steering wheel. Engel grabbed his arm, Hutchinson testified, and said, “Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol.” According to Hutchinson’s testimony about Ornato’s account to her, Trump used his other hand to lunge toward Engel. When Ornato told this story to Hutchinson, with Engel in the room, she said, he gestured toward his collarbones. When Hutchinson recounted this at the hearing, she placed a hand at the base of her neck."

Get this:

"Trump denied trying to grab the steering wheel, calling Hutchinson’s testimony “'sick' and fraudulent.” Ornato and Engel were not asked about the incident when they testified to the committee, the person briefed on the Secret Service testimony said. Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich dismissed Hutchinson’s testimony in a statement Thursday: “The fact that The Washington Post is still trying to peddle testimony from a witness who has been widely discredited, and who many believe perjured herself — which is a felony — is an absolute embarrassment.”

Clearly, somebody is lying. LOL. ... Couldn't be the Trump spokesman or Trump himself, could it? What precisely are they disputing? What Hutchinson states she was told happened, -- or, that it actually happened? Big, big difference in both alternatives. The following fails to answer that question:

"Three agents who accompanied Trump on Jan. 6 are disputing that Trump assaulted or grabbed at Engel and/or the steering wheel, according to one current and one former law enforcement official familiar with their accounts. The three agents, Engle and Ornato are also willing to testify under oath to the committee about their recollection of events on Jan. 6 in the Secret Service vehicle, the two people said. The three agents do not dispute that Trump was furious that the agents would not take him to the Capitol. Even after the car returned Trump to the West Wing, he still wouldn’t let go of wanting to reach the Capitol. “When we got back to the White House, he said he wanted to physically walk with the marchers, and according to my notes, he then said he’d be fine with just riding the Beast,” former press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in videotaped testimony to the committee, referring to the nickname for the fortified presidential limo. “He wanted to be a part of the march in some fashion.” Trump was furious with Meadows for failing to make the trip happen, Hutchinson testified that Meadows told her. By the time they were back in the West Wing, the televisions were showing live coverage of the rioters overpowering police and getting closer to the Capitol’s doors and windows. Hutchinson testified that she entered Meadows’s office and asked him if he was watching. “The rioters are getting really close,” she recalled asking the chief of staff. “Have you talked to the president?” “No,” Meadows answered, while scrolling and texting on his phone, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, “he wants to be alone right now.”

Called complicity.

ABC News reports:

"A former White House aide's stunning testimony before the House panel investigating the Capitol attack indicated that the U.S. Secret Service may have had advanced warning of the potential for violence at the Capitol, raising new questions about the agency's planning ahead of the riot and actions taken by agents on Jan. 6. Cassidy Hutchinson, a top deputy to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, told lawmakers on Tuesday that the security team guarding then-President Donald Trump and senior White House officials were aware there was a serious threat posed by some descending on Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, when Trump was planning to address a rally to support his baseless accusations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. In Hutchinson's telling, the agency famous for its teams of bodyguards, sharpshooters and hyper-skilled drivers was aware that among the throngs headed to Washington were some who were planning to carry a variety of weapons and military gear, and were seeking to target members of Congress and breach the Capitol building. If so, the Secret Service apparently failed to coordinate effectively with law enforcement partners, the public, or congressional leaders to strengthen the security posture -- and instead ferried a number of people under their protection to the Capitol complex with little more than their personal security details. The Secret Service declined to answer questions from ABC News."

Why? Lack of transparency regarding the insurrection obliterates all faith and trust in the agency.

"If true, the lapse in security -- laid out on national television during a committee session Tuesday -- represents perhaps the most glaring evidence to date that the Secret Service, responsible for guarding key political figures and their families, failed at its most basic responsibilities in how it dealt with Trump's rally and the meetings of the House and Senate on Jan. 6, according to John Cohen, a former ranking Department of Homeland Security official who is now an ABC News contributor. "It appears that senior officials at the White House were not only aware of plans to march on the U.S. Capitol, but also appeared to be planning for the president to join," Cohen said, citing another of Hutchinson's allegations. "This testimony raises highly disconcerting questions about what the Secret Service knew about this event and why more wasn't done to prepare." Notoriously tight-lipped about their job and how they do it, the Secret Service is under renewed focus this week after Hutchison, 26, alleged shocking new details about the president's interactions with his security agents on Jan. 6 and how they were so concerned about possible violence at the Capitol that they refused Trump's directive to drive him there. "The president said something to the effect of, 'I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now' -- to which Bobby [Engel, the head of Trump's security detail], responded, 'Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing,'" Hutchinson testified she was told by Tony Ornato, a senior Secret Service official who was at the time White House deputy chief of staff for operations. Trump, responding to Hutchinson's testimony, said, "I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and 'leaker')."

Desperation. Clearly, so.

"Hutchinson also testified that in the days leading up to Jan. 6, Meadows at one point said, "Things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6." And on the morning of Trump's planned speech at the Ellipse, just south of the White House grounds, Hutchinson said, Trump was made aware of individuals with weapons seeking to attend his rally and that many of them declined to pass through security checkpoints because they would have needed to surrender their weapons. Frustrated that those requirements were suppressing the size of the crowd, Trump suggested that the metal detectors be removed, Hutchinson testified. Cohen said that, as concerned as he was about those developments, he was most troubled by the picture Hutchinson's testimony painted of possible failures on the part of the Secret Service, an agency Cohen has worked closely with since it was folded in to DHS after the 9/11 terror attacks. "Hutchinson's testimony raises serious questions regarding security planning by the Secret Service on Jan 6. that will need to be answered," Cohen said. "Did the Service leadership have advanced notice of the planned march on the Capitol? Did they have advanced notice of the president's intent to join the crowd?" Hutchinson said that Ornato, whom she described as "the conduit for security protocol between White House staff and the United States Secret Service," was aware of possible violence planned for Jan. 6 in the preceding days -- and alerted Meadows and Trump on the morning of Jan. 6. Even with this information allegedly circulating among senior White House staff, the Secret Service ferried at least three of its protectees to travel to the Capitol -- Vice President Mike Pence, Second Lady Karen Pence, and incoming Vice President Kamala Harris, who was still a senator from California -- without supplementing their details with additional agents or coordinating with other agencies to shore up protection."

Frightening, isn't it? If true, could there be some complicity between Trump and the Secret Service vis a vis Trump's 'Big Lie?' A failure of professionalism?

"Hutchinson's testimony indicated that the Secret Service either had advanced warning of the threats and failed to notify others and formulate an appropriate response plan -- or they were misled by White House officials who had a clearer understanding of the potential for violence and neglected to alert the appropriate agencies, Cohen said. "These security lapses may not have been a result of incompetence, but instead due to deliberate actions taken by senior White House officials," Cohen said. "If this information was not provided to the Secret Service, or if it was and the Secret Service failed to expand security operations, that would be highly disconcerting."

No question.

"In the wake of her appearance on Capitol Hill, Hutchinson has faced a deluge of criticism from Trump associates and supporters who have questioned her credibility. Republican Rep. Liz Cheney told "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl in an exclusive interview that she has full faith and confidence in Hutchinson's word. "I am absolutely confident in her testimony," Cheney told Karl in a wide-ranging interview set to air in full on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" this Sunday. "The Committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources, and by men who are claiming executive privilege."

Cheney is certainly a class act. Continues to display Uncommon Valor.

Witness tampering. NBC News reports:

"Cassidy Hutchinson, the former top aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, was the recipient of one of the messages the House Jan. 6 committee unveiled this week as evidence of possible witness intimidation, two sources with knowledge told NBC News. Hutchinson, who delivered explosive public testimony on Tuesday about Meadows and former President Donald Trump, was one of the witnesses committee vice-chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said had been contacted ahead of questioning in an apparent attempt to influence her testimony, the sources said. “[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition,” the message said. The message was displayed during Tuesday's hearing, but Cheney did not say who had sent it or who had received it, or who the person the message was referring to. A source familiar with Hutchinson's deposition said the unnamed individual referenced as "a person" in the message was Meadows, Hutchinson's old boss. The revelations about Hutchinson and the identity of the unnamed person were first reported by Politico."

If true, should be prosecuted.

"A spokesperson for Meadows said the former congressman, who's snubbed a subpoena to sit for an interview with the committee, denied meddling in Hutchinson’s testimony. “No one from Meadows’ camp, himself or otherwise, has ever attempted to intimidate or shape Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony to the committee,” the spokesperson said."

Hope that's true. If not, prosecute.

"A spokesperson for the committee declined to comment. In testimony on Tuesday, Hutchinson described several dramatic moments she said occurred around Jan. 6 — including an allegation that Trump got into a physical altercation with a Secret Service officer in an attempt to join supporters at the Capitol. She also portrayed Meadows as disengaged during the Jan. 6 riot — even when White House counsel Pat Cipollone was urging him to speak [to] Trump after finding out some in the crowd were chanting "Hang Mike Pence." "You heard him [Trump], Pat. He thinks Mike deserves it. He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong," she quoted Meadows as saying."

Sad, isn't it?

"The message to Hutchinson was one of two Cheney referred to during the hearing. The other referred to a phone call that a Jan. 6 witness described to the committee. “What they said to me is as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the team, I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect, you know, I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World," the person recalled."

If true, pitiful. Prosecute.

"Cheney said the panel found out about the messages because they routinely ask witnesses whether they have been contacted by any former Trump administration or campaign officials “who attempted to influence or impact their testimony.” “Most people know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns," Cheney said towards the end of the hearing. "We will be discussing these issues as a committee and carefully considering our next steps.”

Again, if true, prosecute.

7-1-22

1/6/21 congressional panel continues its hearings. The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump hounded the Justice Department to pursue his false election fraud claims, contacting the agency’s leader “virtually every day” and striving in vain to enlist top law enforcement officials in a desperate bid to stay in power, according to testimony Thursday to the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Three Trump-era Justice Department officials testified that Trump was fixated on voter fraud claims and insisted they pursue them despite being repeatedly told that none of the allegations had any merit. “He had this arsenal of allegations,” said Richard Donoghue, one top Justice official. “I went through them piece by piece to say, no, they were not true.” Another witness, Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general in the final days of the Trump administration, said he was called by Trump or met with him virtually every day from the time he ascended to the post in late December 2020. The common theme he said, was “dissatisfaction about what the Justice Department had done to investigate election fraud.” The hearing brought attention to a memorably turbulent stretch at the department as Trump in his final days in office sought to bend to his will a law enforcement agency that has long cherished its independence from the White House. The testimony was aimed at showing that Trump not only relied on outside advisers to press his false claims of election fraud but also tried to leverage the powers of federal executive branch agencies. The scheme by Trump was a “brazen attempt” to use the Justice Department for his own political gain, said Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the Jan. 6 committee. “Donald Trump didn’t just want the Justice Department to investigate,” Thompson said. “He wanted the Justice Department to help legitimate his lies, to basically call the election corrupt” and to appoint a special counsel. The Justice Department resisted each demand."

Rightfully, so. No truth to any of it.

"Testimony also centered on a tense Oval Office showdown on Jan. 3, 2021 in which Trump contemplated replacing him with a lower-level official, Jeffrey Clark, who wanted to champion Trump’s bogus election fraud claims. Donoghue and another senior Justice Department official, Steven Engel, warned Trump that there would be mass resignations at the department if Trump followed through with his plan. Only then did Trump relent. Clark’s name was referenced early in the hearing, with Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, deriding him as a lawyer whose sole qualification was his fealty to Trump. A lawyer for Clark did not return an email ahead of the hearing. “Who is Jeff Clark?” Kinzinger asked rhetorically. “He would do whatever the president wanted him to do, including overthrowing a free and fair democratic election.” Barely an hour before the hearing began, it was revealed that federal agents this week searched Clark’s Virginia home, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney confirmed the existence of law enforcement activity in Virginia, where Clark lives, but would not say what it was connected to.

"Thursday’s hearing focused on what happened next as Rosen, Barr’s top deputy, took over the department and found himself immediately besieged by Trump’s demands for action. In one phone conversation, according to handwritten notes taken by Donoghue and made public by lawmakers last year, Trump directed to Rosen to “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.” Around that time, Trump was introduced by a Republican congressman, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, to Clark, who’d joined the department in 2018 as its chief environmental lawyer and was later appointed to run its civil division. Clark has been subpoenaed by the committee to give a deposition but was not [to] be among the witnesses Thursday. Clark, according to statements from other Justice Department officials, met with Trump despite being ordered not to by bosses at the department and presented himself as eager to aid the president’s efforts to challenge the election results. A report released last year by the Senate Judiciary Committee that painted Clark as a relentless advocate for Trump included a draft letter pushing Georgia officials to convene a special legislative session to reconsider the election results. Clark wanted the letter sent, but superiors at the Justice Department refused. The situation came to a head on Jan. 3, 2021, a Sunday, when Clark informed Rosen in a private meeting at the Justice Department that Trump wanted to replace him with Clark as acting attorney general. Rosen, according to the Senate report, responded that “there was no universe I could imagine in which that would ever happen” and that he would not accept being fired by a subordinate. Rosen then contacted the White House to request a meeting. That night, Rosen, Donoghue and Engel, along with Clark, gathered with Trump and top White House lawyers for a contentious, hours-long Oval Office meeting about whether the president should follow through with his plans for a radical leadership change at the department. According to testimony given by Rosen, Trump opened the meeting by saying, “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election.”

Blatant admission of criminal intent, isn't it?

"Donoghue and Engel made clear to Trump that they and large numbers of other Justice Department officials would resign if Trump fired Rosen. White House lawyers said the same. Pat Cipollone, then the White House counsel, said the letter that Clark wanted to send was a “murder-suicide pact.” “Steve Engel at one point said, ‘Jeff Clark will be leading a graveyard. And what are you going to get done with a graveyard,’ that there would be such an exodus of the leadership,” Donoghue told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So it was very strongly worded to the president that that would happen.” Donoghue also sought to dissuade Trump from believing that Clark had the legal background to do as the president wished since he was not a criminal prosecutor at the department. “And he kind of retorted by saying, ‘Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,’” Donoghue said. “And I said, ‘That’s right. You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.’”

NBC News reports:

"Former President Donald Trump said he wasn’t worried about weapons in the crowd on Jan. 6 because “they’re not here to hurt me,” Cassidy Hutchinson, a former senior White House aide, testified Tuesday before the House Jan. 6 committee. Frustrated that his supporters couldn't get through magnetometers at his rally at the Ellipse that morning, Trump aired his fury to allies backstage, Hutchinson recalled in pre-recorded video played as she testified before the panel Tuesday. "I don’t f’ing care that they have weapons," Hutchinson testified that Trump said. "They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f’ing mags away."

How about that? Stunning, isn't it?

"Trump then urged his supporters, knowing some of them were armed, to march to the Capitol. On the morning of Jan. 6, police radio conversations played at the hearing revealed Secret Service and Washington, D.C. police officers had observed rally attendees outside the magnetometers with AR-15 semi-automatic rifles and other weapons. More broadly, Hutchinson testified that Trump and Meadows ignored warnings of potential violence ahead of the insurrection and that Trump wanted to march to Congress with the supporters who ultimately staged the riot. And, she said, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone repeatedly pressed her to try to stop a march to the Capitol. "We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if Trump goes to the Capitol," she said he told her. Cipollone said he was concerned about the possibility of obstructing the count of electoral votes that day and "that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot."

Precisely, what happened.

"The committee has been trying to get Cipollone to testify, who has refused."

Sad, isn't it? If there's nothing to hide, why the lack of transparency?

"After Trump encouraged the crowd to march to the Capitol, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., called Hutchinson, she testified. "You told me this whole week you weren't coming up here," McCarthy told her. "Why would you lie to me?" Hutchinson assured McCarthy that Trump wasn't coming to the Capitol, she said. The panel used her testimony Tuesday and at prior recorded sessions to show that the idea of Trump going to the Capitol was debated at the highest levels of the White House in the days preceding the insurrection — and that Trump wanted to go. Four days before Jan. 6, Rudy Giuliani told Hutchinson that then-President Trump planned to go to the Capitol, Hutchinson testified. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a Trump confidant, had just left a meeting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. As Hutchinson walked Giuliani out of the White House, he asked if she was excited about Jan. 6, Hutchinson testified. “We’re going to the Capitol,” Hutchinson testified that Giuliani said. And then referring to Trump, he said, “The president is going to be there. He's going to look powerful.” Hutchinson said she relayed the discussion to Meadows. "Things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6th," Hutchinson testified that Meadows told her in response."

Certainly, did get extraordinarily violent.

"At the time, according to prior testimony before the panel, Giuliani was at the forefront of a campaign to invalidate the 2020 election, in part by stopping the count of electoral votes at the Capitol."

Called treason.

"Hutchinson’s testimony represents the committee’s strongest argument yet about whether Trump intended to incite an insurrection. At age 25, she was in unusually close proximity to the power players in Trump’s West Wing, including Meadows, for whom she worked on legislative affairs and as an executive assistant. The committee members praised Hutchinson for volunteering testimony in four recorded sessions and at Tuesday’s hearing, portraying her as anomalously brave amid a field of Trump administration officials who have been less forthcoming."

They had something to hide. Obviously, she didn't.

“The same people who drove the former President’s pressure campaign to overturn the election are now trying to cover up the truth about January 6th,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said at the hearing. “But thanks to the courage of certain individuals, the truth won’t be buried. The American people won’t be left in the dark. Our witness today, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson, has embodied that courage.” In recorded testimony from a prior deposition, played at a committee hearing last week, Hutchinson leveled bombshell allegations that several members of Congress sought pardons for themselves and colleagues following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol."

Clearly, they knew they had engaged in criminal activity.

"Hutchinson’s appearance Tuesday was shrouded in mystery: The hearing was announced Monday and her name was withheld by the panel — a break from panel’s past practice of giving notice of hearings a week ahead of time and with an accompanying list of witnesses. Committee members see her as a pivotal figure because of her proximity to Meadows, the former congressman and Trump gatekeeper who was in frequent communication with the then-president and his allies who worked to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. Lawmakers say Trump acted illegally in that effort, which included a plan to certify fake electors and resulted in the storming of the Capitol. As Meadows’s executive assistant, Hutchinson had access to documents and conversations that could shed new light on the actions and motives of Trump White House officials, lawmakers and outside allies of the former president. “I don’t know Cassidy Hutchinson, and I can’t speak to how things worked at the White House, but when Meadows was on the Hill he always insisted that she be in *every* meeting he had, no matter how small,” Brendan Buck, a onetime House GOP leadership aide, wrote on Twitter. “It was odd then, and [doesn’t] seem to be working out for him now.”

The truth always has a way of revealing itself. ... Sooner or later. Clock is ticking. Time to get a move on. Prosecute the kingpin himself and all his henchmen.

The Associated Press reports:

"Former President Donald Trump dismissed the presence of armed protesters headed to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and even endorsed their calls to “hang Mike Pence,” a key former White House aide told House investigators Tuesday, describing chaotic scenes inside and outside the executive mansion as Trump argued to accompany his supporters. Trump was informed that some of the protesters in the crowd outside the White House had weapons, but he told officials to “let my people in” and march to the Capitol, testified Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a special assistant to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Hutchinson depicted a president flailing in anger and prone to violent outbursts as the window to overturn his election loss closed and as aides sought to rein in his impulses. Told by security officials that it wasn’t safe to go to the Capitol after he addressed his supporters, he lunged toward the steering wheel of the presidential SUV. Hutchinson said she was told of the altercation in the armored vehicle — dubbed “The Beast” — by Meadows’ deputy shortly after it happened. It wasn’t clear what Trump would have done at the Capitol as a violent mob of his supporters was breaking in. But there were conversations about him “going into the House chamber at one point,” Hutchinson said. As his supporters laid siege to Congress, both Trump and Meadows appeared unconcerned about cries in the crowd to “hang Mike Pence!” The president tweeted during the attack that Pence didn’t have the “courage” to object to President Joe Biden’s victory as he presided over the joint session of Congress that day. Hutchinson quoted Meadows as saying that Trump “thinks Mike deserves it.” And as for the rioters, Meadows said, “He doesn’t think they’re doing anything wrong.”

Stunning, isn't it?

"Hutchinson’s explosive testimony – featured in a surprise hearing announced just 24 hours earlier -- came as the House committee investigating the Capitol insurrection holds a series of hearings to inform the public about what happened as Trump’s supporters beat police, broke in through windows and doors and interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory. “As an American I was disgusted,” Hutchinson told the committee, reacting to Trump’s tweet about Pence. “It was unpatriotic, it was un-American, and you were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie.” “I still struggle to work through the emotions of that,” she added. Hutchinson quoted Trump as directing his staff, in profane terms, to take away the metal-detecting magnetometers that he thought would slow down supporters who’d gathered in Washington. In videotaped testimony played before the committee, she recalled the former president saying words to the effect of: ”“I don’t f-in’ care that they have weapons.” “They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f-in’ mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here,” Hutchinson testified. Before they left the Ellipse, where Trump had addressed them between the White House and the Washington Monument, she said, she received an angry call from House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, who had just heard the president say he was coming to the Capitol. “Don’t come up here,” McCarthy told her, before hanging up. In the days before the attack, Hutchinson said that she was “scared, and nervous for what could happen” after conversations with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Meadows and others. Meadows told Hutchinson that “things might get real, real bad,” she said. But she described him as unconcerned as security officials told him about the people at Trump’s rally who had been caught with weapons - including people wearing armor and carrying automatic firearms. Giuliani told her it was going to be “a great day” and “we’re going to the Capitol.”

Trump raw insanity:

"As a White House insider, she told stories of a raging president who was unable to acknowledge his defeat. At the beginning of December, Hutchinson said, she heard noise inside the White House around the time an Associated Press article was published in which then-Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department had not found evidence of voter fraud that could have affected the election outcome. She said she entered a room and noticed ketchup dripping down a wall and broken porcelain. The president, it turned out, had thrown his lunch at the wall in disgust over the article and she was urged to steer clear of him. The 25-year-old, who was a special assistant and aide to former Trump chief of staff Meadows, had earlier provided a trove of information to congressional investigators and had sat for interviews behind closed doors. The committee called the surprise hearing this week after she agreed to give public testimony. In excerpts of her closed-door testimony, Hutchinson told the committee in recent months that she was in the room for White House meetings where challenges to the election were debated and discussed, including with several Republican lawmakers. She revealed that the White House counsel’s office cautioned against plans to enlist fake electors in swing states, including in meetings involving Meadows and Trump lawyer Giuliani. Attorneys for the president advised that the plan was not “legally sound,” Hutchinson said. During her separate depositions, Hutchinson also testified about her boss’ surprise trip to Georgia weeks after the election to oversee the audit of absentee ballot envelope signatures and ask questions about the process."

The Associated Press reports:

"The House Jan. 6 committee held a surprise hearing Tuesday delivering alarming new testimony about Donald Trump’s angry, defiant and vulgar actions as he ignored repeated warnings against summoning the mob to the Capitol and then refused to intervene to stop the deadly violence as rioters laid siege. Witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a lesser-known White House aide, rebuffed Trump’s team warnings against testifying and provided first-hand knowledge of what she saw and heard in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection, a proximity to power that gives stunning new details in the panel’s year-long investigation. With calm, detailed recollections, Hutchinson testified about a defiant Trump who knew there were guns and other weapons in the rally crowd at the White House, sent his supporters to the Capitol anyway and tried unsuccessfully to physically pry the steering wheel from his presidential limousine driver so he could join them. Before joining the White House, Hutchinson had worked in some of the most conservative Republican offices on Capitol Hill. She was hired as special assistant to the president and promoted up to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows."

Get this:

"Trump was angry and defiant on the morning of Jan. 6, as he assessed the size of the crowd for his rally in front of the White House, upset that not everyone who had answered his summons to come to Washington could get in to see him because of the security lines. Hutchinson said Trump said armed rallygoers were "not there to hurt him." Told that guns, knives and other weapons were being confiscated from the security screenings, Trump didn’t care. “They’re not here to hurt me,” the president said. He wanted to take away the magnetometer stations to allow more people inside the grounds, regardless of their weaponry. “Take the effing mags away,” an agitated Trump barked at security moments before taking the stage, Hutchinson recalled."

Interestingly:

"Trump’s lawyers at the White House were trying to tamp down the president’s speech to the crowd he had summoned for his “Stop the Steal” rally on Jan. 6, and they were trying to stop his plans to go to the Capitol that day when Congress would be certifying the election results for Joe Biden’s victory. Hutchinson testified that lawyer Eric Herschmann said it “would be foolish” to include some of the language the defeated president wanted to add to his speech — comments like fighting for Trump, or him telling the crowd “I’ll be there with you.” Herschmann warned such language shouldn’t be included for legal concerns and because of the optics it would portray. That language ultimately stayed in the script as Trump rallied the crowd to “fight like hell” and promised he would join them at the Capitol. Days before Jan. 6, White House counsel Pat Cipollone suggested there were “serious legal concerns” if Trump went to the Capitol with the crowd, Hutchinson recalled. “We need to make sure this doesn’t happen,” she recalled Cipollone saying in the run-up to the rally. The morning of Jan. 6, Cipollone restated his concerns that if Trump did go to the Capitol to intervene in the certification of the election, “We’re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.”

Get this:

"Hutchinson then described what happened after the rally as Trump climbed into the presidential limousine, the “beast,” as it is called, as relayed to her later by Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations. Trump, inside the vehicle, tried to pry the steering wheel away from the driver, demanding to be taken to the Capitol."

Fascinating, isn't it?

"The hearing opened with a calm, even-spoken Hutchinson explaining her job responsibilities advising Meadows, often handling his cell phones, as the committee showed an architectural rendering of the layout of the West Wing.

"Hutchinson described fielding a desperate phone call as she stood backstage at Trump’s rally that day from House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who was upset that Trump had sent the crowd to the Capitol when she had promised they would not go. She also told of helping the White House staff mop up ketchup off the walls of the Oval Office dining room after Trump, learning that his attorney general, William Barr, told The Associated Press there was no fraud on a scale to tip the presidential election, apparently hurled a plate of food at the wall. In one gripping scene Hutchinson recalled walking Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani out of the White House when he asked if she was “excited about the 6th.” “We’re going to the Capitol, it’s going to be great, the president’s going to be there, he’s going to look powerful,” she recalled Giuliani saying. When she returned inside and told Meadows of that conversation, he told her a lot was going on." “Things might get real, real bad,” Meadows told her, she recalled."

Sure did.

The Washington Post reports:

"The congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection held a surprise hearing Tuesday that featured a key witness: Cassidy Hutchinson, who was a top aide to former president Donald Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows. Hutchinson is not a household name, but she has become central to the committee investigation — sitting for taped interviews and being the only live witness at the Tuesday hearing. In live testimony, Hutchinson provided an intimate, detailed and shocking look inside the West Wing and at the president specifically on the day of the attack.

"Here are some of her most stunning revelations about Trump:
1. Trump knew his supporters had weapons — and encouraged them to march on the Capitol. And he tried to go, too. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified on June 28 that former president Donald Trump waved off security concerns during the Jan. 6 rally. Hutchinson testified that Trump was informed that his supporters were in D.C. armed to the teeth. On the morning of Jan. 6, she said, Meadows and Trump were informed that Trump’s supporters came to his “Stop the Steal” rally on the Ellipse armed with weapons — pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, stun guns, body armor, gas masks, batons and blunt weapons, the committee detailed. The committee also played police calls reporting people with AR-15s. Hutchinson said Tony Ornato, the deputy chief of staff who served as a liaison for Secret Service, told Meadows on the morning of Jan. 6 “something to the effect of ‘And these f---ing people are fastening spears on top of flagpoles.’ ” Trump was mad that the Secret Service wasn’t letting these armed supporters through security, said Hutchinson, who was in a tent with the president before his rally speech. “I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, ‘You know, I don’t even care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me,’ ” Hutchinson said. Trump then got onstage and repeatedly told his supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol.”

Get this:

"THE ATTACK: The Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol was neither a spontaneous act nor an isolated event.
2. Trump wrestled with Secret Security agent to go to the Capitol. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified on June 28 that former president Donald Trump demanded he go to the Capitol on Jan. 6. After the speech, Trump got back in his heavily fortified limousine and literally tried to wrestle the steering wheel away from the head of his Secret Service detail to go to the Capitol, according to Hutchinson, who said she was repeating what she heard from Ornato. (Secret Service decided it was too dangerous.) Here’s how Hutchinson relayed what she heard from Ornato about the moment: “The president said something to the effect of ‘I’m the f-ing president. Take me up to the Capitol now,’ to which [Robert Engel, the head of the Secret Service detail] responded, ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing.’ The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Engel grabbed his arm, said, ‘Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going the Capitol.’ Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel,” Hutchinson testified, and said Ornato motioned to his clavicles to describe a kind of choking motion."

Think the following sane behavior?

"3. Trump threw dishes — regularly. Former Mark Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson said on June 28 former president Donald Trump threw his lunch against the wall in response to an interview. Hutchinson was also in the room on Dec. 1, 2020, when Trump learned that his then-attorney general, William P. Barr, said in an interview with the Associated Press that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud that would call into question Joe Biden’s win. “I remember hearing noise coming from down the hallway, so I poked my head out of the office,” Hutchinson testified. She said she saw the White House valet inside the dining room, changing the tablecloth on the dining room table. “He motioned for me to come in, and then pointed toward the front of the room, near the fireplace mantle, where I first noticed there was ketchup dripping down the wall and there’s a shattered porcelain plate on the floor.” She went on: “The valet had articulated that the president was extremely angry at the attorney general’s AP interview and had thrown his lunch against the wall.” Under questioning from Cheney, Hutchinson said this was not the first time the president had thrown dishes when he was mad."

Outrageously pathetic:

"4. Trump didn’t want to call off the rioters. Cassidy Hutchinson told lawmakers on June 28 that former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was concerned about “potentially obstructing justice." In the days leading up to attack, Hutchinson testified, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone was frantically warning that if anyone from the White House, let alone the president, went to the Capitol on Jan. 6, they’d be charged with federal crimes. She said he told her, in language that sounded almost like begging: “Please make sure we don’t go up to the Capitol, Cass. … We are going to get charged with every crime imaginable.” Fast forward to Jan. 6, and the rioters had broken into the Capitol. Back at the White House, Hutchinson said she saw Cipollone “barreling down the hallway” looking for her boss, Meadows. She overheard the conversation: “I remember Pat saying to him, something to the effect of, ‘The rioters have gotten into the Capitol, Mark, we need to go down and see the president now.’ And Mark looked up [from his phone] and said ‘He doesn’t want to do anything, Pat.’”

Outrageous, isn't it?

"She said Cipollone continued to pressure Meadows to convince Trump to call off the rioters: “Something needs to be done, or people are going to die, and blood is going to be on your f---ing hands. This is getting out of control.” They both marched out of the office, down to the dining room where Trump was, she testified."

6-24-22

More from the 1-6-21 congressional panel. The Associated Press reports:

"The 1/6 committee on Thursday plunged into Donald Trump’s last-ditch efforts to salvage the 2020 election by pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to defy historical precedent and reject the electoral count in the run-up to the U.S. Capitol riot. With two witnesses Thursday, including Pence’s counsel, the House panel is making a case that Trump’s false claims of a fraudulent election left him grasping for alternatives as courts turned back dozens of lawsuits challenging the vote. Trump latched onto conservative law professor John Eastman’s obscure plan and launched a public and private pressure campaign on Pence days before the vice president was to preside over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to certify Joe Biden’s election victory. A federal judge has said it is “more likely than not” Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification. Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opened the hearing citing Pence’s own words that there is “almost no idea more un-American” than the one he was being asked to do — reject the vote.” “Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done,” Thompson said. “Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe.” By refusing Trump’s demands, Pence “did his duty,” said the panel’s vice-chair Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. The committee was portraying gripping, if complicated, final days before the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection as the defeated Trump mounted his effort to upend longstanding election procedures, putting his own vice president in danger as the mob headed toward the Capitol. The panel is hearing from Greg Jacob, the vice president’s counsel who fended off Eastman’s ideas for Pence to carry out the plan; and retired federal judge Michael Luttig, who called the plan from Eastman, his former law clerk, “incorrect at every turn.” Jacob said that Pence summoned him to his West Wing office in early December 2020 to seek clarity about the vice president’s role in the certification of election results. He said it became clear to Pence that the founding fathers did not intend to empower any one person, including someone running for office, to affect the election result. Pence never wavered from that initial view, Jacob said. Luttig said that had Pence obeyed Trump’s orders, obviously contrary to the law, the declaring “of Donald Trump as the next president would have plunged America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America.”

The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump’s closest advisers viewed his last-ditch efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the tally of state electors and overturn the 2020 election as “nuts,” “crazy” and even likely incite riots, witnesses revealed in stark testimony to the Jan. 6 committee on Thursday. Gripping new evidence also detailed how the mob that stormed the Capitol that day came within 40 feet of where Pence and his team were sheltering, highlighting the danger Trump had put him in. With live testimony, including from Pence’s counsel, and other evidence from its yearlong investigation the panel is dissecting as unlawful and unconstitutional the plan from conservative lawyer John Eastman to reverse Joe Biden’s election victory. The pressure Trump put on Pence, including at a Jan. 6 rally, led directly to the insurrection at the Capitol, “Are you out of your effing mind?” said Eric Herschmann, a lawyer advising Trump, told Eastman in recorded testimony shown at the hearing. “You’re going to turn around and tell 78-plus million people in this country that your theory is this is how you’re going to invalidate their votes?” Herschmann said. He warned: “You’re going to cause riots in the streets.” A text message from Fox News’ Sean Hannity to Trump’s chief of staff Mark Meadows about the plan in the run-up to Jan. 6 read: “I’m very worried about the next 48 hours.” Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said those around Trump called it “crazy.”

Desperation of an autocrat who clearly lost the election.

"The panel opened its third hearing this month demonstrating that Trump’s false claims of a fraudulent election left him grasping for alternatives as courts turned back dozens of lawsuits challenging the vote. Trump latched onto Eastman’s highly unusual plan to defy historical precedent of the Electoral Count Act, and started pressuring Pence in public and private as the vice president was to preside over the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to certify Biden’s election. The committee has said the plan was illegal, and a federal judge has said it is “more likely than not” Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification. Panel Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., opened the latest hearing citing Pence’s own words that there was “almost no idea more un-American” than the one he was being asked to perform — reject the vote. By refusing Trump’s demands, Pence “did his duty,” said the panel’s vice-chair, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Thompson said, “Our democracy came dangerously close to catastrophe.”

The danger remains high since Trump's supporters still believe the 'Big Lie.'

"The committee portrayed the gripping, if complicated, final days before the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection as the defeated Trump pursued the theory that Pence could swing the election, putting his own vice president in danger as the mob headed toward the Capitol. The panel heard from Greg Jacob, the vice president’s counsel who fended off Eastman’s ideas for Pence to carry out the plan, and retired federal judge Michael Luttig, who called the plan from Eastman, his former law clerk, “incorrect at every turn.”

"Thursday’s session also presented new evidence about the danger Pence faced as rioters outside the Capitol were chanting “Hang Mike Pence” with a makeshift gallows as the vice president fled with senators into hiding. Video was shown of the rioters spewing vulgarities about Pence as they headed toward the Capitol. Nine people died in the insurrection and its aftermath. In another development Thursday, Thompson said the panel will ask Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for an interview amid disclosures of the conservative activist’s communications with people in Trump’s orbit ahead of the attack. He did not specify a schedule for that. “It’s time for her to come talk,” Thompson told reporters ahead of the hearing. Ahead of the hearing, Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, said his boss was determined to stay at the Capitol that night and finish the job, despite the threats. “He knew his job was to stay at his post,” Short said on CNN on Wednesday. Short said Pence didn’t want the world seeing the vice president leaving the Capitol when “a hallmark of democracy” was under siege.

"The panel’s yearlong investigation is showcasing Trump’s final weeks in office as the defeated president clung to “the big lie” of a rigged election even as those around him — his family, his top aides, officials at the highest levels of government — were telling him he simply lost the election.

"Thursday’s hearing unpacked the Eastman plan to have the states send alternative slates of electors from states Trump was disputing, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. With competing slates for Trump or Biden, Pence would be forced to reject them, returning them to the states to sort it out, under the plan. The committee in hearings ahead will be delving into the roles of extremist groups and others who heeded Trump’s call to Washington. Leaders and others from the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys face rare sedition charges over their roles in the Capitol attack. Several members of Congress are also under scrutiny, including Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., whom the committee has asked for an interview to discuss a Capitol tour he gave that included basement tunnels to a group of people the day before the attack. The panel is also probing several candidates for elected office, including the Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, who were among the rioters."

The Associated Press reports:

"One by one, several of Donald Trump’s former top advisers have told a special House committee investigating his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection that they didn’t believe his lies about the 2020 election, and that the former president knew he lost to Joe Biden. But instead of convincing Trump’s most stalwart supporters, testimony from former attorney general Bill Barr and Trump’s daughter Ivanka about the election and the attack on the U.S. Capitol is prompting many of them to simply reassert their views that the former president was correct in his false claim of victory."

Called insanity.

"Barr’s testimony that Trump was repeatedly told there was no election fraud? He was paid off by a voting machine company, according to one false claim that went viral this week. Ivanka Trump saying she didn’t believe Trump either? It’s all part of Trump’s grand plan to confuse his enemies and save America. The claims again demonstrate how deeply rooted Trump’s false narrative about the election has become."

Called insanity. Profoundly entrenched delusion.

“It’s cognitive dissonance,” said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a Syracuse University professor who has studied how Trump used social media and advertising to mobilize his base. “If you believe what Trump says, and now Bill Barr and Trump’s own daughter are saying these other things, it creates a crack, and people have to fill it.”

Been nothing quite this delusional since the 'Red under every bed' McCarthy insanity seven decades ago.

"The lawmakers leading the hearings into the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol said one of their goals is to show how Trump repeatedly lied to his supporters in an effort to hold onto power and subvert American democracy. “President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false, and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and he was the true president,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the panel’s vice chair. “As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.”

No question. Clearly, apparent to those who cover the news the day it happened. Subsequent sworn testimony by Trump's close associates confirmed what many of us already knew.

"For those who accept Trump’s baseless claims, Barr’s testimony was especially jarring. In his interview with investigators, he detailed Trump’s many absurd allegations about the election 2020, calling them “bogus” and “idiotic.” Barr told the committee when he talked with Trump, “there was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were.” “He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” Barr said. Following his testimony, many Trump supporters using sites like Reddit, GETTR and Telegram blasted Barr as a turncoat and noted that he’s disputed Trump’s election claims before. But many others began grasping for alternative explanations for this testimony. “I’m still hoping Barr is playing a role,” one poster said on a Telegram channel popular with Trump supporters."

That's insane. Hopelessly, delusional. Get this:

"One post that spread widely this week suggested Barr was paid by Dominion Voting Systems, a company targeted by Trump and his supporters with baseless claims of vote rigging. “From 2009 to 2018, DOMINION PAID BARR $1.2 million in cash and granted him another $1.1 million in stock awards, according to SEC filings. (No wonder Barr can’t find any voter fraud!),” the post read. Wrong Dominion. Barr was paid by Dominion Energy, a publicly traded company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, that provides power and heat to customers in several mid-Atlantic states. Unlike Barr, Ivanka Trump has remained intensely popular with many Trump supporters and is seen by many as her father’s potential successor. That may be why so many had to find an an alternative explanation for why she told Congress she didn’t accept her father’s claims. Jordan Sather, a leading proponent of the QAnon theory, claims both Barr and Ivanka Trump lied during their testimony on Trump’s orders, part of an elaborate scheme to defeat Trump’s enemies by confusing Congress and the American public. “I can just imagine Donald Trump telling Ivanka: ’Hey, go to this hearing, say these things. Screw with their heads,’” Sather said last week on his online show."

That's nuts. Psychotic.

Gets worse. Get this:

"Some Trump supporters dismissed Ivanka Trump’s testimony entirely by questioning whether any of it was real. That’s another common refrain seen on far-right message boards. Many posters say they don’t even believe the hearings are happening, but are a Hollywood production starring stand-ins for the former president’s daughter and others. “She looks different in a big way,” one poster asked on Telegram. “CGI?”

The Associated Press reports:

"The House 1/6 committee outlined on Tuesday Donald Trump’s relentless pressure to overturn the 2020 presidential election, aiming to show it led to widespread personal threats on the stewards of American democracy — election workers and local officials who fended off the defeated president’s efforts. The panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol resumed with a focus on Trump’s efforts to undo Joe Biden’s victory in the most local way — by leaning on officials in key battleground states to reject ballots outright or to submit alternative electors for the final tally in Congress. The pressure was fueled by the defeated president’s false claims of voter fraud which, the panel says, led directly to the riot at the Capitol. Chairman Bennie Thompson declared, “A handful of election officials in several key states stood between Donald Trump and the upending of American democracy.” The hearing opened with chilling accounts of the barrage of verbal attacks facing state and local elected officials, including Arizona’s Republican House speaker Rusty Bowers who said he was subject to a “disturbing” smear campaign online, bull-horn protests at his home and a pistol-wielding man taunting his family and neighbors. Bowers walked through an account of being called by Trump on a Sunday after returning from church when the defeated president laid out his proposal to have the state replace its electors for Joe Biden with those favoring Trump. “I said, Look, you’re asking me to do something that is counter to my oath,” Bowers testified before the committee. Bowers insisted on seeing Trump’s evidence of voter fraud, which he said Trump’s team never produced beyond vague allegations. He recalled Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani at one point told him, “‘We’ve got lots of theories, we just don’t have the evidence.’” Trump wanted Bowers to hold a hearing at the state Capitol, but the Republican leader said there was already a “circus” atmosphere over the election. The panel showed video footage of protesters at the Arizona state house including a key figure, the horned-hat wearing Jacob Chansley, who was later arrested at the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Trump nevertheless pressed the Arizona official, including in a follow-up call, suggesting he expected a better response from a fellow Republican. But Bowers testified under oath that because of his faith, including a belief the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired, what the president was asking him to do was “foreign to my very being.”

Stood tall. Uncommon Valor.

"Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, the panel’s vice chair, embraced Bowers during a break in the hearing. She implored Americans to pay attention to the evidence being presented, declaring, “Donald Trump didn’t care about the threats of violence. He did not condemn them, he made no effort to stop them.” “We cannot let America become a nation of conspiracy theories and thug violence.”

Time for Republicans to finally stand up and do the right thing. As they did a half-century ago during Watergate.

"Thompson, D-Miss., pointed to recent election disputes in New Mexico and said, “The danger hasn’t gone away. It’s corrupting our democratic institutions.”

Certainly, has. Continues to.

"Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger testified about Trump’s phone call asking him to “find 11,780” votes that could flip his state to prevent Biden’s election victory. Raffensperger and his deputy Gabe Sterling were key witnesses, along with Wandrea “Shay” Moss, a former Georgia election worker who, with her mother, has said they faced such severe public harassment from Trump allies they felt unable to live normal lives. While the committee cannot charge Trump with any crimes, the Justice Department is watching the panel’s work closely. Trump’s actions in Georgia are also the subject of a grand jury investigation, with the district attorney expected to announce findings this year. Trump defended himself on social media, describing his phone call to Raffensperger as “perfect,” similar to the way he described his 2020 call with Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelenskyy that resulted in his first impeachment. During the call, days before the Jan. 6 attack, Trump repeatedly cited disproven claims of fraud and raised the prospect of a “criminal offense” if Georgia officials did not change the state’s count. The state had counted its votes three times before certifying Biden’s win by a margin of 11,779. The public testimony from Raffensperger came weeks after he appeared before a special grand jury in Georgia investigating whether Trump and others illegally tried to intervene in the state’s 2020 election, and after Raffensperger beat a Trump-backed challenger in last month’s primary election. Sterling, Raffensperger’s chief operating officer, became a notable figure in Georgia’s long post-election counting, and recounting, of the presidential ballots, with his regular updates often broadcast live to a divided nation. At one point, the soft-spoken Republican implored Americans to tone down the heated rhetoric. “Death threats, physical threats, intimidation — it’s too much, it’s not right,” he said. Bowers also revealed a second phone call with Trump in December 2020 that he said was mainly small talk, although Trump also referenced their first conversation. Moss, who had worked for the Fulton County elections department since 2012, and her mother, Ruby Freeman, a temporary election worker, filed a defamation lawsuit in December 2021. Moss claimed conservative outlet One America News Network and Giuliani falsely spread allegations that she and her mother engaged in ballot fraud during the election. The case against OAN has since been dismissed with a settlement. The select committee also worked to untangle the elaborate “fake electors” scheme that sought to have representatives in as many as seven battlegrounds — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico — sign certificates falsely stating that Trump, not Biden, had won their states."

The following is appalling, clearly un-American:

"Conservative law professor John Eastman, a lawyer for Trump, pushed the fake electors in the weeks after the election. Trump and Eastman convened hundreds of electors on a call on Jan. 2, 2021, encouraging them to send alternative slates from their states where Trump’s team was claiming fraud. The fake electors idea was designed to set up a challenge on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress met in joint session, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding over what is typically a ceremonial role to accept the states’ vote tallies. But the effort collapsed, as Pence refused Trump’s repeated demands that he simply halt the certification of Biden’s win — a power he believed he did not possess in his purely ceremonial role. At least 20 people in connection with the fake electors scheme were subpoenaed by the House panel. The committee says it will also show that it has gathered enough evidence through its more than 1,000 interviews and tens of thousands of documents to connect the varying efforts to overturn the election directly to Trump."

6-24-22

Sadly, nazism reigns supreme at the Texas GOP Convention. Surprised? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. The Washington Post reports:

"Thousands of Republican activists meeting in Houston this weekend for the state’s party convention agreed to a resolution that rejects the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and refers to Joe Biden as an illegitimate president. The delegates also called for the repeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which was passed to end discrimination against Black Americans at the polls."

Surprised? Why? The nazi element in the Republican Party remains hopelessly racist.

"Separately, a party platform presented to convention delegates labeled homosexuality “an abnormal lifestyle choice.” According to the Texas Tribune, the platform also advocates for children to learn in school about “the humanity of the preborn child,” promoting new messaging after the state has taken steps to vastly restrict abortion."

All this is remarkably reminiscent of Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Fascist Italy. Pernicious repeat of history. Clearly, the nazi element in our formerly great country remains more than willing to impose its national socialist ideology and religious views on the rest of us in direct violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause, that is, freedom from religion.

"And less than a month after 19 children and two teachers were shot to death at a Texas elementary school, convention delegates adopted a formal “rebuke” of Sen. John Cornyn (R) for engaging in bipartisan gun control talks. Attendees also loudly booed him when he gave a convention speech Friday when he tried to explain potential legislation. The convention resolutions and platform carry no force of law but are intended to serve as a mission statement for GOP activities in the state for the next two years. It also offers a window into how the Republican grass roots have been edging further to the right and how the rejection of Biden’s 2020 election victory has become a key principle for the party. The rhetoric on gay rights in particular represents a reversal after years of growing comfort within the Republican Party with equal rights for gay Americans and polls showing large majorities of voters now support same-sex marriage while opposing discrimination. It comes amid a surge in hate speech and violence directed at LGBTQ people and a new push among staunch conservative circles to attack even the mere mention of sexuality as somehow “grooming” children. The Texas Tribune reported that party delegates rejected an effort to soften the language on homosexuality from a delegate who said it would not help the party. “We are the Republican Party of Texas, not the Westboro Baptist Church,” the Tribune reported the delegate said, referring to the extremist church whose members travel the country to hold anti-gay rallies at public events. The Tribune said other delegates at the convention, which lasted from Thursday to Saturday, laughed and booed at the comment."

Expect better of the nazi element?

"Votes from the more than 5,000 delegates in attendance on whether to formally accept the language into the platform have not yet been tallied, but party chairman James Wesolek said planks presented to delegates are generally accepted. The party also blocked the Log Cabin Republicans, a long-standing group representing gay Republicans, from having a booth at the convention, a decision that drew a rebuke from Donald Trump Jr., who said in a statement to Breitbart that it amounted to “canceling a group of gay conservatives who are standing in the breach with us.” Intraparty divisions were also on display in a video circulated by right-wing personality Alex Stein showing Stein and supporters accosting Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tex.) in a hotel hallway, calling him traitor and “eyepatch McCain” — a slur coined by Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. For months, Crenshaw, who wears an eyepatch because of an injury sustained while serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan, has been heckled as a Republican in Name Only, or RINO, like deceased former senator John McCain. In response, Crenshaw tweeted, “This is what happens when angry little boys like @alexstein99 don’t grow up and can’t get girlfriends.”

LOL. ... Nothing quite like trouble in paradise, is there? LOL.

"Although a wide range of Republican figures stepped forward this weekend to denounce the treatment of the elected official and military veteran, the confrontation was a reminder of internal divisions within the Republican Party and how activists now reject even previously popular and loyal figures. Meanwhile, the party adopted a resolution that declared the 2020 election violated the U.S. Constitution and that “substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results.”

No truth to that at all. No more than a lie. No evidence to back up the lie. None.

Raw insanity:

“We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States,” the resolution continued."

The nazi element has clearly lost itself, -- and whatever sanity it might have had.

"The move came days after the House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 outlined evidence showing that top campaign aides to Donald Trump and other members of his inner circle repeatedly told the former president that claims of fraud were false. But the Texas resolution shows how thoroughly Trump’s obsession with the election has become ingrained as a core belief for his party. “It’s like these people live in some kind of parallel universe that is hate filled and conspiracy filled and have a twisted view of our democracy and Constitution,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party. “It’s almost like these people are on a psychotic, drug-induced trip.” Texas faces a key gubernatorial election in November which will pit incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke. As the convention opened Thursday, party chairman Matt Rinaldi predicted the GOP would make gains in the fall. “A red wave is going to sweep across Texas and this nation and begin a new era,” he said, calling on the party “to take the fight directly to the left and go on offense.” “This means using our state majority to define the debate. This means influencing the public opinion instead of following the polls,” he said. The rebuke of Cornyn — a popular figure among Texas Republicans who won the nomination for reelection in 2020 with 76 percent of the vote — shows the unwillingness of party faithful to offer any concessions on gun rights, even as polls show large majorities of Americans back congressional action. Cornyn is part of a bipartisan group of senators that includes 10 Republicans who have advanced a framework for new gun provisions, including the closing of the so-called boyfriend loophole, federal grants to urge states to adopt red-flag laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people judged to represent a threat to themselves or others and expanded background checks for gun buyers under age 21. Senators must still translate the broad agreement into legislative language. Aides involved in the negotiations who spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe their status said the talks continued productively over the weekend and that there was no sign the Texas backlash had changed their trajectory. Senate leaders are hoping to hold votes on the deal later this week."

Clearly, trouble in nazi paradise:

"The state GOP resolution offers a sense of the pressure being applied to Cornyn from the right as he attempts to navigate the negotiations. It rejects red-flag laws, waiting periods and restrictions on younger gun buyers, declaring “those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves.” After he was booed Friday, Cornyn retweeted journalist Scott Braddock, who reported that Cornyn had been telling supporters: “I’ve never given in to mobs and I’m not starting today.”

CBS News reports:

"The Texas Republican Party officially rejected the results of the 2020 presidential election over the weekend, passing a resolution in its platform that falsely blames election fraud in five battleground states for President Joe Biden's victory over former President Donald Trump. The resolution refers to Mr. Biden as "acting" president."

Raw insanity.

"We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States," the resolution reads. It claims that the elections in five states violated Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution because "various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020." Reviews of the vote tallies and various recounts did not change the outcome of any state's election. Officials including Trump's Attorney General William Barr have repeatedly rejected claims that there was widespread election fraud. The former president and his allies waged dozens of unsuccessful legal battles to try and deliver Mr. Trump a second term in the White House after Mr. Biden was declared the winner, including multiple rejected appeals to the Supreme Court. Despite this, Mr. Trump persists in his false election fraud claims. His actions are currently under scrutiny from a House select committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and related efforts to overturn the 2020 election."

Gets worse. Get this. Adolf and Benito would have been proud of these fascist bastards:

"Texas Republicans also passed a number of other far-right resolutions in the platform, demonstrating the most conservative activists' strength in the state party. The platform calls for the complete abolition of abortion, prohibiting "the teaching of sex education, sexual health, or sexual choice or identity in any public school in any grade whatsoever," and refers to homosexuality as "an abnormal lifestyle choice." The platform also calls for Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, to be overturned. The platform notes that "Texas retains the right to secede from the United States." One resolution called for a referendum "in the 2023 general election for the people of Texas to determine whether or not the State of Texas should reassert its status as an independent nation," the platform reads. Another called for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations. Convention attendees also codified their opposition to the bipartisan gun bill that's being negotiated and rebuked the state's own Republican Senator John Cornyn for his work on the bill. When Cornyn addressed the convention, he was met with loud boos. The senior senator defended the framework of the gun control legislation, declaring, "I will not under any circumstance support new restrictions for law-abiding gun owners. That will always be my red line. And despite what some of you may have heard, the framework that we are working on is consistent with that red line." He also pointed out the measures he has fought against in the legislation: "Democrats push for an assault weapons ban. I said no. They tried to get a new three-week mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. I said no. Universal background checks. Magazine bans; licensing requirements. The list goes on and on and on. And I said no, no, 1000 times no!"

"In their resolution, the Texas Republicans inveighed against potential age restrictions, stating without citing any evidence that "those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves." The resolution also said "red-flag" laws violate citizens' due process, and "all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights." Though supportive of the Second Amendment, the platform calls for other amendments to be eliminated. One portion of the platform calls for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, which allows citizens to vote for senators rather than have them be appointed by state legislatures. Another calls for the federal income tax, established in the Sixteenth Amendment, to be eliminated. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds of each chamber of Congress, or two-thirds of states, to be proposed, as well as three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification."

6-17-22

Congressional panel tells it like it is. Hat's off. The Associated Press reports:

"The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has laid the blame firmly on Donald Trump, saying the assault was not spontaneous but an “attempted coup” and a direct result of the defeated president’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. With a never-before-seen 12-minute video of extremist groups leading the deadly siege and startling testimony from Trump’s most inner circle, the 1/6 committee provided gripping detail Thursday night in contending that Trump’s repeated lies about election fraud and his public effort to stop Joe Biden’s victory led to the attack and imperiled American democracy.

"Testimony on Thursday showed how Trump desperately clung to his own false claims of election fraud, beckoning supporters to the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, when Congress would certify the results, despite those around him insisting Biden had won the election. In a previously unseen video clip, the panel played a remark from former Attorney General Bill Barr, who testified that he told Trump the claims of a rigged election were “bull——.” In another clip, the former president’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, testified to the committee that she respected Barr’s view that there was no election fraud. “I accepted what he said.” Others showed leaders of the extremist Oath Keepers and Proud Boys preparing to storm the Capitol to stand up for Trump. One rioter after another told the committee they came to the Capitol because Trump asked them to. “President Trump summoned a violent mob,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the panel’s vice chair who took the lead for much of the hearing. “When a president fails to take the steps necessary to preserve our union — or worse, causes a constitutional crisis — we’re in a moment of maximum danger for our republic.” There was a gasp in the hearing room when Cheney read an account that said when Trump was told the Capitol mob was chanting for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged for refusing to block the election results. Trump responded that maybe they were right, that he “deserves it.” At another point it was disclosed that Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a leader of efforts to object to the election results, had sought a pardon from Trump, which would protect him from prosecution.

"In wrenching testimony U.S. Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards told the panel that she slipped in other people’s blood as rioters pushed past her into the Capitol. She suffered brain injuries in the melee. “It was carnage. It was chaos,” she said. The riot left more than 100 police officers injured, many beaten and bloodied, as the crowd of pro-Trump rioters, some armed with pipes, bats and bear spray, charged into the Capitol. At least nine people who were there died during and after the rioting, including a woman who was shot and killed by police.

"Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, outlined what the committee has learned about the events leading up to that brisk January day when Trump sent his supporters to Congress to “fight like hell” for his presidency."

The Washington Post reports:

"In a statement punctuated by clips from testimony gathered so far by the committee — including from close Trump aides and his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner — Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) promised that the committee would explain in the coming weeks Trump’s multi-prong strategy to subvert democracy and remain in power despite losing the election. According to snippets of testimony played by Cheney, Trump’s attorney general, William P. Barr, told Trump his claims were “complete nonsense.” Ivanka Trump was persuaded by the assurance. “I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying,” she told the committee. Even so, Cheney said Trump tried to use the resources of his office, including the Justice Department, to overturn the vote, then pressured Vice President Mike Pence to toss out electoral college votes for Joe Biden on Jan. 6, 2021. Once violence erupted, she said Trump not only failed to act to quell it — but instead cheered on the mob. “Aware of the rioters’ chants to ‘hang Mike Pence,’ the president responded with this sentiment: ‘Maybe our supporters have the right idea,’ ” Cheney said. “Mike Pence ‘deserves’ it.' ”

Uncommon Valor:

"Cheney, whose decision to join Democrats on the investigative panel has earned her a serious primary challenge and Trump’s enmity, offered stern words to her fellow Republicans who have dismissed the committee’s work: “I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible — there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

Truer words never spoken. Hat's off.

"The evening’s most dramatic moments belonged to Edwards, a police officer who has not before told her story in public. She described in vivid detail confronting extremists at a bicycle rack that had been blocking a wide sidewalk leading to the Capitol. The crowd threw her to the ground, knocking her unconscious. She sustained a traumatic brain injury during the attack and is believed to be the first officer who was injured during the insurrection. After she came to, she recalled seeing another officer holding his head in his hands: Brian D. Sicknick. He was, she said, “as pale as this piece of paper,” holding up a blank sheet that had been sitting on a table in front of her. Sicknick was taken to the hospital and later died; a medical examiner ruled he died of natural causes after suffering strokes but that the events of that day contributed to his condition. It was “just a war scene,” she said, with injured officers surrounding her. “They were bleeding, they were throwing up, I was slipping in people’s blood,” she said. “It was carnage, it was chaos. I can’t even describe what I saw. Never in my wildest dreams did I think as a police officer, I would find myself in the middle of a battle.” Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards testified on June 9 that Officer Brian Sicknick fought the pro-Trump mob alongside her before being injured. At the hearing’s conclusion, Edwards shared an extended embrace with Sicknick’s partner, Sandra Garza, who had been seated in the front row in the committee room. In all, 140 police officers were assaulted that day. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath. She said that on Jan. 6 and in the days after, she was called “a traitor to my country, my oath and my Constitution.” “In actuality, I was none of those things,” she said. “I was an American standing face to face with other Americans asking myself many times, many, many times how we had gotten here.”

You and your fellow officers stood tall, Officer. Uncommon Valor.

"Republicans sought this week to cast the committee as partisan and illegitimate. Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the Republican conference chair, argued on Wednesday that the hearings are designed to distract voters from other issues such as inflation and crime, and called them “a smear campaign” against Trump. As the hearing unfolded, the Twitter account for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee tweeted images of violence during Black Lives Matters protests in 2020. “All. Old. News,” the Republicans tweeted. In a Thursday statement, Trump went further, once again saying falsely that the election was “rigged” but also seemingly embracing the events of the violent day. “January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again,” he wrote."

A traitor.

"Closing her remarks, Cheney referenced a painting that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda, depicting George Washington voluntarily relinquishing power by resigning his commission in the Continental Army, a sign of his desire to peacefully transfer power. “The sacred obligation to defend this peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president,” she said. “Except one.”

The Washington Post reports:

"For weeks, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) has been, in the words of those close to her, “obsessed” with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. She has devoted more than half of her working hours to collecting evidence, leafing through thousands of pages of testimony, writing scripts for the hearings and strategizing on how best to convince her constituents and fellow Republicans that the events of that January day were part of a chilling conspiracy overseen by former president Donald Trump to undermine democracy. On Thursday night, at the first in a series of congressional hearings, Cheney narrated that case with a dispassionate but propulsive presentation of facts, often showing evidence from videotaped depositions from the former president’s inner circle admitting his claims of voter fraud had no merit. She teased the investigation’s biggest findings and sharply criticized her fellow Republicans for the roles that they played — including enabling and continuing to support Trump. “There will come a point when Donald Trump is gone,” Cheney said, “but your dishonor will remain.”

Uncommon Valor. This woman is a class act. Great courage.

"These hearings, which continue Monday, could mark the pinnacle of Cheney’s political career or the end of it. The former rising star of the GOP has already been alienated by party leaders, abandoned by longtime supporters and consistently attacked by Trump and his allies, who are backing a primary challenger Cheney will face in August. While most of the nine other Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after Jan. 6 have either decided not to run for reelection or mostly avoided discussing the former president, Cheney has made her role as the vice chair of the select committee investigating the insurrection central to her pitch to voters. She is trying to convince them she’s on the right side of history — and that her Trump-free approach to conservatism is the right one. “These issues around what happened on January 6th and around Donald Trump and the danger that he poses, those matter to every American,” Cheney told supporters at a campaign event in Cheyenne, Wyo., on Saturday. “And I just feel very strongly about my responsibility.” In more than 20 conversations with lawmakers, political operatives, foes and friends of the Wyoming Republican, they uniformly describe her as obstinately and surgically focused on extinguishing Trump from the modern conservative movement that he has largely redefined in recent years, with little introspection regarding the forces bigger than Trump that facilitated her ousting from the Wyoming Republican Party earlier this year. Cheney has said the deadly assault of the U.S. Capitol crossed the party line for her and that she has a nonpartisan duty to set the record straight for the people who were “betrayed and lied to” by Trump. Cheney participated in several private meetings with GOP leaders in the days leading up to the attack and was in the House as insurgents tried breaking down the doors, helping other lawmakers put on gas masks because tear gas has been deployed nearby. Democrats run the select committee, but they deferred to Cheney — the daughter of a former Republican vice president they still revile — at the opening hearing to methodically lay out the case against Trump. “She’s had a huge head start on the rest of the committee in understanding these events, because she knows the players and understands the internal political culture of the GOP — this is very familiar terrain for her,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said."

Great courage:

"House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told Cheney after her impeachment vote that he would try to protect her if she would drop the Trump attacks, but she declined, people familiar with the matter said. He has privately described her as “obsessed” with Trump and with destroying his political power, they said. Cheney has repeatedly criticized McCarthy for going to Mar-a-Lago to see Trump soon after the attack and has come to see him as responsible for Trump’s resurrection in the wake of Jan. 6, according to a person familiar with her thinking. Cheney explained her motives in personal terms at the Saturday campaign event, pointing to Jan. 6 as the moment she realized the peaceful transfer of power was no longer a guarantee. “I looked at my boys in the weeks after January 6th; it became very clear that we might suddenly have to question that,” Cheney said. “And I am absolutely committed to do everything I can do, everything that I am required and obligated to do to make sure that we aren’t the last generation in America that can count on a peaceful transition of power. It is hugely important.”

Indeed. Uncommon Valor.

The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump was told the same thing over and over, by his campaign team, the data crunchers, and a steady stream of lawyers, investigators and inner-circle allies: There was no voting fraud that could have tipped the 2020 presidential election. But in the eight weeks after losing to Joe Biden, the defeated Trump publicly, privately and relentlessly pushed his false claims of a rigged 2020 election and intensified an extraordinary scheme to overturn Biden’s victory. When all else failed in his effort to stay in power, Trump beckoned thousands of his supporters to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, where extremists groups led the deadly Capitol siege. The scale and virulence of that scheme began to take shape at the opening House hearing investigating 1/6. When the panel resumes Monday, it will delve into its findings that Trump and his advisers knew early on that he had in fact lost the election but engaged in a “massive effort” to spread false information to convince the public otherwise.

"The House panel investigating the 1/6 attack on the Capitol is prepared next week to reveal more details and testimony about its assessment that Trump was made well aware of his election loss. With testimony from some 1,000 interviews and 140,000 documents over the year-long probe, it will lay out how Trump was told repeatedly that there were no hidden ballots, rigged voting machines or support for his other outlandish claims. Nevertheless Trump refused to accept defeat and his desperate attempt to cling to the presidency resulted in the most violent domestic attack on the Capitol in history. “Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power,” Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., told the hearing Thursday night. “Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States,” she said."

Trump turns on his own. ABC News reports:

"Former President Donald Trump on Friday rebuked his own daughter's deposition testimony played for millions to hear during the House select committee's prime-time hearing detailing its Jan. 6 investigation. Posting to Truth Social -- the social media network Trump launched after being kicked off Twitter -- Trump continued to repeat false claims about the 2020 election as he mocked the committee's work and lashed out at comments Ivanka Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr made in videotaped depositions."

Expect better of a congenital liar?

"Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results," Trump wrote after she said she agreed with Barr's assessment that there was no amount of fraud sufficient enough to overturn his loss. "It affected my perspective," Ivanka Trump told the committee about Barr's assessment. "I respect Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he was saying." Trump fired back Friday that Ivanka "had long since checked out, and was, in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General (he sucked!)." It’s a shift in tone for Trump towards his eldest daughter, who served as a senior adviser in the White House, as did her husband Jared Kushner. Trump praised Ivanka's work multiple times during his administration, calling her smart and intelligent."

Nothing quite like consistency, is there? LOL.

"Trump also once commended Barr, his second attorney general, as one of the "most respected jurists" in the nation. When Barr stepped down from his role as attorney general in December 2020, Trump said their relationship was "a very good one" and Barr had "done an outstanding job!”

Amazing how quickly Trump can turn on anyone, -- including a family member. His own daughter who spoke the truth.

"Using recorded testimony from Barr and Ivanka Trump, as well as other Trump insiders, the House panel on Thursday night argued that Trump was aware of the fact that he lost but moved ahead anyway with a scheme to remain in power. Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., placed Trump at the center of what he described as an "attempted coup" to try to overturn President Joe Biden's electoral victory."

Treason.

"In one interview aired in the hearing, Barr recounted telling Trump the idea that the presidential race was rigged was "bull****." Barr said he "repeatedly told the president in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud and -- you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And frankly, a year and a half later, I haven't seen anything to change my mind on that."

More bullshit from the Trump nazi in response:

"Trump on Friday called Barr "weak and frightened" and denounced the committee once again as the "Unselect Committee."

Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Teasing what else the committee learned in its 11-month investigation, Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming said the public will soon hear testimony from former White House staffers who saw first-hand Trump's reaction to the rioters. Cheney said the testimony claims Trump expressed support for threats of violence against then-Vice President Mike Pence. "Aware of the rioters' chants to 'hang Mike Pence,' the president responded with this sentiment: 'Maybe our supporters have the right idea. Mike Pence 'deserves' it," Cheney said. Trump denied doing so on Truth Social, writing he "NEVER said, or even thought of saying 'Hang Mike Pence.'" "This is either a made up story by somebody looking to become a star, or FAKE NEWS!" he added."

Expect better of a congenital liar? The bullshit continues:

"Last year, Trump told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that he didn't worry about Pence's safety during the Capitol riot and thought he was "well-protected." "They were saying 'hang Mike Pence,'" Karl reminded Trump. "Because it's common sense, Jon," Trump responded. "It's common sense that you're supposed to protect. How can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right? -- how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that?"

Jesus Christ. Goddamned pitiful. The Trump nazi remains hopelessly delusional.

The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump’s closest campaign advisers, top government officials and even his family were dismantling his false claims of 2020 voting fraud on election night, but the defeated president was becoming “detached from reality,” clinging to outlandish theories to stay in power, several said. Trump’s former campaign manager Bill Stepien testified Monday before the House Jan. 6 committee that Trump was “growing increasingly unhappy” at the election results as the night wore on. Son-in-law Jared Kushner tried to steer Trump away from attorney Rudy Giuliani and his far-flung theories of voter fraud that advisers believed were not true. Former Justice Department official Richard Donoghue recalls breaking down one claim after another — from a truckload of ballots in Pennsylvania to a missing suitcase of ballots in Georgia —- and telling Trump “much of the info you’re getting is false.” “He was becoming detached from reality,” said former Attorney General William Barr, who resigned. “I didn’t want to be a part of it.” The witnesses appeared before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack as the panel focused on the “big lie,” Trump’s false claims of voter fraud that fueled the defeated Republican president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and provoked a mob of his supporters to lay siege to the U.S. Capitol. Most of those appearing did so in previously recorded testimony from closed door interviews over the course of the panel’s yearlong investigation. The committee has interviewed some 1,000 witnesses and compiled 140,000 documents, and some members say they have uncovered enough evidence for the Justice Department to consider an unprecedented criminal indictment against the former president. Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., opened Monday’s hearing saying Trump “betrayed the trust of the American people” and “tried to remain in office when people had voted him out.” Stepien was to be a key witness Monday, but abruptly backed out of appearing live because his wife went into labor. The ex-campaign manager is still close to Trump, and had been subpoenaed for to appear. But the panel marched ahead after a morning scramble, showing previously recorded testimony from the ex-campaign manager and others close to the president as Trump latched on to repeated false claims about the election although those closest told him the theories of stolen ballots or rigged voting machines were not true. Stepien described how the festive mood at the White House on election night turned as Fox News announced Trump had lost the state of Arizona to Joe Biden, and aides worked to counsel Trump on what to do next. But he turned a deaf ear to them, choosing to listen instead to Giuliani, who was described as inebriated by several witnesses. Giuliani issued a general denial on Monday, rejecting “all falsehoods” he said were being said about him. “My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted, it’s too early to tell, too early to call the race,” Stepien said in the recorded testimony. But Trump “thought I was wrong. He told me so.” Kushner testified that he told Trump the approach Giuliani was taking was not one he would take. But the president pushed back and said he had confidence in the attorney. And Barr, who had previously testified in last week’s blockbuster hearing that he told Trump the allegations being raised were bull——, revealed in gripping detail how was “as mad as I’d ever seen him” when the attorney general explained that the Justice Department would not take sides in the election."

Stunning testimony. Proof positive at least some of Trump's associates were not as detached from reality as the president clearly was:

"As he mulls another White House run, Trump insists the committee’s investigation is a “witch hunt.” Last week he said Jan. 6 “represented the greatest movement in the history of our country.” Nine people died in the riot and its aftermath, including a Trump supporter shot and killed by police. More than 800 people have been arrested in the siege, and members of two extremist groups have been indicted on rare sedition charges over their roles leading the charge into the Capitol.

"Lawmakers indicated that perhaps their most important audience member over the course of the hearings may be Attorney General Merrick Garland, who must decide whether his department can and should prosecute Trump. They left no doubt as to their own view whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed. “Once the evidence is accumulated by the Justice Department, it needs to make a decision about whether it can prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt the president’s guilt or anyone else’s,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif, a panel member.. “But they need to be investigated if there’s credible evidence, which I think there is.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., another member said on CNN he doesn’t intend to “browbeat” Garland but noted the committee has already laid out in legal pleadings the criminal statutes members believe Trump violated. “I think that he knows, his staff knows, the U.S. attorneys know, what’s at stake here,” Raskin said. No president or ex-president has ever been indicted. Garland has not said whether he would be willing to prosecute."

Should the U.S. Attorney General protect and coddle the Trump nazi doing so would be proof positive there is one system of justice for the very top of the food chain and another for the rest of us. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

NBC News reports:

"On Election Night 2020, Donald Trump was bombarded by top aides telling him that he had lost and that his claims about voter fraud were “completely nuts," according to their own testimony played Monday by the House Jan. 6 committee. Instead of listening to White House and campaign aides, the advisers said the former president sided with a “definitely intoxicated” Rudy Giuliani to launch a movement that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In its second hearing, the committee played a series of video testimony from some of Trump’s closest political and legal advisers who were virtually unanimous in saying they urged the president that claims of massive fraud were "completely bogus" — and at every overture, Trump simply ignored them and opted instead to listen to Giuliani. “That’s not the approach I would take,” Trump’s tight-lipped son-in-law, Jared Kushner, said he told the president. “He said, 'I have confidence in Rudy.'” Eric Herschmann, one of Trump’s own attorneys, said the legal claims advanced by Trump’s Giuliani-led circle of outside legal advisers were “completely nuts.” Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr was particularly verbose, using words like "idiotic," "rubbish," "nonsense," "crazy," "stupid," "silly" and "annoying" to describe fraud claims made by Trump and the Giuliani circle he increasingly relied on as his professional campaign and government staff grew alienated from the president. "Out of the box on election night, Trump claimed there was fraud and this happened before there was any potential evidence,” Barr testified on camera, adding later that he “told the president it was bullshit." Barr said Trump became more and more isolated from the evidence and anyone willing to challenge him as the weeks after the election wore on, even as the campaign struggled to find any law firms willing to take them on as clients. “I thought, boy, if he really believes this stuff, he has lost contact with— he’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff," Barr said of a breaking point he had in December. "He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff." Richard Donoghue, who was the acting deputy attorney general at the time, said he went case-by-case with Trump to debunk every allegation of fraud, but Trump would just move on to another one and then another one as each got knocked down. "I told him [Trump] flat out that much of the information he was getting was false or not supported by the evidence," Donoghue said. "He wouldn't fight us on it, but he'd move to another allegation."

Sad, isn't it?

"While the committee’s first hearing last week focused on the attack itself, Monday’s program aimed to show that Trump knew he had lost the election and intentionally used phony evidence and outright lies to try to stay in power and gin up the movement that led to the violent insurrection last January. The committee sought to underscore the point that Trump himself was chiefly responsible for propagating the lies about the election and that the “Stop the Steal” movement was not a grassroots movement on which Trump seized, but rather one he sparked from the top down. “The election fraud claims were false. Mr. Trump’s closest advisers knew it. Mr. Trump knew it,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a committee member. “The attack on Jan. 6th was a direct and predictable result of Mr. Trump’s decision to use false claims of election fraud to overturn the election and cling to power.” To illustrate the point, the committee played a series of interviews with pro-Trump protesters on Jan. 6 who parroted his false claims about the election, down to arcane specifics about issues like the software used by Dominion voting machines. "I don’t want to say that what we’re doing is right," said one man, apparently coughing from tear gas inside the Capitol, "But if the election is being stolen, what is it going to take?" Committee investigators also traced the money Trump and his allies raised from small donors by stoking election fraud fears, which they said totaled more than $250 million. And while the money was billed as going to "The Official Election Defense Fund," two Trump campaign staffers testified that the fund did not actually exist and was just a "marketing" tactic. Instead, investigators said most of the money went to Trump's new super PAC and was not spent on "election defense." In his testimony, Bill Stepien, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager — who withdrew from participating at Monday's hearing in-person because his wife went into labor — said he and a group of other senior aides gathered outside the Oval Office on Election Night to essentially try to talk Trump down from his conspiracy theories. Stepien said as votes were being counted, it became clear to aides with the president that night that Trump’s chances of victory were “very very bleak.” "We told him, the group that went over there...chances for success at this point and then we pegged it at, 5, maybe, maybe, 10 percent based on recounts...[and] realistic legal challenges,” Stepien said. “My recommendation was to say that votes were still being counted. It’s too early to tell," Stepien continued. “The President disagreed with that. ... I don’t recall the particular words. He thought I was wrong, he told me so, and that they were going to go in a different direction." Stepien — who entered national politics working on former President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign and then was a top aide to former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — remains aligned with the Trump-wing of the GOP. His political consulting firm is currently advising a conservative candidate in Wyoming’s August GOP primary trying to oust Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, who has broken with her party to become perhaps the most visible face of the Jan. 6 committee’s work. Stepien and other aides said Giuliani, the former New York City Mayor, arrived and began to push Trump to declare the election stolen. “The mayor was definitely intoxicated,” said Trump senior adviser Jason Miller, who remains in Trump's orbit. “There were suggestions by, I believe it was Mayor Giuliani, to go and declare victory and say that we’d won outright.”

Get this:

"In court, Trump’s campaign lost 61 cases and won only a single minor one, which did not affect the vote count for either candidate. "They did have their day in court," Ben Ginsberg, perhaps the country’s foremost Republican election attorney, told committee members. "In no instance did the court find that the charges of fraud were real."

6-17-22

Justice? Think so? Will the 'Justice' Department do the right thing? NBC News reports:

"Liz Cheney’s powerful remarks at Thursday night’s Jan. 6 congressional hearing on the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — which sounded a lot like a lawyer’s opening statement at a criminal trial — have renewed a debate in legal circles about whether the Justice Department could, and should, prosecute Donald Trump."

How is that even a legitimate question? In a democratic republic, no one is above the law. No one. Not even the very top of the food chain.

"With a growing body of evidence that Cheney and others say points to criminal acts involving Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, Attorney General Merrick Garland may ultimately be faced with an excruciatingly difficult decision about whether prosecuting a former president is in the national interest."

How the hell is it not? Granting the very top of the food chain exemption from the law is the mark of an autocracy, not a democratic republic.

"A person familiar with the matter told NBC News there have been conversations inside the Justice Department about the far-reaching implications of pursuing a case against Trump, should it come to that. So far, no public evidence has surfaced that the former president has become a criminal target."

That's a problem. A big problem. The fact the Attorney General and his Department of 'Justice' have refused to enforce all subpoenas from the 1-6-21 congressional committee remains proof positive some Trump associates and staffers remain above the law.

“We will follow the facts wherever they lead,” Garland said in his speech at Harvard University’s commencement ceremony last month. His deputy, Lisa Monaco, has confirmed that prosecutors were looking into the legal ramifications for those who took part in schemes to push slates of fake Electoral College members declaring Trump the winner of states Joe Biden won."

They're dragging their feet.

"Filing criminal charges against Trump in connection with his efforts to overturn the election “will very likely spark civil unrest, and maybe even civil war,” said Barbara McQuade, an NBC legal analyst and a former U.S. attorney. But, she said, “I think not charging is even worse, because not charging means you failed to hold someone criminally accountable who tried to subvert our democracy.”

That's right. No question.

The following has no credibility since it comes from a shyster who was formerly the head of an outrageously corrupt and abusive law enforcement agency:

"Either way, “It’s a momentous and unprecedented decision — not as easy as some folks might imagine it to be,” said Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News legal analyst who is a former federal prosecutor and former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration."

Without question:

"The contours of a possible criminal case against Trump have been clear to legal experts for some time. A federal judge said in a ruling in a civil case in March that Trump “more likely than not” committed federal crimes in seeking to obstruct the congressional count of the Electoral College ballots on Jan. 6, 2021, citing two statutes: obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy to defraud the United States. At the time, a Trump spokesperson called the judge's assertions “absurd and baseless.” Trump has consistently denied all wrongdoing."

Trump has no credibility. Remains a congenital liar.

"In her opening comments, Cheney sought to lay out all the elements of what she had previously said amounted to a criminal plot. “Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power,” she said. As Cheney described it, Trump’s alleged misconduct went far beyond allegations that he had incited the crowd that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. She said he had committed a fraud on the American public by advancing bogus election claims, and then tried to get government officials to act on those false assertions. At key moments, they refused to do so. Trump “corruptly planned to replace the attorney general of the United States so the U.S. Justice Department would spread his false stolen election claims,” Cheney said, and “corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results.” Trump’s campaign to get Vice President Mike Pence to reject state electors and block the vote certification on Jan. 6 “was illegal and it was unconstitutional,” she said. As she summed up Trump’s conduct, she said the public should keep in mind that “the Department of Justice is currently working with cooperating witnesses, and has disclosed to date only some of the information it has identified from encrypted communications and other sources.” That information had been disclosed in various indictments, but by mentioning it in the context of Trump, Cheney seemed to hint that it was relevant to the question of his culpability. Many legal experts said it would not be necessary to link Trump to the mobs who stormed the Capitol in order to charge him. They said there was ample evidence that he participated in a corrupt scheme to overturn the election. “I can imagine an indictment that includes all seven schemes,” McQuade said. “But if the DOJ can prove any one of them, that would be enough.” In other words, said Rosenberg, “Did he conspire with at least one other person to obstruct Congress and to thwart the counting of the electoral votes?” “There are a lot of actions that are being laid out that could qualify as conspiracy to obstruct the certification of the election,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and currently a lecturer at George Washington University Law School. “This was a multifaceted conspiracy that actually went on for a couple of months.” The riot at the Capitol, Eliason said, “ended up being sort of a useful tool in that conspiracy. Whether or not that was even part of the initial plan, it certainly became something that furthered the conspiracy.”

Get this:

"As in most white collar crime cases, experts said the biggest challenge for prosecutors would be proving that Trump had criminal intent — that he knew he had lost the election but pursued his fraud claims anyway. It’s well-established that a president who once suggested that people could inject themselves with disinfectant to deter Covid has embraced some strange ideas. (He later said he was being "sarcastic.") Trump has said he genuinely believes the election was stolen from him, and that all his statements and actions were made in good faith. But the committee on Thursday night offered new evidence from Trump’s own campaign advisers that he was told over and over that he had lost, and that his fraud claims were bogus. “You had his daughter saying she believed it,” Eliason said. “If this were going to be a trial, that would be the whole case. Can you prove Trump’s state of mind?” McQuade and Joyce Vance, also a former U.S. attorney and an NBC News legal analyst, said prosecutors could make use of a legal concept known as deliberate ignorance, or willful blindness, in which a judge can instruct a jury that it can find that a defendant acted knowingly if the defendant was aware of a high probability that something was true but deliberately avoided learning the truth. “A person cannot ignore a probability that a fact is true,” McQuade said."

The following is a big problem. This line of thinking a half century ago resulted in Nixon being pardoned by his successor, that is, not being held legally accountable for his crimes:

"If the investigation ever reaches the point that federal prosecutors decide they have enough evidence to charge Trump with crimes — and are all but certain they could win the case — another layer of decision-making would come into play, legal analysts say. Garland would have to decide whether prosecuting Trump would be in the country's best interest."

Outrageous. Effectively, grants carte blanche to the very top of the food chain to commit crimes with impunity.

"No former president has ever been indicted. And a presidential administration of one party charging a president of another party — no matter how much prosecutors insist the decision was made on the facts and the law — would create an uncomfortable precedent. “I don’t think we want to be the kind of country where this happens often,” McQuade said. Vance said she believes Garland would have to decide whether “prosecuting Trump destabilizes the country more than it puts it upright.”

That itself would set the precedent the president is indeed above the law. -- The mark of an autocracy, not what is supposed to be a democratic republic.

"For a time, it seemed that Garland had concluded that prosecuting Trump would be a mistake, she said, but “then as the evidence got worse and worse, at some point they just crossed the Rubicon and realized, you’ve got to investigate.” Vance said she agreed with McQuade, as did Eliason, that the Justice Department should prosecute Trump. Rosenberg said he wasn’t sure. One possible wrinkle is whether Garland would make a final decision about whether to prosecute on his own, or whether he would consult with President Joe Biden, who has pledged to stay out of Justice Department matters. The Justice Department by tradition makes criminal charging decisions independent of the president, but in cases that implicate, for example, American diplomacy or national security, the executive branch can and does weigh in. Biden would have the legal authority to make the final decision about whether to prosecute, but experts are divided on whether he should get involved. “That’s a fascinating question,” Eliason said. “It feels to me that the president would have to weigh in. We are talking about this monumental decision. Biden was elected, not Garland. At some point this becomes a policy question, not strictly a legal one.” McQuade disagreed: “It would be a terrible idea. I think you cannot loop in the president. You can give him a heads up, but I don’t think you consult him. That undermines this idea of an independent Justice Department.”

The law in a democratic republic is supposed to be applied equally to all. From the bottom to the very top. No one above the law. The bullshit in the above quote has been used by shysters to exempt the top of the food chain from full legal accountability. That results in loss of public faith and trust in government.

"If a prosecution went forward, Biden might face a decision of his own: whether it’s in the national interest for him to use his pardon power, as President Gerald Ford did in the case of President Richard Nixon."

An horrendous mistake by Ford a half century ago. Was proof positive Nixon was indeed above the law:

"Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974 as impeachment loomed, and a federal grand jury was preparing to indict him on charges of bribery, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and obstruction of a criminal investigation. Ford’s pardon was bitterly criticized at the time, and historians believe it cost him the presidential election in 1976."

As well it should have. The following is well beyond galling:

"But in 2001, at age 87, Ford was given the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award."

The following is beyond contempt. Worse? Highly indicative of the fact the late Senator had sadly lost his marbles and was a small fraction of his former self:

‘’I was one of those who spoke out against his action then,” Sen. Edward Kennedy said during the ceremony at the John F. Kennedy Library. “But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us.’’

Sadly, in fact, it was the beginning of the end of a democratic republic.

6-17-22

The most serious and dangerous rise of nazism in our formerly great country dates back not even a decade after the end of the Second World War. Hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest died fighting the German Nazis and Italian Fascists only to have this fascist curse take hold here in the United States in the early Fifties during the McCarthy Era. The issue goes back even further to the late Thirties when some in our country including the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh sympathized with Adolf Hitler and his ideology. The Washington Post reports:

"The year was 1954, and the Cold War was in full swing. Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wis.) was seeing Soviet spies in every corner of the government. And a young sociologist at Columbia University, Daniel Bell, convened a seminar to come to grips with the menace of McCarthyism. Bell enlisted an academic dream team that included historian Richard Hofstadter and sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset. A year later, the group of seven intellectuals published their findings as an essay collection, edited by Bell. “The New American Right” argued that McCarthy’s conspiratorial anti-communism was here to stay. By then, the Senate had censured McCarthy, and McCarthyism had collapsed. The book looked dead on arrival. But nearly 70 years later, as a congressional committee investigates the far-right attack on the U.S. government on Jan. 6, 2021, the forgotten text has never looked more prescient. The authors wrote that far-right activists who wrapped themselves in the American flag actually posed a grave threat to the country’s core principles. In the name of protecting U.S. democracy, they warned, the radical right would employ the language and methods of authoritarianism. If “The New American Right” seemed obsolete when it was first published, that changed quickly. By the early ’60s, it was obvious McCarthy had spawned a movement with real staying power made up of anti-communist organizations. Take the John Birch Society, which in 1962 counted about 60,000 members and an estimated 9.5 million sympathizers. Its founder, a candy tycoon named Robert Welch, thought “traitors inside the U.S. government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order, managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.’” Or take the lesser-known Liberty Lobby, founded by an avowed admirer of Nazi Germany. This white supremacist group prophesied an apocalyptic struggle “between the white and the colored world, of which Russia is the Lord.” Bell’s team of academics revised “The New American Right” and rereleased it in 1963 as “The Radical Right.” It would become a must-read for students of modern American history."

These people certainly understood the exigent threat to liberty:

"The intellectuals held that the radical right not only loathed communism but also liberal democracy and the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution. As Bell noted wryly, its partisans stood ready “to jettison constitutional processes and to suspend liberties, to condone Communist methods in the fighting of Communism.” They blasted free elections and the peaceful transfer of power, lamented the independence of the judiciary and opposed civil rights. If the Soviets wanted to destabilize the republic, they could hardly have found keener agents than the radical right. Hofstadter called these activists “pseudo-conservatives” (a term borrowed from philosopher Theodor W. Adorno). They posed as conservatives but in truth were authoritarians with a nihilistic urge to watch the world burn. “Followers of a movement like the John Birch Society,” Hofstadter wrote in one of the book’s essays, “are in our world but not exactly of it.” They lived amid what their successors would come to call “alternative facts.”

Precisely, what we see today in the Trump nazi, his henchmen, and supporters.

"Adherents of the movement preached imminent doomsday. In 1963, following the ratification of a nuclear treaty with the Soviet Union, the Liberty Lobby declared that “the United States has, at best, only a few more years.” In a speech denouncing the radical right, Sen. Thomas Kuchel (R-Calif.) labeled them “fright peddlers.” It became the ’60s equivalent of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” a term of derision worn as a badge of honor by the derided. Bell argued that pseudo-conservatives were driven by a fear of modernity. The United States was starting to shift to a knowledge economy dominated by a “technical and professional intelligentsia.” This rattled pseudo-conservatives, who felt, in Bell’s words, the “disquiet of the dispossessed.” This sounds more than a little like the forces that helped elect Donald Trump, spark the QAnon extremist ideology and launch the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The radical right of the 1960s, by contrast, never found its Trump — a leader who could unite the movement and give it real political power. Barry Goldwater, the Republican firebrand who ran for the presidency in 1964, was crushed in a landslide, and subsequent Republican presidents did not embrace pseudo-conservatism. When the radical right first gained strength, it fell to a Democratic president to formulate a counterattack — just as President Biden and his allies in Congress are now attempting. In 1961, John F. Kennedy deplored those who “call for a ‘man on horseback’ because they do not trust the people.” His brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, deemed the John Birch Society “a tremendous danger” and excoriated “those, who, in the name of fighting communism, sow the seeds of suspicion … against the foundations of our government — Congress, the Supreme Court, and even the presidency itself.” To stave off the threat, the Kennedys had the IRS audit extremist groups and the Federal Communications Commission regulate right-wing radio. But these efforts failed to make a dent in the groups’ appeal."

Sadly, it enabled them.

"Pseudo-conservatism only lost relevance in the mid-1960s, after conservatives such as Ronald Reagan disavowed the John Birch Society. Today’s Republicans have yet to follow suit with Trump, QAnon and the Jan. 6 attack. In February, the Republican National Committee declared the insurrection “legitimate political discourse.”

Raw insanity.

"The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack began a series of highly anticipated hearings Thursday. The committee, composed of seven Democrats and two Republicans, has so far stood united in its pledge to uncover the truth about what Biden has called “the worst attack on our democracy since the Civil War.” But the ideology behind the attack is nothing new. Bell’s team of academics was already sounding the alarm 67 years ago."

Reagan was no conservative. The national debt approximately tripled during his eight year reign. Largely due to military spending and the instability it created in the world community.

6-10-22

Think the following justice? The Associated Press reports:

"Former Trump White House official Peter Navarro has been indicted on charges that he refused to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, but the Justice Department spared two other advisers, including the ex-president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, from criminal prosecution."

Why? Why were they protected and coddled?

"The department’s decision to not prosecute Meadows and Dan Scavino, another adviser to former President Donald Trump, was revealed in a letter sent Friday by a federal prosecutor to a lawyer for the House of Representatives. The move was reported hours after the indictment of Navarro and a subsequent, fiery court appearance in which he vowed to contest the contempt of Congress charges."

To not indict these bastards who allegedly engaged in treasonous activity and give them their day in court is a travesty of justice.

"The flurry of activity comes just days before the House committee leading the investigation into the riot at the Capitol holds a primetime hearing aimed at presenting the American public with evidence it has collected about how the assault unfolded. The split decisions show how the Justice Department has opted to evaluate on a case-by-case basis contempt referrals it has received from Congress rather than automatically pursue charges against each and every Trump aide who has resisted congressional subpoenas."

That's goddamned outrageous. It's obstruction of justice by the 'Justice' Department itself. LOL.

"The committee’s leaders called the decision to not prosecute Meadows and Scavino “puzzling.” In a statement late Friday, Reps. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said: “We hope the Department provides greater clarity on this matter. ... No one is above the law.”

To date, that simply has not been the case. Trump and his henchmen have received special treatment not accorded the rest of the population:

"Though the Justice Department has referred multiple Trump aides for potential prosecution for refusal to cooperate, Navarro is only the second to face criminal charges, following the indictment last fall of former White House adviser Steve Bannon. Navarro, 72, was charged with one contempt count for failing to appear for a deposition before the House committee and a second charge for failing to produce documents the committee requested. During an initial court appearance, he alleged that the Justice Department had committed “prosecutorial misconduct” and said he was told he could not contact anyone after being approached by an FBI agent at the airport Friday and put in handcuffs. He said he was arrested while trying to board a flight to Nashville, Tennessee for a television appearance. “Who are these people? This is not America,” Navarro said. “I was a distinguished public servant for four years!”

Jesus Christ. What a crock of shit. You worked for a traitor who as president acted like a nazi dictator. When he subsequently truly lost the election, he then tried to traitorously steal it himself. Wake up.

"Each charge carries a minimum sentence of a month in jail and a maximum of a year behind bars. The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland had been facing pressure to move more quickly to decide whether to prosecute other Trump aides who have similarly defied subpoenas from the House panel. The New York Times first reported on the decision to not charge Meadows and Scavino. A person familiar with the decision who was not authorized to discuss it publicly confirmed it to The Associated Press on Friday. The U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, which made the decisions regarding each of the Trump aides, declined to comment Friday."

No transparency. The public in a democratic republic is entitled to know what went down, how, and why. To date, Trump and his henchmen have been protected and coddled. Not held accountable. ... Hear the rumble?

5-27-22

The Ginni Thomas-Clarence Thomas Supreme Court debacle continues unabated. The Washington Post reports:

"Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Arizona lawmakers after the 2020 election to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory and choose “a clean slate of Electors,” according to emails obtained by The Washington Post. The emails, sent by Ginni Thomas to a pair of lawmakers on Nov. 9, 2020, argued that legislators needed to intervene because the vote had been marred by fraud. Though she did not mention either candidate by name, the context was clear. Just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, Thomas urged the lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure.” She told the lawmakers the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone” and said they have “power to fight back against fraud.”

What fraud?

"Thomas sent the messages via an online platform designed to make it easy to send pre-written form emails to multiple elected officials, according to a review of the emails obtained under the state’s public records law. The messages show that Thomas, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, was more deeply involved in the effort to overturn Biden’s win than has been previously reported. In sending the emails, Thomas played a role in the extraordinary scheme to keep Trump in office by substituting the will of legislatures for the will of voters."

Called treason.

Worse? Get this:

"Thomas’s actions also underline concerns about potential conflicts of interest that her husband has already faced — and may face in the future — in deciding cases related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Those questions intensified in March, when The Post and CBS News obtained text messages that Thomas sent in late 2020 to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, pressing him to help reverse the election. The emails were sent to Russell Bowers, a veteran legislator and speaker of the Arizona House, and Shawnna Bolick, who was first elected to the chamber in 2018 and served on the House elections committee during the 2020 session. “Article II of the United States Constitution gives you an awesome responsibility: to choose our state’s Electors,” read the Nov. 9 email. “… [P]lease take action to ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen.” Thomas’s name also appears on an email to the two representatives on Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college met to cast their votes and seal Biden’s victory. “Before you choose your state’s Electors ... consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” the email said. It included a link to a video of a man delivering a message meant for swing-state lawmakers, urging them to “put things right” and “not give in to cowardice.” “You have only hours to act,” said the speaker, who is not identified in the video. By December, the claim that legislators should override the popular vote in key states and appoint Trump’s electors was also being pushed publicly by John C. Eastman, a former law clerk to Clarence Thomas, and Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer."

Called treason.

"Trump allies argued that pandemic-era changes in election administration and supposedly widespread fraud meant that elections had not been conducted in accordance with state legislatures’ directions, and that under the U.S. Constitution the results therefore could be cast aside. Many legal experts have called those arguments unpersuasive and anti-democratic, and no state legislature complied. Efforts to persuade state lawmakers to name new electors are among the issues under examination by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection."

Get this. It's achingly gutless:

"Ginni Thomas did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not respond to messages seeking comment from Clarence Thomas."

Justice Thomas apparently believes he is not accountable to the American public.

"Ginni Thomas has insisted that she and her husband have kept their work separate, but her political activism has set her apart from other Supreme Court spouses. About a decade ago, she and Stephen K. Bannon — who later became chief strategist in the Trump White House — were among the organizers of Groundswell, a group formed to battle liberals and establishment Republicans. Groundswell dedicated itself to “a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation,” according to emails uncovered by Mother Jones at the time. “Election integrity” was among the topics discussed in the group’s first months, the emails show. Thomas’s influence in Washington grew during the Trump presidency as her views moved into the GOP mainstream. Clarence and Ginni Thomas had lunch with Trump at the White House in 2018, then attended a state dinner the following year. Also in 2019, she and fellow right-wing activists attended a White House luncheon, where the New York Times reported that they told Trump his aides were blocking their preferred candidates for administration appointments. Over those same years, at annual luncheons, Thomas handed out “Impact Awards” to right-wing figures. Recipients have included Meadows, then a congressman chairing the hard-right Freedom Caucus, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe and Fox News host Sean Hannity."

Fascinating, isn't it? Worse? An exigent threat to all civil and constitutional rights and liberties.

"Thomas is a member of the Council for National Policy, a network of prominent conservative activists, some of whom helped press claims of election fraud. She recently said she attended the pro-Trump rally at the Ellipse in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. Thomas sent the emails via freeroots.com, a website meant to give political organizers an efficient means of conducting email campaigns. The email address of the sender in Thomas’s emails is displayed as “Ginni Thomas<noreply@freeroots.com>.” A representative of FreeRoots did not respond to a message seeking comment. The Nov. 9 email carried the subject line, “Please do your Constitutional duty!” In addition to pushing the lawmakers to appoint legislators, the email asked for a meeting to discuss pursuing an “audit” of the vote. Under the U.S. Constitution, states appoint presidential electors “in such manner” as the legislatures direct. Historically, some state legislatures appointed electors directly, but in the modern era states have delegated that responsibility to voters. In urging Arizona lawmakers to “choose” electors after Biden had already prevailed, Thomas’s messages claimed lawmakers could intervene in that process."

Called treason.

Interestingly, get this:

"The records obtained by The Post do not show any response from Bowers, whose refusal to help overturn Biden’s victory in Arizona made him the target of a recall campaign. When Trump’s legal team pressed to replace Biden electors with Trump electors, Bowers released a public statement explaining that they were asking legislators to do something forbidden by state law. “As a conservative Republican, I don’t like the results of the presidential election. I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him,” it said. “But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election.” A spokesman for Bowers did not respond to messages seeking comment."

The report goes on and on and on in great detail. Hopefully, prosecutors are taking a very careful look at all this.

The Associated Press reports:

"Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and a conservative political activist, urged Republican lawmakers in Arizona after the 2020 presidential election to choose their own slate of electors, arguing that results giving Joe Biden a victory in the state were marred by fraud."

What fraud? Trump's Big Lie.

"The revelations first published by The Washington Post on Friday show that Thomas was more involved than previously known in efforts, based on unsubstantiated claims of fraud, to overturn Biden’s victory and keep then-President Donald Trump in office. In the days after The Associated Press and other news organizations called the presidential election for Biden, Thomas emailed two lawmakers in Arizona to urge them to choose “a clean slate of Electors” and “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure.” The AP obtained the emails under the state’s open records law. Thomas also had written to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in the weeks following the election encouraging him to work to overturn Biden’s victory and keep Trump in office, according to text messages first reported by the Post and CBS News. Thomas was a staunch Trump supporter who acknowledged she attended the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally on the Ellipse but left before Trump spoke and his supporters later stormed the Capitol. She has been critical of the ongoing congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 violence, including signing onto a letter to House Republicans calling for the expulsion of Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois from the GOP conference for joining the Jan. 6 congressional committee."

Direct conflict of interest:

"Justice Thomas, meanwhile, has taken part in the court’s consideration of lawsuits challenging the election results. The court turned away every challenge without a hearing, though Thomas was among three conservative justices who said cases from Pennsylvania should be heard. In February 2021, Thomas called the cases an “ideal opportunity” to address an important question whether state lawmakers or state courts get the last word about the manner in which federal elections are carried out. In January, Thomas was the lone member of the court who supported a bid by Trump to withhold documents from the Jan 6. committee. The documents were held by the National Archives and Records Administration and included presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes dealing with Jan. 6 from Meadows’ files. Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment, made to the court Friday."

What could he say? Exceptionally difficult to effectively defend the indefensible. Even for a gifted shyster. LOL.

"Democratic lawmakers have called on Thomas to step aside from election-related cases, but he has given no indication he intends to do so."

Called clueless Aryan arrogance. To be expected from the nazi element in the Republican Party. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"The latest disclosure comes at a time when Chief Justice John Roberts has ordered an internal investigation into the leaking of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, in one of the court’s most prominent cases in decades, and opinion polls have shown a loss of public confidence in the institution."

To be expected when the Court is run and owned by six Republican nazi justices.

"Thomas sent emails to Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and Rep. Shawnna Bolick, who this year is running for Arizona secretary of state. That would make her the top elections administrator in Arizona. She wrote them again on Dec. 13, the day before electors met in state capitols around the country to formally cast their votes for president. “As state lawmakers, you have the Constitutional power and authority to protect the integrity of our elections — and we need you to exercise that power now!” the email said. “Never before in our nation’s history have our elections been so threatened by fraud and unconstitutional procedures.”

That's simply not true. An egregiously false statement. No evidence of it. None. Trump's Big Lie.

"Bowers dismissed the idea of replacing Arizona’s electors shortly after the election. The following year, Bolick introduced a bill that would have allowed the Legislature to overturn any presidential election results for any reason, and replace the electors."

Called treason. By an official who falsely swore to uphold the Constitution.

"Bolick has said her legislation would have made the process more bipartisan by requiring a two-thirds vote, but the text of the proposal calls for a simple majority. In any event, Bowers essentially killed the legislation before it ever came to a vote."

Fascinating, isn't it?

5-27-22

The following is an editorial criticizing a massive failure of the January 6 congressional committee written by Michael Conway, former counsel, U.S. House Judiciary Committee. NBC News reports:

"The Justice Department sent a letter to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, requesting transcripts of closed-door witness interviews the committee has conducted be shared with the department. The letter, sent on April 20, was first reported Tuesday by The New York Times. Rather than readily agree with the Justice Department’s request, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., rejected it as “premature” following the news report. Even if the department hadn’t sent its request, sharing all the transcripts this year should’ve been at the forefront of the minds of everyone on the Jan. 6 committee. That’s a blunder of epic proportions. The only prudent answer is to promptly deliver to the Justice Department not only every transcript of the more than 1,000 interviews it has conducted but also all evidence in the committee’s possession. In a blatant turf-protecting response, Thompson said, “We told them that as a committee, the product was ours, and we’re not giving anyone access to the work product.” He also said department officials could view the documents in person. This reaction is a critical miscalculation. For two reasons, anything short of full cooperation could undermine the criminal prosecution of those who instigated the Capitol riot. First, after the November midterms, it’s likely that the Republicans will regain control of the House, and, as members of the GOP have threatened to do if that happens, the Jan. 6 investigation could be shut down. The House committee’s nonpublic witness files could then be hidden in a government warehouse. Prosecutors need time to marshal evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone conceivably could be indicted. These interview transcripts would provide federal prosecutors with a running start in that effort. Second, a little-recognized legal pitfall could torpedo any criminal prosecution if the committee’s delivery of evidence to the Justice Department is incomplete. Two categories of documents are implicated: all statements “in the possession of the United States“ made by prosecution trial witnesses and exculpatory evidence held by federal prosecutors."

5-6-22

Republican Party tied to Capitol insurrection. The Associated Press reports:

"Rioters who smashed their way into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, succeeded — at least temporarily — in delaying the certification of Joe Biden’s election to the White House. Hours before, Rep. Jim Jordan had been trying to achieve the same thing. Texting with then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, a close ally and friend, at nearly midnight on Jan. 5, Jordan offered a legal rationale for what President Donald Trump was publicly demanding — that Vice President Mike Pence, in his ceremonial role presiding over the electoral count, somehow assert the authority to reject electors from Biden-won states. Pence “should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all,” Jordan wrote. “I have pushed for this,” Meadows replied. “Not sure it is going to happen.” The text exchange, in an April 22 court filing from the congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, is in a batch of startling evidence that shows the deep involvement of some House Republicans in Trump’s desperate attempt to stay in power. A review of the evidence finds new details about how, long before the attack on the Capitol unfolded, several GOP lawmakers were participating directly in Trump’s campaign to reverse the results of a free and fair election. It’s a connection that members of the House Jan. 6 committee are making explicit as they prepare to launch public hearings in June. The Republicans plotting with Trump and the rioters who attacked the Capitol were aligned in their goals, if not the mob’s violent tactics, creating a convergence that nearly upended the nation’s peaceful transfer of power. “It appears that a significant number of House members and a few senators had more than just a passing role in what went on,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, told The Associated Press last week. Since launching its investigation last summer, the Jan. 6 panel has been slowly gaining new details about what lawmakers said and did in the weeks before the insurrection. Members have asked three GOP lawmakers — Jordan of Ohio, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California — to testify voluntarily. All have refused. Other lawmakers could be called in the coming days. So far, the Jan. 6 committee has refrained from issuing subpoenas to lawmakers, fearing the repercussions of such an extraordinary step. But the lack of cooperation from lawmakers hasn’t prevented the panel from obtaining new information about their actions."

Get this:

"The latest court document, submitted in response to a lawsuit from Meadows, contained excerpts from just a handful of the more than 930 interviews the Jan. 6 panel has conducted. It includes information on several high-level meetings nearly a dozen House Republicans attended where Trump’s allies flirted with ways to give him another term. Among the ideas: naming fake slates of electors in seven swing states, declaring martial law and seizing voting machines. The efforts started in the weeks after The Associated Press declared Biden president-elect. In early December 2020, several lawmakers attended a meeting in the White House counsel’s office where attorneys for the president advised them that a plan to put up an alternate slate of electors declaring Trump the winner was not “legally sound.” One lawmaker, Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, pushed back on that position. So did GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Louie Gohmert of Texas, according to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former special assistant in the Trump White House. Despite the warning from the counsel’s office, Trump’s allies moved forward. On Dec. 14, 2020, as rightly chosen Democratic electors in seven states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — met at their seat of state government to cast their votes, the fake electors gathered as well. They declared themselves the rightful electors and submitted false Electoral College certificates declaring Trump the true winner of the presidential election in their states. Those certificates from the “alternate electors” were then sent to Congress, where they were ignored. The majority of the lawmakers have since denied their involvement in these efforts."

Couldn't be liars, could they?

"Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia testified in a hearing in April that she does not recall conversations she had with the White House or the texts she sent to Meadows about Trump invoking martial law. Gohmert told AP he also does not recall being involved and that he is not sure he could be helpful to the committee’s investigation. Rep. Jody Hice of Georgia played down his actions, saying it is routine for members of the president’s party to be going in and out of the White House to speak about a number of topics. Hice is now running for secretary of state in Georgia, a position responsible for the state’s elections. Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona didn’t deny his public efforts to challenge the election results but called recent reports about his deep involvement untrue. In a statement Saturday, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona reiterated his “serious” concerns about the 2020 election. “Discussions about the Electoral Count Act were appropriate, necessary and warranted,” he added. Requests for comment from the other lawmakers were not immediately returned."

Surprised?

"Less than a week later after the early December meeting at the White House, another plan emerged. In a meeting with House Freedom Caucus members and Trump White House officials, the discussion turned to the decisive action they believed that Pence could take on Jan. 6. Those in attendance virtually and in-person, according to committee testimony, were Hice, Biggs, Gosar, Reps. Perry, Gaetz, Jordan, Gohmert, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, and Greene, then a congresswoman-elect. “What was the conversation like?” the committee asked Hutchinson, who was a frequent presence in the meetings that took place in December 2020 and January 2021. “They felt that he had the authority to, pardon me if my phrasing isn’t correct on this, but — send votes back to the States or the electors back to the states,” Hutchinson said, referring to Pence. When asked if any of the lawmakers disagreed with the idea that the vice president had such authority, Hutchinson said there was no objection from any of the Republican lawmakers. In another meeting about Pence’s potential role, Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis were joined again by Perry and Jordan as well as Greene and Lauren Boebert, a Republican who had also just been elected to the House from Colorado. Communication between lawmakers and the White House didn’t let up as Jan. 6 drew closer. The day after Christmas, Perry texted Meadows with a countdown. “11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration,” the text read. “We gotta get going!” Perry urged Meadows to call Jeffrey Clark, an assistant attorney general who championed Trump’s efforts to challenge the election results. Perry has acknowledged introducing Clark to Trump. Clark clashed with Justice Department superiors over his plan to send a letter to Georgia and other battleground states questioning the election results and urging their state legislatures to investigate. It all culminated in a dramatic White House meeting at which Trump considered elevating Clark to attorney general, only to back down after top Justice Department officials made clear they would resign. Pressure from lawmakers and the White House on the Justice Department is among several areas of inquiry in the Jan. 6 investigation. Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the panel from Maryland, has hinted there are more revelations to come. “As the mob smashed our windows, bloodied our police and stormed the Capitol, Trump and his accomplices plotted to destroy Biden’s majority in the electoral college and overthrow our constitutional order,” Raskin tweeted last week. When the results of the panel’s investigation come out, Raskin predicted, “America will see how the coup and insurrection converged.”

The Washington Post reports:

"A federal judge has issued a potentially very significant ruling in the House Jan. 6 committee’s favor, turning aside the Republican National Committee’s claims that the investigation is improperly constructed and doesn’t serve a valid legislative purpose. In his ruling, the judge — an appointee of President Donald Trump, no less — validated the Jan. 6 committee’s aims, thereby helping its efforts to gather information and testimony. Some have cast it as a “landmark” ruling that could be cited in other cases. It also contains some notable rebuttals of the RNC, and of broader GOP efforts to cast the committee as an illegitimate witch hunt."

... An honest Trump-appointed judge. Can we stand it? LOL.

"One of the RNC’s claims was that the committee was invalid because it doesn’t contain members chosen by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). McCarthy’s five picks included members who supported efforts to question the election results. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rejected two of them, McCarthy withdrew them all. The committee wound up having only two Republicans, who were selected by Pelosi: Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). The RNC argued that this meant the committee failed to abide by its mandate, given that its authorizing resolution says it “shall” have 13 members. Judge Timothy Kelly said this was “not an unreasonable position.” But in rejecting it, he cited a case in which he sided with the Trump administration, saying “shall” shouldn’t necessarily be construed as “mandatory”:

"Starting with the resolution’s text, as this Court observed in upholding former President Trump’s right to name his own acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “although ‘shall’ is usually understood as mandatory,” the word is “a semantic mess” and is sometimes used “to mean ‘should,’ ‘will,’ or even ‘may.’ ” Thus, that the resolution states that Speaker Pelosi “shall” appoint thirteen members to the Select Committee is not conclusive as to whether thirteen members are required for it to lawfully operate."

Truly entertaining, isn't it? LOL.

"Next, Kelly turned to a similar argument made by the RNC — that the authorizing resolution states that the committee “shall” appoint five members “after consultation with the minority leader.” He quickly dispatches with the idea that McCarthy wasn’t consulted, just because some of his picks were rejected."

LOL.

“To ‘consult’ with Minority Leader McCarthy, all Speaker Pelosi had to do was ask for his ‘advice or opinion,’ ” Kelly writes, citing a legal dictionary. He added flatly: “There is no dispute that she did. That she did not “accept all his recommendations, and that Minority Leader McCarthy then withdrew all his recommendations, does not mean that Speaker Pelosi failed to consult with him.”

Precious, isn't it? LOL.

"The RNC also made a rather technical claim that the committee is not properly authorized because it doesn’t have a “ranking minority member,” as the authorizing resolution also requires. Cheney was named a “vice chair” of the committee after the GOP’s picks were withdrawn, and one of the rejected GOP picks, Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), has even tried to claim he is actually, somehow, the ranking member. But the judge essentially said this was a distinction without a difference. Cheney clearly has the most seniority of the panel’s two Republicans."

No question. LOL.

“True, for whatever reason the Select Committee did not give her — or anyone else — the formal title ‘ranking member,’” Kelly wrote. “But to the extent there is any uncertainty about whether she fits the bill, on this record the Court must defer to the Select Committee’s decision to treat Representative Cheney as the ranking minority member for consultation purposes.”

No kidding. LOL.

"Finally comes a particularly strained argument — and one which the judge treated as such. The RNC claimed that the committee’s stated purpose of investigating the Jan. 6 attack is actually a pretext for a political effort to harm Republicans. But in making that argument, it cited public comments from members of the committee that merely refer to delivering justice wherever it might lead (emphasis added by me):

"It also identifies three tweets from Select Committee members: one from Chairman [Bennie G.] Thompson on the first anniversary of the January 6 attack reflecting that “[w]e have been working diligently to bring justice” to “the tragedy of Jan. 6” ; one from Representative [Adam B.] Schiff in November 2021 saying that “[w]e will expose those responsible for Jan 6” and “[n]o one is above the law”; and one from Representative [Jamie B.] Raskin in December 2021 observing that “[e]xec. privilege doesn’t cover criminal misconduct, like insur-rections or coups.” The RNC also references three public statements from Select Committee members: one from Representative Kinzinger about how “[w]e’ll be able to have out on the public record anything [the] Justice Department needs maybe in … pursuit of [a crime]” ; one from Chairman Thompson about how “we are pursuing evidence” leading to “former President Trump or anyone else”; and one from Representative Raskin about how neither attorney-client nor executive privilege “operate[s] to shield participants in a crime from an investigation into a crime.” Kelly wrote that the evidence presented by the RNC — which also included staffing decisions — “does not come close to showing that the Select Committee’s proffered legislative purpose is merely a pretext.” Kelly repeatedly notes that the committee has constrained its request for data from the RNC so that it’s sufficiently narrow. In his summary of the committee’s valid legislative purpose, he acknowledges the importance of the matters at hand — something Republicans have argued isn’t worth the focus provided by the select committee: … The Select Committee is hardly on an unconstrained “fishing expedition” into the RNC’s records. That two-month window is plainly relevant to its investigation into the causes of the January 6 attack. … As House Defendants explain, this information will give the Select Committee the context to understand how much attention and interest was generated by emails that asserted the election was fraudulent or stolen. And the ruling, which allows the committee to access data related to the RNC’s mass emails suggesting that the 2020 election was illegitimate, could also open the door to yet more. The judge’s ruling surely won’t stop the GOP from making a political argument that the committee is a fishing expedition — something the party set the stage for by withdrawing from the committee altogether — but it does mean that claim has now been rejected in at least one crucial context, and by a Trump appointee at that."

No question. LOL.

4-29-22

Hypocrisy within the Republican Party remains stunning. Not just confined to the Trump nazi, however. The following is truly appalling. Highly indicative and representative of the raw nazism that has overtaken the GOP. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

NBC News reports:

"Just days after the Jan. 6 riot, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy told a fellow Republican lawmaker that he would recommend to then-President Donald Trump that he resign, according to audio of a call shared with MSNBC and aired Thursday night. In the Jan. 10, 2021, call, McCarthy can be heard telling Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., that he planned to tell the president he should step down following the violent attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters. McCarthy, R-Calif., also indicated that he thought impeachment would succeed in the House and possibly the Senate. “The only discussion I would have with him is that I think this will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign,” McCarthy said in audio that aired on "The Rachel Maddow Show." The New York Times on Thursday reported the contents of the call, which is included in the coming book “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future,” by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, due out May 3."

Get this:

"McCarthy denied the Times report, calling it "totally false and wrong" in a statement on Twitter."

McCarthy clearly lied:

"The Times later shared audio of the call with MSNBC. On the call, Cheney can be heard asking McCarthy about the possibility of resignation. "Are you hearing that he might resign? Is there any reason to think that might happen?" Cheney asks. McCarthy responds that he's "had a few discussions," adding that he was planning to call Trump later that night but was doubtful that Trump would "ever walk away." "But what I think I’m going to do is I’m going to call him," McCarthy says. "This, this is what I think: We know that it’ll pass the House. I think there’s a chance it’ll pass the Senate, even when he’s gone," McCarthy says, apparently referring to an impeachment resolution. NBC News has reached out to McCarthy’s and Cheney’s offices for comment on the new audio. On Friday, CNN aired more audio obtained by the New York Times of a conference call that McCarthy held with House Republicans on Jan. 11, 2021. McCarthy said he had spoken to Trump that day and Trump accepted some responsibility for the Jan. 6 attack. "I’ve been very clear to the president. He bears responsibility for his words and actions. No ifs, ands or buts. I asked him personally today does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad for what happened? He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened."

Most interestingly:

"Cheney's spokesman said in a statement that the Jan. 6 committee "has asked Kevin McCarthy to speak with us about these events but he has so far declined. Representative Cheney did not record or leak the tape and does not know how the reporters got it.” The revelations could complicate McCarthy's path to the speakership should Republicans win back control of the House in the November midterm elections. He will likely need Trump's support to secure the speaker's gavel if there's a GOP majority. Three days after McCarthy's phone call with Cheney, he said on the House floor that Trump “bears responsibility for” the “attack on Congress by mob rioters” and “should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” He went on to say Trump “needs to accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President-elect Joe Biden is able to successfully begin his term.” But by the following week, McCarthy had reversed course, telling reporters, “I don’t believe he provoked it, if you listen to what he said at the rally” on Jan. 6. Days later, McCarthy met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, seeking to repair their relationship."

Clearly, the Republican Party has gone Nazi Right. Remains but a small shell of what it was when it forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency decades ago. -- Nixon a choir boy compared to the Trump nazi.

The Associated Press reports:

"House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy told fellow GOP lawmakers shortly after the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection that he would urge then-President Donald Trump to resign, according to audio posted by The New York Times and aired on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show. In the recording of a Jan. 10, 2021, House Republican Leadership call posted by the Times on Thursday night, McCarthy is heard discussing the Democratic effort to remove Trump from office and saying he would tell Trump, “I think it will pass, and it would be my recommendation you should resign.” It’s unclear whether McCarthy, who is in line to become House speaker if Republicans gain control during the fall midterm elections, followed through on his thinking or was merely spit-balling ideas shared privately with his colleagues in the aftermath of the deadly Capitol assault. In the same conversation, McCarthy told his colleagues he doubted Trump would take the advice to step aside. “That would be my recommendation,” McCarthy is heard saying in response to question from Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who would emerge as a staunch Trump critic. “I don’t think he will take it, but I don’t know.” Earlier Thursday, after the Times published its initial story describing the conversation, McCarthy released a statement calling it “totally false and wrong.” His spokesman, Mark Bednar, had told the newspaper, “McCarthy never said he’d call Trump to say he should resign.” Bednar did not immediately respond to questions late Thursday night after the audio’s release. Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the tape."

Clearly, one bastard lies, the other swears to it. LOL. No credibility.

"The audio threatens to badly damage the relationship between McCarthy and Trump, who remains the most popular figure in the Republican Party, despite his role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection and his refusal to accept the results of the 2020 election. And it could threaten McCarthy’s standing with House Republicans aligned with Trump, whose support he will need for votes to become House speaker next year. The audio depicts a very different McCarthy from the one who has been leading House Republicans over the last year and a half and who has remained allied with Trump even after delivering a speech on the House floor shortly after Jan. 6, during which he called the attack on the Capitol “un-American.” At the time, McCarthy called the assault among the saddest days of his career and told his fellow Republicans that Trump “bears responsibility” for the violence. Even after the violence, though, McCarthy joined half of the House Republicans in voting to challenge Joe Biden’s election victory."

Called hypocrisy. Partisanship clearly trumps principle. -- No pun intended.

"Since then, the California Republican has distanced himself from any criticism of Trump and has avoided directly linking him to what happened. Within weeks of the siege at the Capitol McCarthy said he did not think Trump provoked the attack, as other prominent Republicans said at the time. Instead, McCarthy has cozied up to Trump, visiting him at the former president’s Florida residence at Mar-a-Lago as he relies on the former president’s brand for campaign support this fall. McCarthy indicated during an interview with The Associated Press this week in California that Trump will motivate voters to turn out for the party in this fall’s midterm elections. “He’ll motivate, get a lot of people out,” McCarthy said at a GOP event in Fresno. The Times report Thursday was adapted from an upcoming book, “ This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden and the Battle for America’s Future,” by Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns. In the audio, Cheney, who eventually lost her No. 3 leadership position after voting in favor of Trump’s impeachment, can be heard asking McCarthy about a 25th Amendment resolution calling for Trump’s ouster and whether Trump might resign. “I’ve had a few discussions. My gut tells me no. I’m seriously thinking of having that conversation with him tonight,” McCarthy is heard saying. “What I think I’m gonna do is I’m gonna call him.” “I think it will pass and it would be my recommendation he should resign,” he later adds. “I mean, that would be my take but I don’t think he would take it. But I don’t know.” McCarthy, 57, has been strategically charting his own delicate course as he positions himself to try to take over as speaker if Republicans retake the House. He has begun to build out his leadership team and last summer tasked several groups of Republican lawmakers with drafting proposals on the party’s core legislative priorities in hopes of making a fast start in 2023. But even as he inches closer to leading the chamber, McCarthy is well aware of the downside of power in recent months as hard-right members of the conference have created headaches with inflammatory actions and statements."

Report goes on and on in great detail. Be interesting to see if anything comes of all this. One thing for certain, principle appears dead in the GOP. Partisanship reigns supreme.

The Washington Post reports:

"Former president Donald Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) spoke on the phone Thursday night about a newly released audio of McCarthy telling Republican leaders that Trump should resign in the wake of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, according to two people familiar with the conversation. The audio contradicted McCarthy’s claim that he didn’t push for Trump to resign after the deadly insurrection by a pro-Trump mob. On Friday, more audio clips surfaced in which McCarthy says, “I’ve had it with this guy,” and blamed Trump for the storming of the Capitol. Trump was not upset about McCarthy’s remarks and was glad the Republican leader didn’t follow through, which Trump saw as a sign of his continued grip on the Republican Party, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation."

Pitiful. Pathetic. Partisanship reigns supreme. Principle? What's that? No longer exists in the Republican Party:

"But House Republicans are still waiting for a firm statement from Trump, according to multiple GOP aides, on how to determine whether they should still back McCarthy as their leader and potential speaker if the GOP regains the majority in the November election. “If Trump comes out and says [McCarthy] lost my faith and can’t be speaker, that is bold. That will move people. If he puts out a statement complaining — he complains about McConnell all the time and hasn’t threatened his position in leadership,” said one Republican congressional aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations."

... Hear the rumble? An unwanted, dreaded second American revolution catastrophically looms as these fascist bastards traitorously, treasonously, treacherously take a hard dump on the United States Constitution and rule of law. A democratic republic in name only. In reality, a de facto fascist police-state.

"The 1½-minute audio clip from Jan. 10, 2021, was published after McCarthy disputed a report earlier Thursday that he and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had privately pledged to push Trump out of politics following the Capitol attack by a pro-Trump mob. During the call, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) asked whether there was any chance Trump would resign. McCarthy said he was doubtful but noted, “I’m seriously thinking of having that conversation with him tonight.” McCarthy added that he would tell Trump, as Democrats pushed forward with plans to again impeach the president, that “it would be my recommendation you should resign,” according to the audio clip. McCarthy said he did not think his effort would persuade Trump. McCarthy also said on the audio: “Now this is one personal fear I have. I do not want to get in any conversation about Pence pardoning.” The reporting is based on the work of two New York Times reporters, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, whose book “This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future” publishes next month. The call lasted more than an hour. The audio clip also aired Thursday on “The Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC. On Friday, Martin and Burns appeared on CNN and shared additional audio clips from Republican leadership calls in which McCarthy blames Trump for the attack on the Capitol and says the president told him he has “some responsibility” for the riot. In audio from a Jan. 10, 2021, call, McCarthy says: “I’ve had it with this guy. What he did is unacceptable. Nobody can defend that, and nobody should defend it.” A day later, on a separate call, McCarthy told Republicans, “But let me be very clear to all of you and I’ve been very clear to the president: He bears responsibility for his words and actions. No ifs, ands or buts. I asked him personally today: ‘Does he hold responsibility for what happened? Does he feel bad about what happened?’ He told me he does have some responsibility for what happened and he need to acknowledge that,” McCarthy said on the audio clip McCarthy’s office has not responded to the recent revelations."

What could he credibly say other than to acknowledge he lied?

"Cheney is vice chairwoman of the select House committee investigating the deadly attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. In a statement, a spokesman for the congresswoman said: “The select committee has asked Kevin McCarthy to speak with us about these events but he has so far declined. Representative Cheney did not record or leak the tape and does not know how the reporters got it.” In a statement, a spokesman for Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the No. 2 Republican in House leadership, dismissed the issue with a broadside against Democrats but most notably did not defend McCarthy by name."

Surprised? LOL.

“Whip Scalise’s sole focus is on working with his colleagues to stop the radical Democrat agenda. Neither he nor anyone on his team recorded or leaked private conversations among members,” Lauren Fine said."

Jesus Christ. What radical agenda? What agenda, period? The Democrats have clearly allowed the nazi element in the Republican Party to effectively do as they please with near impunity.

The following, however, is better late than never:

"Nebeyatt Betre, a spokesman for the House Democratic campaign committee, was more blunt in a statement: “Kevin McCarthy has proven himself to be a spineless leader and now a bold-faced liar.”

Sadly, no question about that.

The following is achingly gutless:

"As the audio clips refuting McCarthy surfaced, a majority of the House Republican conference remained notably mum on Twitter. Some are refraining from opining until Trump puts out a statement, while a few others said it was a “non-issue” not worth dividing the conference ahead of a midterm election that favors Republicans. A few McCarthy allies came to his defense. “29 wks from now Republicans will have the majority and Kevin McCarthy will be Speaker of the House,” tweeted freshman Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-Tex), minutes after the audio was played on MSNBC. Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa), who is widely considered by her peers as a freshman likely to climb the leadership ranks, echoed the sentiment and stressed in a tweet Friday that the Republican conference is “united to get America back on track” ahead of the midterms."

The following is clearly bullshit, an insane set of lies:

"In a statement Thursday morning, McCarthy called the paper’s reporting “totally false and wrong” and accused the news media of “doing everything it can to further a liberal agenda.” “The past year and a half have proven that our country was better off when President Trump was in the White House and rather than address the real issues facing Americans, the corporate media is more concerned with profiting from manufactured political intrigue from politically motivated sources,” McCarthy said."

Nothing quite like achingly self-serving hypocrisy:

"McCarthy initially stood by Cheney after she was one of 10 Republicans to vote to impeach Trump. But he later led the charge to oust her as the No. 3 Republican in House leadership, punishing her for her public fight with Trump over his false claims and her effort to hold him responsible for the insurrection. The House GOP replaced Cheney with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a fervent supporter of Trump. McConnell’s office declined to comment on the report. According to the Times, the Kentucky Republican had predicted that the Senate would convict Trump and privately said in the days after the Jan. 6 attack: “If this isn’t impeachable, I don’t know what is.” Despite their reported private comments condemning Trump in the days after the Capitol attack, both McCarthy and McConnell soon backed the president once again."

Surprised? Why? Forget? Partisanship reigns supreme. Principle? What's that?

Gutless groveling to a nazi dictator:

"In late January 2021, McCarthy traveled to Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida, where the two discussed the GOP’s efforts to retake the House and posed for a photo together. The following month, McConnell said he would “absolutely” support Trump if the former president were to win the Republican nomination in 2024."

Sadly, these men have no principles. Remain hopelessly addicted to power.

Get this:

"100 percent true. McCarthy was over Trump until he wasn’t, when he realized he needed him. This picture literally resurrected Trumps political life. Thanks Kev. https://t.co/aF6tcJSMB2 pic.twitter.com/Gt7l9kxAFn
— Adam Kinzinger (@AdamKinzinger) April 21, 2022

"If Republicans capture the majority in the November election, McCarthy has made it clear that he would seek the speakership, for which he would need the support of House Republicans in the January 2023 vote. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a vocal Trump critic and the other Republican serving on the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, said in a tweet Thursday that reports that McCarthy had said he had “had it” with Trump were “100 percent true.” “McCarthy was over Trump until he wasn’t, when he realized he needed him. This picture literally resurrected Trumps political life,” Kinzinger said, sharing the Mar-a-Lago photo of the two men. “Thanks Kev.”

LOL.

"According to the New York Times, McCarthy had also said in the days after the attack that he wished Twitter would shut down the accounts of some House Republicans, such as Rep. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), who had made what he deemed inappropriate comments related to the insurrection. A McCarthy spokesman told the newspaper that McCarthy “never said that particular members should be removed from Twitter.” Boebert’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

Sadly, deception, bullshit, and lies reign supreme in Nazi America. We've lost ourselves and our formerly great country.

Astute analysis. The Washington Post reports:

"On New Year’s Day 2021, House Republicans still could not get a straight answer about whether their leaders would vote in five days to certify the 2020 presidential election. Some demanded that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) say clearly whether he would vote to legitimize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory or if he intended to side with the soon-to-be ex-president, Donald Trump, who falsely claimed that he was the actual victor of November’s contest. The more his members pressed him, the more annoyed McCarthy got. “You want to give me your voting card? You never want to do that,” McCarthy responded, according to five Republicans who were on a Jan. 1, 2021, call in which the certification process was discussed. He refused to say what he would do when he put his own voting card into the electronic slots in the House chamber that signaled his decision about whether to certify Biden’s victory. The upshot was that a mere five days before a riotous mob attacked the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Biden from assuming power, McCarthy essentially declined to lead. Under heavy pressure from Trump, who urged his supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, House Republicans — who were charged along with the Senate with certifying the electoral college count that day — could not get clarity from their leader about his plans. They were left to decide on their own what his words meant."

Fascinating, isn't it? Gutless, as well.

"More than a year later, Jan. 6 still looms large in the nation’s consciousness as members of the mob go on trial and a congressional panel investigates the events surrounding that day. And McCarthy’s leadership, fealty to Trump and conflicting statements about that day are being sharply criticized. The California Republican is now under fire for statements he made in the days, weeks and months following Jan. 6. A coming book by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns uses audio recordings of GOP conference calls in the days after the attack to show that McCarthy was furious with Trump and even considered telling him to resign as president just days before his term expired and before Trump was impeached."

Here's the issue:

"Those private statements conflict with the approach McCarthy has taken to the ex-president since late January 2021, after he visited Trump at his Palm Beach, Fla., resort and committed his loyalty to the former president to try to unify the Republican Party heading into the 2022 midterms. But McCarthy’s refusal to provide leadership in the days running up to Jan. 6 set the stage for bitterly dividing his GOP caucus. McCarthy eventually joined two-thirds of House Republicans, voting after the insurrection, to oppose certifying Biden’s victory, while a third voted to support his clear win. McCarthy’s uncertainty about his own Jan. 6 vote confirmed to his internal GOP rivals that he feared Trump. His supporters just saw that lack of guidance as his way to hold back and see which way the majority would break on the electoral college challenge. A week after that vote, McCarthy began a brief period of publicly blaming Trump for the riot, but he also voted against impeaching a president who was set to leave office seven days later. And McCarthy’s inaction ahead of that crucial vote, along with his inconsistent positions since, suggests that he will be a politically weak House speaker if Republicans can win the majority in November and he can corral the minimum 218 votes from his side of the aisle in the Jan. 3 roll call vote to lead the House."

Clearly, he's not qualified.

"McCarthy also took a distinctly different approach to Trump than that of his Senate counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). On a Dec. 31, 2020, conference call with Senate Republicans, McConnell said that he would vote to confirm Biden’s win and that it would be the “most consequential” vote of his then 36 years in the Senate, according to reports that day. About 30 minutes before the Capitol was breached on Jan. 6, McConnell publicly attacked Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud, warning that if Trump was successful in overturning the election, the outcome would be devastating. “Our democracy would enter a death spiral,” McConnell said in a Senate floor speech. Just 12 Senate Republicans signaled that they would vote to object to Biden’s win, and after the riot, four of them reversed course. Some 43 Senate Republicans, almost 85 percent of McConnell’s caucus, supported Biden’s victory. McConnell is not exactly a profile in courage in his opposition to Trump’s authoritarian ways. He has generally refused to talk about the ex-president since he voted to acquit him in the February 2021 impeachment trial, a decision, according to the Martin and Burns book, that came after realizing how few GOP senators were willing to oppose Trump. When pressed by reporters these days, he will simply note that he hasn’t spoken to Trump since the day in December 2020 when he congratulated Biden on his victory. But McConnell’s clear actions ahead of Jan. 6 helped galvanize the vast majority of Senate Republicans to vote the way they preferred when it came to certification. McConnell has taken grief from Trump ever since. But that is one of the most necessary qualities of leadership: willingness to take the incoming fire yourself to shield the rank and file."

Clearly, principle means shit squat to the nazi element in the Republican Party. Partisanship reigns supreme.

Get this. It's quite astute. Rings true:

"McCarthy doesn’t like to absorb slings and arrows for his members. His greatest strength is how well he knows lawmakers, constantly talking to them about Congress, about their personal lives and about their political standing back home. One Republican who clashed with McCarthy a decade ago, only to make up a few years later, accurately described him as a “savant of relationships” when McCarthy ascended to the No. 2 leadership slot in 2014, a meteoric rise for someone first elected in 2006. For years the word “affable” found its way into almost every McCarthy profile, explaining why he was so well liked and would continue to be despite the lack of any deep policy background. But that reputation for being everyone’s best friend also left McCarthy without a key ingredient in leadership: the ability to instill fear in his underlings. In the nearly 16 months since his caucus split apart on Jan. 6, Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) has been the only Republican to face a public punishment — as McCarthy helped drive her from his leadership team when she continued to speak out against Trump’s authoritarian ways."

Certainly took great courage for Cheney to do so. Quite an example of Uncommon Valor sadly missing from the nazi element in the Republican Party.

"One by one members of the most far-right, pro-Trump wing took public actions that deserved some form of rebuke. Instead, the most discipline any of them received came in private talks with McCarthy. In the run-up to Jan. 6, McCarthy ran for cover. He fretted about not wanting to tell lawmakers which buttons to push when they slid their voting cards into the slots throughout the House chamber. When the New Year’s Day conference call began, Cheney led the initial talk as part of her role as chair of the House Republican Conference, the No. 3 post after McCarthy and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). Cheney, who had already broken sharply against Trump, laid out detailed reasons she would support Biden’s victory (and followed up two days later with a 21-page memo she drafted explaining her position). “That’s not the leadership position,” McCarthy interjected, according to the GOP lawmakers and aides who heard the call and spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk about the private discussion. McCarthy made clear that Cheney was speaking only for herself, which prompted other lawmakers to ask about his own intentions. “You need to tell us what your position is,” one lawmaker recalled members asking. He never did."

Gutless.

"On Jan. 6, just before rioters disrupted the certification proceedings, Scalise spoke as the first Republican supporting objections to Biden’s victory. McCarthy spoke only once during that marathon debate — just after the House reconvened following the riot and continued to certify Biden’s win. He talked about unity and coming together. “Let’s show the country the mob did not win. We have a job to do,” McCarthy said. Even then, McCarthy didn’t clarify how he would personally vote on confirming Biden’s victory. Two hours later, the GOP leader cast his vote on the side of the mob."

Gutless. Sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

The Associated Press reports:

"Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is slamming Rep. Kevin McCarthy as a “liar and a traitor” over recordings that show the House Republican leader — despite his denials — placing responsibility on then-President Donald Trump for the Capitol riot and suggesting Trump should resign. It’s unusually strong language to use against the House Republican leader, who is in line to become speaker — second in presidential succession — if Republicans win control of the House in the November elections. But Warren’s statement reflects a swell of Democratic criticism against McCarthy. They point to his recorded comments in January 2021 as proof that GOP lawmakers at the highest levels privately acknowledge Trump’s role in the insurrection at the Capitol yet continue to defend him in public."

Called hypocrisy. Raw partisanship. Principle? Doesn't exist in the perverse world of the nazi element in the Republican Party.

Readers will recall:

"McCarthy, R-Calif., denied a New York Times report last week that detailed phone conversations with House Republican leadership shortly after the riot that he thought Trump should resign. He called it “totally false.” But in an audio first posted Thursday by the newspaper and aired on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show, McCarthy is heard discussing the possibility of urging Trump to leave office amid the Democratic push to impeach him. Asked Sunday about her reaction, Warren, D-Mass., called the circumstances “outrageous.” “Kevin McCarthy is a liar and a traitor,” she told CNN’s “State of the Union.”

She's right. That's precisely what he is.

“That is really the illness that pervades the Republican leadership right now, that they say one thing to the American public and something else in private,” Warren said. “They understand that it is wrong what happened, an attempt to overthrow our government and that the Republicans instead want to continue to try to figure out how to make 2020 election different instead of spending their energy on how it is that we go forward in order to build an economy, in order to make this country work better for the people who sent us to Washington.” “Shame on Kevin McCarthy,” she said."

Where have the Democrats been all these months? Largely, silent. Sadly, in fact, Warren's language is some of the strongest to date. Where you been, Liz? Ferociously pointedly, where have your fellow Democrats been? Out to lunch?

"There was no immediate response Sunday from McCarthy’s office to a request for comment."

Surprised? Are they hiding?

"The crowd that attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, marched there from a rally near the White House where Trump had implored them to fight to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election, saying falsely the election was stolen. Trump has denied responsibility for the violence."

Trump is not only a liar, -- he's a traitor. The nazi has no shame. A dictator. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"McCarthy has been a person of interest for the House committee investigating the storming of the Capitol. The committee requested an interview with McCarthy in mid-January, seeking information on his communications with Trump and White House staff in the week after the violence, including a conversation with Trump that was reportedly heated. McCarthy issued a statement at the time saying he would refuse to cooperate because he saw the investigation as not legitimate and accused the panel of “abuse of power.”

What a goddamned liar. No better than his fuhrer, the Trump nazi.

The following is called rabid hypocrisy:

"Trump and McCarthy had a strained relationship after the Capitol attack, but made amends after the GOP leader flew to the former president’s resort in Florida to smooth things over. Their alliance renewed, McCarthy is now relying on Trump to help Republicans win the House majority in this November’s midterm elections."

4-29-22

Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was warned of violence. The Washington Post reports:

"White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was warned before Jan. 6, 2021, about the threat of violence that day as supporters of President Donald Trump planned to mass at the U.S. Capitol, according to new testimony released late Friday by the House committee investigating the insurrection. One of Meadows’s top aides, Cassidy Hutchinson, told congressional investigators she recalled Anthony Ornato, a senior Secret Service official who also held the role of a political adviser at the White House, “coming in and saying that we had intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th. And Mr. Meadows said: All right. Let’s talk about it.” Hutchinson added, “I’m not sure if he — what he did with that information internally.” Those details were in a filing arguing that a federal court should reject Meadows’s claims of executive privilege and compel him to appear before the House Jan. 6 committee, which is continuing to build a case that Trump knowingly misled his followers about the election, and pressured Pence to break the law in the weeks and hours before the assault. In the motion, the committee outlines seven “discrete categories of information” about which it seeks to question Meadows and argues that his claims of executive privilege should not preclude his testifying about those matters. Those categories of information include testimony and documents relating to communications with members of Congress; the plan to replace acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen with Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark; efforts by Trump to “direct, persuade or pressure then Vice President Mike Pence to unilaterally refuse to count electoral votes on January 6th”; and activity in the White House “immediately before and during the events of January 6th.”

Get this:

"The committee laid out new examples of warnings Meadows received before Jan. 6, 2021, along with a deepened understanding of his involvement with planning and coordinating efforts to disrupt the counting of electoral college votes in Congress. The Post obtained hours of video footage, some exclusively, and placed it within a digital 3-D model of the building. Perhaps the most significant new piece of evidence presented by the committee is testimony from Hutchinson, who told investigators that her boss was informed “before the January 6th proceeding about the potential for violence that day,” according to the filing. Hutchinson told investigators: “I know that there were concerns brought forward to Mr. Meadows. I don’t know — I don’t want to speculate whether or not they perceived them as genuine concerns, but I know that people had brought information forward to him that had indicated that there could be violence on the 6th.” Investigators also have found evidence that Meadows repeatedly communicated with GOP Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.) and Jim Jordan (Ohio) before and on Jan. 6, 2021. Hutchinson identified Perry, Jordan, and Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) as the leading proponents in Congress “who were raising the idea of the Vice President doing anything other than just counting electoral votes on January the 6th.” Asked by investigators whether Perry supported the idea of sending people to the U.S. Capitol on that day, Hutchinson replied that Perry did but that members who were present on a planning call ahead of Jan. 6 were “more inclined to go with White House guidance.” Hutchinson also recounted a Dec. 21, 2020, strategy meeting at the White House ahead of the electoral certification attended by Jordan, Greene and Reps. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.), Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.). Other GOP politicians dialed in to the meeting, according to Hutchinson’s testimony. “They felt that he had the authority to — pardon me if my phrasing isn’t correct on this, but — send votes back to the States or the electors back to the States, more along the lines of the [John] Eastman theory,” Hutchinson said of the meeting, referring to a legal theory advanced by Eastman, a conservative lawyer."

The Washington Post reports:

"The two significant new Jan. 6 disclosures from Mark Meadows’s aide.

"When it comes to whether the proceedings of the Jan. 6 committee will lead to criminal charges, there are two vital questions. Can it be proved that those involved in plotting to overturn the 2020 election:

"Knew that their actions were illegal, and …
"Pressed forward with a plan to interfere with Congress’s actions that day?"

Fascinating, isn't it? Get this:

"A judge last month suggested that the evidence on these counts was compelling enough to rule that President Donald Trump probably committed a crime. And now the committee responsible for gathering that evidence is detailing more of it. In a 248-page filing in the legal battle over former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’s potential testimony, the committee offers new details of testimony from his aide Cassidy Hutchinson. On the first count, Hutchinson confirmed that the White House Counsel’s Office repeatedly told those plotting to overturn the election that their plan to use alternate slates of electors — or go even further — was not legally sound. Despite this, Meadows and others pressed forward with their attempts to overturn the election and with the Jan. 6 rally. On the second count — the idea that this could interfere with Congress’s duties — Hutchinson said Meadows was directly warned about the prospect of violence that day. She said Anthony Ornato, a senior Secret Service agent and political adviser to the White House, discussed the subject with him in early January. “I just remember Mr. Ornato coming in and saying that we had intel reports saying that there could be violence on the 6th,” Hutchinson said. “And Mr. Meadows said: All right. Let’s talk about it.” Hutchinson suggested that Ornato had made a point to bring up the subject: “I believe they went to the office for maybe five minutes. It was very quick. Mr. Ornato had stopped him as he was walking out one night to talk about this.” Separately, Hutchinson detailed the multiple instances in which the White House Counsel’s Office objected legally to the plans to overturn the election on Jan. 6. According to Hutchinson, the counsel’s office said in some meetings on the subject that it was reviewing the legality of such ideas. But in other meetings — potentially as early as November, more than a month before Jan. 6 — it said the plan was not legally sound. Emphasis added:

   " Q: And so, to be clear, did you hear the White House Counsel’s Office say that this plan to have alternate electors meet and cast votes for Donald Trump in States that he had lost was not legally sound?
    HUTCHINSON: Yes, sir.
    Q: And do you remember approximately when that was?
    HUTCHINSON: I’m trying to not be overly broad, but, right now, sitting here, I can recall at the time, perhaps early to mid- December. Now, it very well could’ve been the end of November, but I’m trying to think about benchmark events and dates in my head, and early to mid- December is the safer bet.
    Q: And who was present for that meeting that you remember?
    HUTCHINSON: It was in our office. It was Mr. Meadows, Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani, and a few of Mr. Giuliani’s, like — well, I don’t know if the correct term is “associates,” but Mr. Giuliani’s associates."

Get this:

"Hutchinson was asked whether this conclusion from the White House Counsel’s Office was also raised in meetings with members of Congress. She said it was. The members she said were present: Reps. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.). The evidence here is piecemeal; the committee didn’t release the full transcript of Hutchinson’s testimony, so some potentially relevant pages are not yet public. Thus, we don’t know what else she said on the subject. A big question is whether the potential violence Meadows was warned about was linked to those protesting Trump’s loss and whether he was warned that those protesters might turn violent — but didn’t stop the Jan. 6 rally anyway. (At the rally, Trump would urge his supporters to march to the Capitol — while qualifying that they should do so “peacefully.” But Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani called for a “trial by combat.”) As for the White House Counsel’s Office’s legal advice: We had known, based on previous reporting, that the counsel’s office had objected to various efforts to overturn the election and even threatened mass resignations. But Hutchinson’s testimony establishes that the counsel’s office concluded the particular plan pursued by Trump and his allies was not legally sound and that the office informed specific people — people who then pressed forward. These are both key elements of proving that the effort was criminal. To meet the legal standard for obstructing an official proceeding — the crime the Jan. 6 committee has zeroed in on — you need to prove that the actions obstructed the proceeding and that they were undertaken with corrupt intent (i.e., knowing that what they were doing was wrong). Indeed, they are two elements that the judge last month suggested Trump’s actions had satisfied. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter said Trump’s actions appeared corrupt because he “likely knew that the plan to disrupt the electoral count was wrongful.” In Trump’s case, it was both because his allies told him that his allegations of widespread voter fraud were baseless and because the lawyer advising him on the plan, John Eastman, conceded that the plan violated the Electoral Count Act. (Eastman argued that law was simply to be disregarded because it was, in his estimation, unconstitutional.) It would be significant if, layered on top of that, the plotters were informed of the illegality of their plan. Carter also said Trump urging the Jan. 6 rallygoers to march to the Capitol represented his “galvanizing the crowd to join him in enacting the plan.” “Together, these actions more likely than not constitute attempts to obstruct an official proceeding,” the judge concluded. (The Justice Department has used this criminal charge in several cases involving Jan. 6 rioters.) The new documents also reveal that, despite the White House counsel’s advice and apparently after the office informed him of the prospect of violence, Meadows endorsed one of the most far-flung ideas: having Vice President Mike Pence try to unilaterally reject electors by disregarding the Electoral Count Act. After Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent him a text about the idea — one Jordan has said he was merely forwarding from someone else — Meadows responded on Jan. 5: “I have pushed for this. Not sure it is going to happen.”

Need to get a move on all this. Should Democrats lose the House, the investigation will end. Trump and his henchmen will escape justice.

4-29-22

Portend of far worse to come? We'll see. NBC News reports:

"Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., suggested that the House Jan. 6 committee's upcoming hearings will be dramatic and include explosive revelations that the panel has been piecing together behind the scenes for months. "The hearings will tell a story that will really blow the roof off the House," Raskin said Thursday at an event hosted by Georgetown University's Center on Faith and Justice in Washington. Members of the committee plan to hold those hearings in June and aim to have a report out about their investigation by the end of the summer or early fall, said Raskin, who sits on the panel."

What's taken so long? Been nearly a year and a half since the Capitol insurrection.

"No president has ever come close to doing what happened here in terms of trying to organize an inside coup to overthrow an election and bypass the constitutional order," he said. "And then also use a violent insurrection made up of domestic violent extremist groups, white nationalist and racist, fascist groups in order to support the coup." Raskin said the committee will present "evidence" that proves there was coordination among then-President Donald Trump and his inner circle and his supporters who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The plan was to use then-Vice President Mike Pence to try to get President Joe Biden's electoral vote tally below the 270 majority needed for victory, Raskin said, which under the 12th Amendment would shift the contest to a vote in the House. If that occurred, he said, Republicans would have the majority to seize the presidency because the votes would be cast by the state delegations, and the GOP controls more state delegations than the Democrats do."

Would have triggered open warfare. That is, a revolution against the traitorous, treasonous Trump revolution. No way in hell would half this country tolerated a Trump nazi state. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"It’s anybody’s guess what could have happened — martial law, civil war. You know, the beginning of authoritarianism," Raskin said, speculating on what might have unfolded if the plan was successful. "I want people to pay attention to what’s going on here, because that’s as close to fascism as I ever want my country to come to again."

Delusionally, think it's not coming with the nazi element in the Republican Party still supporting their fuhrer, the Trump nazi? Worse? Totally worthless Democrats egregiously incapable of reining in the nazi element in the GOP?

"This was not a coup directed at the president," Raskin said. "It was a coup directed by the president against the vice president and against the Congress." The plan was coordinated "most tightly by Trump and his inner circle," Raskin said, adding that the committee faced the most difficulty in this aspect of its probe. The panel has interviewed more than 800 witnesses, but he said, "The closer you get to Trump, the more they refuse to testify."

All the more reason Democrats should have forced the issue with the U.S. Attorney General instead of remaining nearly gutlessly silent all these months regarding his egregious failure to prosecute these stonewalling, traitorous, treasonous Trump assholes.

"Speaking about the threats to Pence on Jan. 6 and the chants by rioters to hang him, Raskin said the vice president's Secret Service agents — including one who was carrying the nuclear football — ran down to an undisclosed place in the Capitol. Those agents, who Raskin said he suspects were reporting to Trump’s Secret Service agents, were trying to whisk Pence away from the Capitol. Pence then "uttered what I think are the six most chilling words of this entire thing I've seen so far: 'I'm not getting in that car,'" Raskin said. "He knew exactly what this inside coup they had planned for was going to do," Raskin said."

Readers, time to wake up.

4-29-22

A traitor stonewalls. The Associated Press reports:

"U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was hostile during testimony Friday in a hearing on her eligibility to run for reelection, saying she did not remember liking and making various social media posts surrounding the attack on the U.S. Capitol last year and accusing an opposing lawyer of using chopped videos and twisting her words. Voters in the Georgia congresswoman’s district have said Greene helped facilitate the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection that disrupted certification of President Joe Biden’s victory, making her ineligible for reelection under a rarely cited section of the 14th Amendment dealing with “insurrection or rebellion.” But Greene — who, the day before the Capitol riot, proclaimed on TV that this is “our 1776 moment” — testified that she’s never endorsed violence."

Goddamned traitorous, treasonous liar.

"Greene is set to appear on the Republican ballot for Georgia’s May 24 primary and has been endorsed by former President Donald Trump. The administrative law judge who oversaw the hearing must present his findings to Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who will then make the ultimate determination over whether Greene is qualified. Greene has repeatedly denied aiding or engaging in an insurrection and has filed a lawsuit alleging that the law the voters are using to challenge her eligibility is itself unconstitutional. But Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters who filed the challenge, said Greene took an oath and then broke it by engaging in an insurrection. While Greene wasn’t on the steps of the Capitol, she nevertheless played an important role in stoking Republican fury ahead of the attack, Fein said. Unlike the Civil War and other insurrections that involved military uniforms and tactics, he said, “The leaders of this insurrection were among us, on Facebook, on Twitter, on corners of social media that would make your stomach hurt.” Andrew Celli, a lawyer for the voters, questioned Greene about posts on her social media accounts. She repeatedly responded, “I don’t recall,” or “I don’t remember.” When asked about the fact that her Facebook account had, in 2019, “liked” a post calling for Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be shot in the head, Greene said she had no memory of that and said someone else could have been responsible."

Jesus Christ. What a crock of shit.

"Whenever Celli suggested that she’d endorsed the use of violence to interrupt the certification of the electoral votes, Greene asserted she doesn’t support violence and was encouraging peaceful protest."

A goddamned liar.

"Celli played a clip of an interview Greene did Jan. 5, 2021, in which she said this is “our 1776 moment.” When Celli asked if she was aware some Trump supporters used that reference as a call to violence, Greene said that wasn’t her intention and that she was talking about her plans to object to the certification of electoral votes. “I was talking about the courage to object,” she said."

Think so? Believe her disingenuous bullshit?

Celli appeared to grow frustrated at times when she didn’t directly answer his questions and accused him of speculating. “Ms. Greene, I’m just asking questions,” he said. “I’m just answering,” she responded."

Called stonewalling.

"The challenge to Greene’s eligibility to run for reelection was filed by five voters who live in her district, and the procedure for such a challenge is outlined in Georgia law. The law says any voter who’s eligible to vote for a candidate can challenge that candidate’s qualifications by filing a written complaint. The secretary of state then has to request a hearing before an administrative law judge. Beaudrot asked both sides to submit briefs by midnight Thursday, and said he would try to make a decision within a week after that. Once he submits findings, Raffensperger will be tasked with deciding the eligibility of Greene, a Trump loyalist, as he faces a tough primary challenge from a Trump-endorsed candidate. Raffensperger attracted Trump’s wrath shortly after the 2020 election when he refused to take steps to overturn Trump’s narrow loss in the state. The 14th Amendment says no one can serve in Congress “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Ratified shortly after the Civil War, it aimed to keep representatives who had fought for the Confederacy from returning to Congress. U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg in Atlanta on Monday declined a request from Greene to halt the challenge process. Greene is appealing that ruling. The Georgia complaint was filed on the voters’ behalf by Free Speech for People, a national election and campaign finance reform group. The group filed similar challenges on behalf of voters in Arizona, where a judge on Friday ruled to keep three Republicans on the ballot, and in North Carolina against Republican U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who spoke at the rally that preceded the riot. A federal judge last month blocked the challenge against Cawthorn, writing that laws approved by Congress in 1872 and 1898 mean the 14th Amendment section can’t apply to current House members."

4-29-22

Trump found in contempt. The Associated Press reports:

"A New York judge found former President Donald Trump in contempt of court Monday for failing to adequately respond to a subpoena issued by the state’s attorney general as part of a civil investigation into his business dealings. Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump to pay a fine of $10,000 per day. “Mr. Trump, I know you take your business seriously, and I take mine seriously,” Engoron said before issuing the ruling from the bench in a Manhattan courtroom, following a hearing. New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, had asked the court to hold Trump in contempt after he missed a March 31 court-imposed deadline to turn over documents. The judge said a contempt finding was appropriate because Trump and his lawyers’ hadn’t shown that they had conducted a proper search for the records sought by the subpoena. Trump, a Republican, has been fighting James in court over her investigation, which he has called a politically motivated “witch hunt.” James has been conducting a lengthy investigation into the Trump Organization, the former president’s family company, centering around what she has claimed is a pattern of misleading banks and tax authorities about the value of his properties. The contempt finding by the judge came despite a spirited argument by Trump lawyer Alina Habba, who insisted repeatedly that she went to great lengths to comply with the subpoena, even traveling to Florida to ask Trump specifically whether he had in his possession any documents that would be responsive to the demand. “The contempt motion is inappropriate and misleading,” she said. “He complied. ... There are no more documents left to produce by President Trump.”

Think so?

"Trump spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

What could they say? How do you defend the indefensible?

"Investigators for James have said in court filings that they uncovered evidence that Trump may have misstated the value of assets like golf courses and skyscrapers on his financial statements for more than a decade. A parallel criminal investigation is being conducted by the Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, also a Democrat."

The Associated Press reports:

"Donald Trump has appealed a New York judge’s decision to hold the former president in contempt of court and fine him $10,000 per day for failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence in the state attorney general’s civil investigation into his business dealings. Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, filed a notice of appeal Wednesday with the appellate division of the state’s trial court — the second time in two months that Trump has sought to overturn Manhattan Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling against him in a subpoena matter. In court papers, Habba questioned the legal basis for Engoron’s contempt ruling Monday, arguing that Trump had responded properly to the subpoena and that Attorney General Letitia James’ office failed to show his conduct “was calculated to defeat, impair, impede, or prejudice” its investigation. James’ office refused to engage in “good-faith discussions” before seeking to have Trump fined, Habba argued. In a statement after the ruling Monday, Habba said: “All documents responsive to the subpoena were produced to the attorney general months ago.” In a statement Wednesday, James said Engoron’s order was clear on Trump being in contempt of court. “We’ve seen this playbook before, and it has never stopped our investigation of Mr. Trump and his organization,” James said. “This time is no different.”

4-22-22

Truer words never spoken. ABC News(AP) reports:

"A federal judge in D.C. on Thursday delivered a scathing rebuke of former President Donald Trump and expressed dismay over the state of American politics just moments after a jury found a defendant charged in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot guilty on all charges. "You know, I think our democracy is in trouble," Judge Reggie Walton said at the conclusion of the third jury trial for a defendant charged in the Capitol assault. "Because unfortunately, we have charlatans like our former president, who doesn't in my view really care about democracy, but only about power. And as a result of that, it's tearing this country apart." Walton, an appointee of former President George W. Bush and one of the most senior judges on the D.C. court, said that he's received letters from people around the country expressing concern the justice system isn't confronting Jan. 6 -- which he called an "insurgency," with the seriousness it deserves. "I have a concern that we have, unfortunately, American citizens who were so gullible that they were willing to accept what was being said without any proof that the allegations about the election had any merit whatsoever," Walton said. "People are just outraged at how they feel our system is not taking seriously what happened on that day because of their fear of the future of this country."

A Republican judge.

"His remarks came after a jury delivered a guilty verdict for an Ohio man charged in the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol who sought to defend himself by claiming he was following former Trump's "orders."

4-22-22

The bullshit never ends. The following is pathetic. NBC News reports:

"As Russia's invasion of Ukraine entered its eighth week, it was revealed that earlier this week Russia sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States warning that American and NATO shipments of the "most sensitive" weapons systems to Ukraine could bring "unpredictable consequences" and were "adding fuel" to the volatile conflict. NBC News has not seen the note, but a White House official who has confirmed the contents of the note first reported by The Washington Post. When asked about the diplomatic note a State Department spokesperson said they wouldn’t confirm any private diplomatic correspondence but added, “What we can confirm is that, along with Allies and partners, we are providing Ukraine with billions of dollars worth of security assistance, which our Ukrainian partners are using to extraordinary effect to defend their country against Russia’s unprovoked aggression and horrific acts of violence.” This revelation comes as President Vladimir Putin suffered a fresh blow with the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of his Black Sea fleet.

Ferociously pointedly, did the United States in response to the formal diplomatic note tell the bastard to go f--k himself?

The Washington Post reports:

"Ukrainian forces struck the Russian warship Moskva with two Neptune missiles, causing it to sink, a senior U.S. defense official said Friday. The confirmation comes after dueling reports in which Ukrainian forces claimed a successful attack on the flagship vessel in Russia’s Black Sea fleet while Russian officials said the ship had experienced a fire."

4-15-22

Where's the justice? The Associated Press reports:

"A congressional oversight committee on Thursday said the Justice Department is “obstructing” its investigation into former President Donald Trump’s handling of White House records by preventing the release of information from the National Archives. The House Committee on Oversight and Reform sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland accusing the Justice Department of impeding the panel’s expanded investigation into the 15 boxes of White House records that Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after leaving office last year. The Archives in February revealed it had found classified material in the boxes and referred the matter to the Justice Department. The letter from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the chairwoman of the Oversight Committee, outlines communications between the committee and the National Archives that took place between February to late March. In those letters, Maloney made a series of requests for information she said the committee needs to determine if Trump violated federal records laws over his handling of sensitive and even classified information. In response, the general counsel for the archivist wrote on March 28 that “based on our consultation with the Department of Justice, we are unable to provide any comment.”

Called stonewalling.

“By blocking NARA from producing the documents requested by the Committee, the Department is obstructing the Committee’s investigation,” Maloney wrote in the letter released Thursday. Maloney added that while the committee is not looking to interfere with the department’s ongoing investigation, lawmakers have not received any explanation as to why the department is preventing the archivist from providing information about the contents of the boxes. The House’s oversight panel has repeatedly cited its authority to investigate matters involving the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978 after former President Richard Nixon wanted to destroy documents related to the Watergate scandal. Maloney had warned in December 2020 that she had “grave concerns” that the Trump administration was not complying with the federal records act, even writing in a letter to the archivist citing those concerns that the departing administration “may not be adequately preserving records and may be disposing of them.”

Surprised?

"The Oversight Committee asked Garland to respond by next week with either a green light for the National Archives to cooperate with their request or provide an explanation as to why the department is imposing such limitations."

Michael Conway, former counsel, U.S. House Judiciary Committee opines for NBC News:

"The House of Representatives on Wednesday held two more Donald Trump loyalists in contempt of the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation into the attack on the U.S. Capitol, but the congressional effort to discover the facts is being thwarted by an overly cautious Justice Department. By a vote of 220-203, the House held Peter K. Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser, and Dan Scavino Jr., who was responsible for Trump’s social media strategy, in criminal contempt of Congress for stonewalling the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoenas. But that vote will be a futile gesture if the Justice Department refuses to prosecute Navarro and Scavino. The timidity of Attorney General Merrick Garland has already undermined the committee’s ability to obtain the evidence of a key witness. That’s not an idle concern. The timidity of Attorney General Merrick Garland has already undermined the committee’s ability to obtain the evidence of a key witness, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. More than 110 days ago, the House held Meadows in contempt of Congress and urged Garland to prosecute him criminally for interfering with its investigation. Nothing has happened. Rather than aiding the congressional inquiry, the Justice Department seems to be missing in action. With the possibility that the Republicans will gain control of the House in the midterm elections, Garland’s delay may already be fatal. In November Garland indicted Steve Bannon, who pleaded not guilty, for contempt of Congress. Bannon’s trial is now set for July — eight months later, despite the prosecutors’ request for an April trial date. If a Meadows’ indictment today had a comparable timeline, the trial would occur after the November elections. Many Republicans have signaled that if the party wins control of the House in November, the Jan. 6 committee investigation, as we know it, will cease. Congressional frustration with Garland’s dilly-dallying has spilled out publicly. His procrastination earned well-deserved reproach by the committee last week when it voted to refer contempt charges for Navarro and Scavino to the House. “The Department of Justice has a duty to act on this referral and others that we have sent,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. “Without enforcement of its lawful process, Congress ceases to be a co-equal branch of government.” Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va, was blunter: “Attorney General Garland, do your job so we can do ours.” The Justice Department’s inertia may embolden other Trump loyalists to defy Congress. With Meadows seemingly avoiding responsibility for shirking his obligation, other recalcitrant witnesses may fear no consequences for defying the Jan. 6 investigators. The Justice Department’s inertia may embolden other Trump loyalists to defy Congress."

The article goes on and on in great detail. Sadly, there is no justice. Stonewalling reigns supreme.

4-15-22

Trump continues to stonewall. The Washington Post reports:

"Former president Donald Trump voiced regret Wednesday over not marching to the U.S. Capitol the day his supporters stormed the building, and he defended his long silence during the attack by claiming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others were responsible for ending the deadly violence. “I thought it was a shame, and I kept asking why isn’t she doing something about it? Why isn’t Nancy Pelosi doing something about it? And the mayor of D.C. also. The mayor of D.C. and Nancy Pelosi are in charge,” Trump said of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot in a 45-minute interview with The Washington Post. “I hated seeing it. I hated seeing it. And I said, ‘It’s got to be taken care of,’ and I assumed they were taking care of it.” The 45th president has repeatedly deflected blame for stoking the attack with false claims that the 2020 election was stolen, and in the interview, he struck a defiant posture, refusing to say whether he would testify before a congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault. Trump said he didn’t remember “getting very many” phone calls that day, and he denied removing call logs or using burner phones. Trump also said he had spoken during his presidency with Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. A seven-hour gap in Trump’s phone records on Jan. 6, and Thomas’s texts to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging the White House to fight the election results, have both come under scrutiny by the Jan. 6 committee."

Readers will recall:

"During the attack, Trump watched television, criticized then-Vice President Mike Pence and made calls pushing lawmakers to overturn the election as the violent mob of his supporters ransacked the Capitol. He was eventually persuaded by lawmakers, family members and others to release a video asking his supporters to go home — 187 minutes after he urged them to march to the Capitol during a rally near the White House. He was described by advisers as excited about the event. Trump, speaking Wednesday afternoon at his palatial beachfront club, said he did not regret urging the crowd to come to Washington with a tweet stating that it would “be wild!” He also stood by his incendiary and false rhetoric about the election at the Ellipse rally before the rioters stormed the Capitol. “I said peaceful and patriotic,” he said, omitting other comments that he made in a speech that day. In fact, Trump said he deserved more credit for drawing such a large crowd to the Ellipse — and that he pressed to march on the Capitol with his supporters but was stopped by his security detail. “Secret Service said I couldn’t go. I would have gone there in a minute," he said.

"On at least a dozen occasions in the interview, Trump blamed Pelosi for the events of Jan. 6. On that day, Pelosi was taken to a secure location and worked with some of Trump’s top military officials and others to help secure the building. Trump supporters stormed her office and vowed to hurt her, with some shouting for her by name. Pelosi does not have total control over the Capitol Police, as Trump alleged, but shares control of the Capitol with the Senate majority leader. Most decisions on securing the Capitol are made by a police board. He also blamed the D.C. mayor, whose advisers furiously tried to reach Trump’s team that day. “The former president’s desperate lies aside, the speaker was no more in charge of the security of the U.S. Capitol that day than Mitch McConnell,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi.

"Trump said he had not destroyed any call logs from the afternoon of Jan. 6 and took part in no phone calls on “burner phones,” even though there is a large gap in his White House phone logs. Trump said that he remembered talking to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other people during that period. He said he had a “very good” memory but could not say exactly who he talked to that afternoon, or when."

Philip Bump opines for The Washington Post:

"Donald Trump said three things in his interview with The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey this week that, taken together, construct a worrisome picture. The first is his insistence that he spent the hours during which the Capitol was being attacked on Jan. 6, 2021, wondering why no one was addressing the alarming situation. Trump told Dawsey that he “hated seeing it,” that it was “a shame” — and that he “assumed they were taking care of it,” meaning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D). The incongruity of that latter claim relative to Trump’s previous assertions gives the lie to the whole thing. Trump, the candidate who regularly insisted that it was his toughness that brought an end to urban riots in the summer of 2020, was simply sitting there in front of his TV fretting about Pelosi’s inaction? One very good way to know this isn’t true is that he at no point tweeted out such concerns, something that he was very quick to do in any other circumstance where he wanted to deflect blame. As the Capitol was being breached, he criticized Vice President Mike Pence for not overturning the election results, but we’re supposed to think that Trump was sitting there 30 minutes later and chose not to ask Pelosi to stop the rioters from coming in? What Trump is doing here is obvious. He understands that he is expected by official Washington to hold a negative view of the riot, so, when a Washington Post reporter asks, he conveys a negative view. Trump’s eternally malleable worldview has long meant that he simply tells people what he thinks they want to hear. It’s the salesman in him, if nothing else.

"But that brings us to the second revealing thing he said. “Trump said he deserved more credit for drawing such a large crowd to the Ellipse — and that he pressed to march on the Capitol with his supporters but was stopped by his security detail,” Dawsey reports. The “Secret Service said I couldn’t go,” Trump claimed. “I would have gone there in a minute.” Wistful about missing out! Yes, this is Trump saying how he felt on that day — but apparently without a caveat like, “I’m glad I didn’t, of course,” or “So I could have cooled tempers.” Just a further message of approval: It was good to go, and I wish I had. This is significant for another reason. The violence that unfolded at the Capitol was a function of both anger and scale. People had to be mad enough to lash out, and there had to be enough of them to overpower law enforcement. Trump fostered both of those conditions, repeatedly making false claims about his election loss and drawing people to Washington on that day with repeated entreaties. His audience heard him."

Indeed, they did. With disastrous consequences.

"Organizers of the rally outside the White House that day, though, reportedly debated whether to include a march to the Capitol as part of the day’s planned events. The official website for the day included a rally at the Capitol at 1 p.m., but there was no permit for an actual formal march. In interviews, organizers described an internal fight over the idea, with some worrying about a lack of security for a march. Last month, Rolling Stone reported that those discussions included concern about having it appear that Trump was trying to pressure Congress. Extremist groups that were planning to enter the building allegedly spoke about the utility of having a large mass of people present. A leader of the Oath Keepers allegedly circulated information about how a huge crowd in Serbia had helped storm parliament. Another later suggested on Facebook that Congress would be unable to “certify some crud on capitol hill with a million or more patriots in the streets.” In a group chat, a member of the Proud Boys allegedly wondered what police would do if “1 million patriots stormed and took the capital building.” The scale was important. Dustin Stockton, one of the rally organizers, said in interviews that it was only when Trump encouraged the crowd to march to the Capitol during his speech that morning that he realized the fight over the march was lost. The first outer bicycle barricades had fallen by the time Trump was done speaking. But it wasn’t until thousands of people began arriving at the Capitol from the White House that the building itself was breached. The key point is this: Whether Trump was part of the conversations about the danger of sending supporters to the Capitol that day, he — like everyone else — should certainly realize the danger in doing so now. And yet he still wishes he had been there alongside them. He still expresses his support for heading from the White House to the Capitol, despite the tangibility of what that allowed. He knows he is supposed to say it was bad, but he also can’t help but say he wishes he had been there marching alongside his supporters on his way to the Capitol."

Trump is certainly quite a master of disingenuous bullshit, deception, and lies.

"Which leads us to the final important thing that Trump told Dawsey. “I don’t want to comment on running,” Trump said about a presidential bid in 2024, “but I think a lot of people are going to be very happy by my decision.” This in the same conversation where he waved away potential primary opponents, suggesting that the field would clear if he threw his hat in the ring. Trump tried to hold power despite losing. He pines for having been able to be with the crowd at the Capitol on Jan. 6 as rioters fought to accomplish that goal. And he has clear designs on once again serving as the most powerful person in America. This should not yield shrugs."

Certainly, shouldn't. ... Hear the rumble? An unwanted, dreaded second American revolution could wind up being the result.

4-8-22

Time for the 'Justice' Department to wake up. The Associated Press reports:

"Lawmakers investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol are increasingly going public with critical statements, court filings and more to deliver a blunt message to Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice. President Donald Trump and his allies likely committed crimes, they say. And it’s up to you to do something about it. “Attorney General Garland, do your job so we can do ours,” prodded Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia. “We are upholding our responsibility. The Department of Justice must do the same,” echoed Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Their rhetoric, focused this week on two contempt of Congress referrals approved by the committee, is just the latest example of the pressure campaign the lawmakers are waging. It reflects a stark reality: While they can investigate Jan. 6 and issue subpoenas to gather information, only the Justice Department can bring criminal charges. Committee members see the case they are building against Trump and his allies as a once-in-a-generation circumstance. If it’s not fully prosecuted, they say, it could set a dangerous precedent that threatens the foundations of American democracy."

This problem dates back a half century. Richard Nixon was not held legally accountable for his crimes. Back then it was not the 'Justice' Department that failed to act, however, it was his successor, the vice president who pardoned the son of a bitch.

"The lawmakers seem nearly certain to send a criminal referral to the Justice Department once their work is through. It all puts Garland, who has spent his tenure trying to shield the Justice Department from political pressure, in a precarious spot. Any criminal charges related to Jan. 6 would trigger a firestorm, thrusting prosecutors back into the partisan crossfire that proved so damaging during the Trump-Russia influence investigation and an email probe of Hillary Clinton."

This is far different, far worse than any of the aforementioned fiascoes. Sadly, makes Nixon look like a choir boy.

Garland has given no public indication about whether prosecutors might be considering a case against the former president. He has, though, vowed to hold accountable “all January 6th perpetrators, at any level” and has said that would include those who were “present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.”

To date, certainly doesn't appear to be the case. Over a year has passed, yet the Trump nazi has not been charged for traitorously, treasonously inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

Certainly, no equal justice for the very top of the food chain and the rest of us:

"It’s already the largest criminal prosecution in the department’s history — for rioters who entered the Capitol building on Jan. 6 as well as members of extremist groups who are accused of planning the attack. More than 750 people have been charged with federal crimes. Over 220 riot defendants have pleaded guilty, more than 100 have been sentenced and at least 90 others have trial dates."

Yet, no prosecution of the kingpin, the Trump nazi. Not just for inciting the Capitol insurrection, but all other criminal offenses he may have committed while in office and before. To say nothing of what may have occurred since. Fascinating, isn't it?

"But the Jan. 6 committee wants more. Their message was amplified this week when a federal judge in California — District Judge David Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee — wrote that it is “more likely than not” that Trump himself committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election. The practical effect of that ruling was to order the release of more than 100 emails from Trump adviser John Eastman to the Jan. 6 Committee. But lawmakers zeroed in on a particular passage in the judge’s opinion that characterized Jan. 6 as a “coup.” “Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history. Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory,” Carter wrote."

Here's the problem. Bullshit rules the roost when it comes to the top of the food chain and the issue of accountability, more precisely lack thereof:

"But experts caution that Carter’s opinion was only in a civil case and does not meet the longstanding charging policy the Justice Department is required to meet. Justin Danilewitz, a Philadelphia-based attorney and former federal prosecutor, noted the department faces a higher burden of proof in court to show that presidential immunity should not apply. And he said the legal advice Trump received from Eastman “undermines an inference of corrupt or deceitful intent.”

How so, Counselor? Sounds like you're making excuses for the traitorous, treasonous Trump nazi. You and others who think like you make it virtually impossible for the top of the food chain to be held criminally accountable for any of its crimes. Convenient, isn't it, sir?

"The department will be guided by the evidence and law, he said, “but the social and political ramifications of a decision of this kind will not be far from the minds of Attorney General Garland and his staff.” “A decision to bring or not bring criminal charges will have significant ripple effects,” he added."

Matters not, -- if Garland truly honors his oath of office. ... And is the man of principle he seems to claim to be. Principle, not personal consequences and/or partisanship, should reign supreme in what is ostensibly supposed to be a democratic republic. The fact it doesn't speaks volumes vis a vis the current abject failure of this system. -- A failure if not rectified will likely lead to an unwanted, dreaded second American revolution.

“The Department of Justice is entrusted with defending our Constitution,” Rep. Liz Cheney, the Republican committee chair, said at a hearing this week. “Department leadership should not apply any doctrine of immunity that might block Congress from fully uncovering and addressing the causes of the January 6 attack.” A decision to pursue the contempt charges against Meadows would have to come from career prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington before senior Justice Department officials would weigh in and decide how to proceed."

Why hasn't that already happened? Why all the foot dragging?

Here's precisely the problem. It's how the top of the food chain escapes accountability:

"The Justice Department has long maintained that senior aides generally cannot be forced to testify if a president invokes executive privilege, as Trump has done. And bringing charges could risk undermining the longstanding principle that lets the executive branch of the government keep most discussions private."

Conveniently, allows the president and his henchmen to escape criminal culpability.

The following would indeed be laughable if an unwanted, dreaded second American revolution wasn't catastrophically looming:

"While the majority of committee members have turned up the pressure on Garland, one member, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, has not gone as far. “I feel strongly that we restore the tradition of respect for the independence of the law enforcement function,” Raskin told reporters this week. “That was one of the things that got trashed during the Trump period. And so I think that Congress and the president should let the Department of Justice and attorney general do their job.” “Attorney General Garland is my constituent,” Raskin added, “and I don’t beat up on my constituents.”

Jesus Christ. Called aggressive stupidity, Representative. That is, doing all you can to embrace clueless mindlessness and dire ignorance at the expense of a democratic republic.

4-8-22

Think Trump does not have a serious problem? The following is an opinion article written by former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks. NBC News reports:

"My phone rang off the hook as soon as the news hit. According to reporting from The Washington Post, internal White House phone records turned over to the House Jan. 6 committee included a gap of seven hours and 37 minutes. A lot can be said in 457 minutes. Comparisons to the 18.5-minute gap in a crucial President Richard Nixon recording were immediately obvious to me. After all, I was the prosecutor who cross-examined Nixon’s secretary, Rose Mary Woods, about how that gap came to be. And I am not the only one to make that connection. Those similarities — and the differences — are illuminating as lawmakers continue to battle apparent obstruction in their investigation of the events leading up to and during the Capitol riot. First, Nixon’s gap seems — based on my experience and other experts — to have been a deliberate erasure. Is Trump’s? We don’t have enough evidence to say for sure yet, but the missing chunk certainly appears deliberate."

Certainly, does.

"Almost 50 years ago, Woods testified that it was partly an accident caused by her mistakenly hitting the record button rather than the stop button on the recording machine, coupled with keeping her foot on the pedal that stopped and started playback. Her theory strained credulity. Several experts concluded it was not an accidental single erasure, but seven or more separate erasures. (In my opinion, I don’t think any of these erasures were created by Woods. I suspect Nixon himself, possibly aided by his first chief of staff, H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, or Gen. Al Haig, his second chief of staff, who initially said the gap was caused by a “sinister force.”) Trump’s gap is also suspicious. For one thing, the Post reported the phone log shows the president was busy making calls before and after the gap, making a seven-hour-plus break in calls unlikely. More compelling, the gap covers the key period of the insurrection. And we know from other reporting that Trump made and received calls during that time, at least one of which was to Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah (although Trump apparently was trying to call Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama). It is unlikely, even incredible, that no one called in to the president for 457 minutes during a crisis when he was in the White House. Even calls that go unanswered in the White House should be listed on official logs."

Interestingly:

"If the Trump phone log gap is deliberate, it would necessitate a series of urgent follow-up questions. For example, it would be important to know if Trump or someone on his team edited the records before giving them to the National Archives as required by the Presidential Records Act. (Ironically, of course, that act was passed as a result of Nixon’s mishandling of presidential documents.) Alternatively, Trump could have deliberately prevented the creation of official White House phone logs by switching to cheap burner phones, his personal cellphone or the phone of any nearby aide, and if he did that, we should know."

No question. The president does not work for himself. He or she works for the American people.

"Luckily, alternative sources often exist, outside of the official records, that can fill in gaps — inadvertent or malicious. Handwritten notes from Nixon’s Oval Office conversation with Haldeman — taken by Haldeman — showed that pause started precisely when their conversation turned to the Watergate break-in and ended when they pivoted to other matters. Haldeman’s notes spelled out the content of the missing minutes. Testimony and phone records will hopefully show whose calls are potentially missing from Trump’s official White House phone log. Even a cursory investigation should yield answers as to whom, in addition to Lee and Tuberville, Trump spoke during this seven-hour-plus gap. Ultimately, however, while the similarities between the two examples are important, so, too, are the differences. Nixon’s gap was a single conversation about covering up a third-rate burglary. This we know because of Haldeman’s notes, which detail their conversation about a PR offensive to counter the Watergate break-in and a plan to sweep for bugs in the White House offices. (The latter point is highly ironic given Nixon’s propensity for bugging everyone and everything around him.) Trump’s potentially hours of missing conversations likely regarded the ongoing insurrection and various alleged plans to overturn a free and fair election. We don’t know what he may have discussed, but we do know that in the days leading up to Jan. 6, Trump was openly trying to find any way possible to stall or undo America’s fraud-free election results. Through surrogates and lawyers, Team Trump was working around the clock to undermine the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s November 2020 victory and encourage millions of die-hard Trump supporters to do the same. It is often said that Nixon’s cover-up was worse than his underlying crime. The reverse is potentially true for Trump. Trump’s records gap is 25 times as long as Nixon’s, but his alleged crime could be incalculably worse."

Certainly, seems to be the case.

"Jill Wine-Banks is an attorney, author and MSNBC legal analyst. The first woman to serve as US General Counsel of the Army under President Jimmy Carter, she was also one of the prosecutors during the Watergate scandal."

4-8-22

Think the nazi element in the Republican Party isn't squirming? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. NBC News reports:

"Republicans on Capitol Hill found themselves in an awkward but familiar spot this week: being asked to respond to yet another controversy sparked by Donald Trump. This time it was the former president’s urging Vladimir Putin to release dirt on the Biden family as the Russian president wages a bloody and devastating war in Ukraine that has killed thousands of civilians and displaced millions more. Trump’s request twisted congressional Republicans into a political pretzel: GOP lawmakers have been pushing President Joe Biden to get more aggressive in helping Ukraine combat Putin, whom they’ve called a “thug” and a “murderer,” but now Republicans are being asked why their party's de facto leader is making a direct appeal to Putin, whom he has recently praised as "savvy" and a "genius."

Jesus Christ. Would indeed be laughable if Putin and his henchmen weren't mass murdering Ukrainians. Committing war crimes en masse. Devastating their entire country.

"Trump’s remarks drew a swift rebuke from a handful of GOP defense hawks — even as they delicately tiptoed around his name."

Gutless nazi pieces of shit.

“I don’t think we should be asking Putin to do anything,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a Trump ally who has suggested that someone needs to assassinate Putin. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, a vocal Trump critic who warned about Russia’s threats when he was the GOP presidential nominee in 2012, added, “I don’t think Vladimir Putin ought to be one of the people we go to for favors right now." “He’s one of the worst people on the planet,” Romney said, “and America shouldn’t be asking for favors.”

Readers will recall:

"In an interview with the conservative Real America’s Voice network, Trump pointed to a report by Senate Republicans, released just before the 2020 election, that scrutinized Hunter Biden’s business dealings with Eastern European oligarchs. Trump suggested that Putin may have dirt on the president's son, saying: “I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it.” Lawyers for Hunter Biden have denied any wrongdoing on his part."

The nazi element in the Republican Party remains hopelessly gutless:

"As with past Trump controversies, only a few Republicans are condemning his words and actions. The vast majority simply tried to avoid the flap altogether, saying they either hadn't seen Trump's interview or weren’t aware of his remarks."

Including Cruz:

"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who is flirting with a 2024 presidential bid, declined twice on Wednesday to say whether Trump’s appeal to Putin to release dirt on Hunter Biden was appropriate. “I didn’t see the particular comments,” said Cruz, the runner-up to Trump in a bitter 2016 Republican primary. Asked broadly whether it’s appropriate for a former president to ask a foreign leader for help to undermine a U.S. political opponent, Cruz said: “I’m not going to answer a hypothetical.”

Gutless, disingenuous piece of shit. Raw cowardice from the nazi element in the Republican Party.

"Trump’s plea to Putin echoed past moments when Trump solicited a foreign leader or government for damaging information about a political rival. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump publicly asked Russia to release thousands of emails from his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And in 2019, the Democratic-led House impeached Trump over allegations that he threatened to withhold about $400 million in critical military aid to Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelenskyy launched an investigation into Hunter Biden. The Senate voted to acquit him."

No justice. Raw nazism.

4-1-22

Raw nazism. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. The Washington Post reports:

"Virginia Thomas, a conservative activist married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, repeatedly pressed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to pursue unrelenting efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in a series of urgent text exchanges in the critical weeks after the vote, according to copies of the messages obtained by The Washington Post and CBS News. The messages — 29 in all — reveal an extraordinary pipeline between Virginia Thomas, who goes by Ginni, and President Donald Trump’s top aide during a period when Trump and his allies were vowing to go to the Supreme Court in an effort to negate the election results. On Nov. 10, after news organizations had projected Joe Biden the winner based on state vote totals, Thomas wrote to Meadows: “Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!...You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

Traitorous nazism. No truth to the false allegations by the Trump nazi and his henchmen.

"When Meadows wrote to Thomas on Nov. 24, the White House chief of staff invoked God to describe the effort to overturn the election. “This is a fight of good versus evil,” Meadows wrote. “Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs. Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

Raw insanity.

"Thomas replied: “Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now… I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it!” It is unclear to whom Thomas was referring."

Needs to be placed under oath and questioned by Congress.

"The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results — and how receptive and grateful Meadows said he was to receive her advice. Among Thomas’s stated goals in the messages was for lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, to be “the lead and the face” of Trump’s legal team. The text messages were among 2,320 that Meadows provided to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The content of messages between Thomas and Meadows — 21 sent by her, eight by him – has not previously been reported. They were reviewed by The Post and CBS News and then confirmed by five people who have seen the committee’s documents. Meadows’s attorney, George Terwilliger III, confirmed the existence of the 29 messages between his client and Thomas. In reviewing the substance of the messages Wednesday, he said that neither he nor Meadows would comment on individual texts. But, Terwilliger added, “nothing about the text messages presents any legal issues.” Ginni Thomas did not respond to multiple requests for comment made Thursday by email and phone. Justice Thomas, who has been hospitalized for treatment of an infection, did not respond to a request for comment made through the Supreme Court’s public information office."

If there is nothing to hide, Justice Thomas needs to open up, subject himself to questioning by reporters.

"It is unknown whether Ginni Thomas and Meadows exchanged additional messages between the election and Biden’s inauguration beyond the 29 received by the committee. Shortly after providing the 2,320 messages, Meadows ceased cooperating with the committee, arguing that any further engagement could violate Trump’s claims of executive privilege. Committee members and aides said they believe the messages may be just a portion of the pair’s total exchanges. A spokesman for the committee declined to comment. The revelation of Thomas’s messages with Meadows comes three weeks after lawyers for the committee said in a court filing that the panel has “a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States” and obstruct the counting of electoral votes by Congress. Trump spoke publicly during this period about his intent to contest the election results in the Supreme Court. “This is a major fraud on our nation,” the president said in a speech at 2:30 the morning after the election. “We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So we’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Fascinating, isn't it?

"Thomas has publicly denied any conflict of interest between her activism and her husband’s work on the Supreme Court. “Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, for an article published March 14."

Believe it? Credible?

"Ginni Thomas, in that interview, also acknowledged that she had attended Trump’s “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse near the White House on Jan. 6, but said that she left early because it was too cold and that she did not have any role in planning the event."

Think so?

"Justice Thomas, 73, is the Supreme Court’s longest-serving current justice and has missed oral arguments this week because of his hospitalization. He has made few public comments about the 2020 election. In February 2021, when the Supreme Court rejected election challenges filed by Trump and his allies, Thomas wrote in a dissent that it was “baffling” and “inexplicable” that the majority had decided against hearing the cases because he believed the Supreme Court should provide states with guidance for future elections."

Surprised?

Most ironic and far more disturbing? Get this:

"Critics say Ginni Thomas’s activism is a Supreme Court conflict. Under court rules, only her husband can decide if that’s true."

Most convenient, isn't it?

"In her text messages to Meadows, Ginni Thomas spread false theories, commented on cable news segments and advocated with urgency and fervor that the president and his team take action to reverse the outcome of the election. She urged that they take a hard line with Trump staffers and congressional Republicans who had resisted arguments that the election was stolen. In the messages, Thomas and Meadows each assert a belief that the election was stolen and seem to share a solidarity of purpose and faith, though they occasionally express differences on tactics. “The intense pressures you and our President are now experiencing are more intense than Anything Experienced (but I only felt a fraction of it in 1991),” Thomas wrote to Meadows on Nov. 19, an apparent reference to Justice Thomas’s 1991 confirmation hearings in which lawyer Anita Hill testified that he had made unwanted sexual comments when he was her boss. Thomas strongly denied the accusations."

He did. Had zero credibility at the time.

"The first of the 29 messages between Ginni Thomas and Meadows was sent on Nov. 5, two days after the election. She sent him a link to a YouTube video labeled “TRUMP STING w CIA Director Steve Pieczenik, The Biggest Election Story in History, QFS-BLOCKCHAIN.” Pieczenik, a former State Department official, is a far-right commentator who has falsely claimed that the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., was a “false-flag” operation to push a gun-control agenda. The video Thomas shared with Meadows is no longer available on YouTube. But Thomas wrote to Meadows, “I hope this is true; never heard anything like this before, or even a hint of it. Possible???” “Watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states,” she wrote. During that period, supporters of the QAnon extremist ideology embraced a false theory that Trump had watermarked mail-in ballots so he could track potential fraud. “Watch the water” was a refrain in QAnon circles at the time. In the Nov. 5 message to Meadows, Thomas went on to quote a passage that had circulated on right-wing websites: “Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.” The text messages received by the House select committee do not include a response from Meadows."

Interesting, isn't it?

"The next day, Nov. 6, Thomas sent a follow-up to Meadows: “Do not concede. It takes time for the army who is gathering for his back.” It is unclear if Meadows responded. On Nov. 10, Thomas drew a reply from Meadows. She wrote, “Mark, I wanted to text you and tell you for days you are in my prayers!!” She continued by urging him to “Help This Great President stand firm” and invoking “the greatest Heist of our History.”

Galling insanity.

"Thomas added in the message that Meadows should “Listen to Rush. Mark Steyn, Bongino, Cleta” — appearing to refer to conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn and Dan Bongino, as well as lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who was involved in Trump’s push to claim victory in Georgia despite Biden’s certified win there. One minute later, Meadows responded: “I will stand firm. We will fight until there is no fight left. Our country is too precious to give up on. Thanks for all you do.” Nine minutes after that, Thomas replied, “Tearing up and praying for you guys!!!!! So proud to know you!!”

Jesus Christ. Goddamned pitiful. Raw insanity. No truth to any of it.

"Later that night, Ginni Thomas messaged Meadows seeming to react to a cable news segment. “Van Jones spins interestingly, but shows us the balls being juggled too,” Thomas said, referring to the prominent CNN commentator. Thomas then turned to her frustrations with congressional Republicans and said she wished more of them were rallying behind Trump and being more active with his base voters, who were furious about the election. She wrote, “House and Senate guys are pathetic too... only 4 GOP House members seen out in street rallies with grassroots... Gohmert, Jordan, Gosar, and Roy.” She appeared to be referring to Republican House members Louie Gohmert of Texas, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Paul A. Gosar of Arizona and Chip Roy of Texas."

Pitiful. Pathetic. Insanity. Devoid of reality.

"This was a troubled time for Trump. News organizations had declared Biden the winner on Nov. 7, after a review of vote totals in each state and the electoral count. Trump’s legal operation was divided between his campaign’s official lawyers and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s confidant and personal attorney who was fast asserting control of his campaign’s legal strategy. While many Republicans supported Trump’s filing of legal challenges in several states, his lawyers stumbled in court and many allies by mid-November were privately confiding that Trump’s legal battle would be short-lived. Yet Thomas urged Meadows to plow ahead, rally Republicans around Trump and remind them of his enduring political capital. “Where the heck are all those who benefited by Presidents coattails?!!!” she wrote in her text message to him late on Nov. 10. She then told him to watch a YouTube video about the power of never conceding."

Get this:

"Meadows might not have been Thomas’s only contact inside the Trump White House that week. On Nov. 13, she texted Meadows about her outreach to “Jared,” potentially a reference to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser. She wrote, “Just forwarded to yr gmail an email I sent Jared this am. Sidney Powell & improved coordination now will help the cavalry come and Fraud exposed and America saved.” The messages provided to the House select committee do not show a response by Meadows. Kushner did not respond to a request for comment."

What could he say?

"Powell was becoming ubiquitous on television — and winning the president’s favor, according to several Trump advisers — as she claimed without evidence that electronic voting systems had stolen the election from Trump by switching millions of ballots in Biden’s favor. She claimed, again without evidence, that hundreds of thousands of ballots were appearing out of nowhere and that a global communist conspiracy was afoot involving Venezuela, Cuba, and probably China."

No credibility.

"Still, while Trump cheered some of Powell’s commentary, she was a polarizing figure in his orbit. Her views were considered so extreme and unsupported by evidence that David Bossie, a longtime Trump supporter, told others that she was peddling “concocted B.S.” After Fox News host Tucker Carlson contacted Powell about her claim that electronic voting machines had switched ballots to Biden, he told his viewers that he found her answers evasive and that she had shown no evidence to support her assertion. He stopped having her on his program."

LOL. Particularly laughable since Carlson himself has his own problems with credibility.

"Ginni Thomas stood by her. “Don’t let her and your assets be marginalized instead...help her be the lead and the face,” she wrote to Meadows on Nov. 13. The following day, Nov. 14, Thomas sent Meadows material she said was from Connie Hair, chief of staff to Gohmert. It is not clear if she was passing on a message from Hair or sharing Hair’s perspective as guidance for Meadows. The text message seems to quote Hair’s belief that “the most important thing you can realize right now is that there are no rules in war.” “This war is psychological. PSYOP,” the text from Thomas states. Hair said Thursday that she did not have any specific recollection of that text message."

Surprised?

"On Nov. 19, which would be a crucial day for Powell as she spoke at a news conference at the Republican National Committee, Thomas continued to bolster Powell’s standing in a text to Meadows. “Mark (don’t want to wake you)… ” Thomas wrote. “Sounds like Sidney and her team are getting inundated with evidence of fraud. Make a plan. Release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down.” “Release the Kraken” had become a catchphrase on the far right after the election, used as shorthand for the anticipated exposure of a voter fraud conspiracy that would upend Biden’s victory with the same force as a “Kraken,” a mythical giant sea monster. In that same exchange, Thomas also at one point offered Meadows advice on managing the West Wing staff. “Suggestion: You need to buck up your team on the inside, Mark,” Thomas wrote. “The lower level insiders are scared, fearful or sending out signals of hopelessness vs an awareness of the existential threat to America right now. You can buck them up, strengthen their spirits.” “Monica Crowley,” Thomas said, referring to the conservative commentator, “may have a sense of this [from] her Nixon days.” Crowley, a top official in Trump’s Treasury Department, had been an aide to former president Richard M. Nixon years after he resigned from office in 1974 because of the Watergate scandal. Thomas then wrote, “You guys fold, the evil just moves fast down underneath you all. Lots of intensifying threats coming to ACB and others.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, sometimes called “ACB” by her supporters, had joined the Supreme Court in October, shortly before the election. It is unclear to what threats Thomas was referring."

Precisely, why she needs to testify under oath before Congress.

"Later on Nov. 19, Meadows replied to Thomas’s long text message by saying, “Thanks so much.” But Thomas’s high aspirations for Powell quickly collapsed that afternoon. Instead of capturing the nation’s attention at the RNC news conference, where she spoke alongside Giuliani and other Trump advisers, Powell was criticized for spreading a false theory about electronic voting machines as a tool for communists. Some Trump aides were horrified by her and Giuliani’s performances and felt they had embarrassed the president by becoming a parody of his post-election fight. As Giuliani spoke, a dark brown liquid mixed with beads of sweat rolled down his cheek. “Did you watch ‘My Cousin Vinny?’ ” he asked reporters, tying a legal reference to the 1992 comedy. Thomas wrote to Meadows, “Tears are flowing at what Rudy is doing right now!!!!” “Glad to help,” Meadows replied. By Nov. 22, Trump gave his blessing for Giuliani and another Trump lawyer, Jenna Ellis, to issue a statement claiming that Powell “is not a member of the Trump Legal Team.” Thomas reached out to Meadows that day with concern. “Trying to understand the Sidney Powell distancing,” she wrote. “She doesn’t have anything or at least she won’t share it if she does,” Meadows texted back. “Wow!” Thomas replied. Meadows did not respond."

Sad, isn't it? Worse? Pitiful.

"On Nov. 24, Thomas engaged Meadows again by sharing a video from Parler, a conservative social media website, that appeared to refer to conservative commentator Glenn Beck. “If you all cave to the elites, you have to know that many of your 73 million feel like what Glenn is expressing,” Thomas wrote. She said Trump risked his supporters growing disenchanted to the point of walking away from politics. “Me included,” she wrote. “I think I am done with politics, and I don’t think I am alone, Mark.” Meadows replied three minutes later: “I don’t know what you mean by caving to the elites.” Thomas responded: “I can’t see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences... the whole coup and now this... we just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can’t continue the GOP charade.” After continued back-and-forth, Meadows wrote, “You’re preaching to the choir. Very demoralizing.” The text exchanges with Thomas that Meadows provided to the House select committee pause after Nov. 24, 2020, with an unexplained gap in correspondence. The committee received one additional message sent by Thomas to Meadows, on Jan. 10, four days after the “Stop the Steal” rally Thomas said she attended and the deadly attack on the Capitol. In that message, Thomas expresses support for Meadows and Trump — and directed anger at Vice President Mike Pence, who had refused Trump’s wishes to block the congressional certification of Biden’s electoral college victory. “We are living through what feels like the end of America,” Thomas wrote to Meadows. “Most of us are disgusted with the VP and are in listening mode to see where to fight with our teams. Those who attacked the Capitol are not representative of our great teams of patriots for DJT!!” “Amazing times,” she added. “The end of Liberty.”

Hard to believe Virginia Thomas discussed none of this with her husband, isn't it?

NBC News reports:

"Shortly after the 2020 election, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sent an email to an aide to a prominent House conservative saying she would have nothing to do with his group until his members go “out in the streets,” a congressional source familiar with the exchange told NBC News. Thomas told an aide to incoming Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Banks, R-Ind., that she was more aligned with the far-right House Freedom Caucus, whose leaders just two months later would lead the fight in Congress to overturn the results of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. The RSC was long representative of the most conservative House members, but in the past several years, it has been replaced by the Tea Party-driven Freedom Caucus. Thomas wrote to the aide that Freedom Caucus members were tougher than RSC members, were in the fight and had then-President Donald Trump’s back, according to the source familiar with the email contents. Until she saw RSC members “out in the streets” and in the fight, she said, she would not help the RSC, the largest caucus of conservatives on Capitol Hill."

They're not conservatives. They're fascists. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Her November 2020 email came in response to a request from the RSC to offer policy recommendations as Banks was set to take the helm of the group in early 2021. But when Thomas portrayed the RSC as soft in its support for Trump and told its members to take to the streets, the aide thanked her for her suggestions and moved on. Banks declined to comment for this article. Thomas did not respond to a request for comment."

Surprised? Why? Forget? This is the wife of a Supreme Court justice with cases pending before him relevant to the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.

"NBC has not independently reviewed the email exchange, but sources said it made no specific references to GOP efforts to overturn the election or block the certification of the Electoral College ballots in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. Jan. 6 Committee members are now debating whether to invite Ginni Thomas to speak to the panel or to issue a subpoena for her records, according to reporting by CBS. But until now, the committee has been reluctant to go down the path of investigating the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice."

Why? She was treasonously involved in trying to overturn the election.

“We have a list of people that we’re looking at who helped finance or organize” the Jan. 6 rally, one committee member told NBC News. “My understanding is on the broader list, she is there. But we have not made a determination whether or not that information makes her a target of the committee.” The email exchange suggests Thomas was pressuring Republicans in Congress to get more aggressive in fighting for Trump at a key moment when the lame-duck president and his inner circle were devising a strategy to overturn the results of the 2020 election and keep him in power. On Thursday, The Washington Post and CBS News reported that Thomas repeatedly had pressed Trump’s last chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to aggressively pursue an effort to overturn the presidential election. The pair exchanged nearly 30 text messages. In one text to Meadows on Nov. 10, three days after networks had declared Biden the winner, Thomas railed at congressional Republicans, saying she wished more of them were lining up behind Trump and “out in the streets” with his grassroots supporters who were furious about the election, the two news outlets reported. “House and Senate guys are pathetic too... only 4 GOP House members seen out in street rallies with grassroots... Gohmert, Jordan, Gosar, and Roy,” Thomas texted Meadows, an apparent reference to a quartet of Freedom Caucus members, Reps. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Chip Roy, R-Texas. The Post and CBS also reported on a Nov. 14 text that Thomas sent to Meadows material from Connie Hair, Gohmert’s chief of staff. The text message seems to reference Hair’s belief that “the most important thing you can realize right now is that there are no rules in war.” “This war is psychological. PSYOP,” Thomas texted."

Called treason.

"Just days later, Gohmert appeared at a “Million MAGA March” near the White House and told Trump supporters: “This was a cheated election and we can’t let it stand.” He talked about "revolution."

Called treason. No truth to the allegation of a 'cheated election.' None. No evidence to any of it.

"It’s unclear how many other GOP congressional offices Thomas was emailing, texting or calling during the period between Election Day and Jan. 6. Thomas said she attended the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House that preceded the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol. And her involvement in pressuring and advising leaders in both the executive branch and legislative branch on efforts to overturn the presidential election are raising significant ethical questions about whether her political activism has created a conflict of interest for her husband, Justice Thomas, who may have to decide additional cases relating to the special House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack. In January, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s argument that executive privilege prevented the Jan. 6 panel from accessing a trove of records from the Trump White House. Thomas was the only justice who indicated the court should grant Trump’s motion to block the National Archives from handing over the material. “Justice Thomas was the sole member of the Supreme Court who would have allowed records from Trump, Meadows, et al to be withheld from House Jan 6 Committee,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., tweeted Friday. “He did not explain his reasoning. We need answers.”

No question.

“At the bare minimum, Justice Thomas needs to recuse himself from any case related to the January 6th investigation,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., “and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election.” In a recent interview with the Washington Free Beacon, Ginni Thomas said she and her husband “share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America” but have “our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. “Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she said."

Think so?

"Just hours after the Jan. 6 attack, Banks, who is in his second and final year as RSC chairman, objected to the certification of Electoral College votes from both Arizona and Pennsylvania, arguing that some governors and local officials changed the rules of the election due to the pandemic. He has said that Biden is the president and has not echoed Trump in talking about unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud in the election. Still, Banks found himself in the headlines last year after Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked both Banks and Jordan from serving on the Jan. 6 committee. The speaker rejected Banks over a statement he made that the special panel should be used to probe violent riots that occurred across the country in 2020. Republicans boycotted the Jan. 6 committee, prompting Pelosi to appoint two GOP critics of Trump: Reps. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill."

NBC News reports:

"Democrats on Friday called on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases related to Jan. 6 after it was revealed that his wife had texted then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows urging him to challenge Donald Trump's election loss. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that in light of reports of the text messages traded between Ginni Thomas and Meadows after the 2020 election, "Justice Thomas' conduct on the Supreme Court looks increasingly corrupt."

Sadly, so.

"Justice Thomas participated in cases related to Donald Trump's efforts to rig and then overturn the 2020 election, while his wife was pushing to do the same," Wyden said. He added that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from “any case related to the January 6th investigation, and should Donald Trump run again, any case related to the 2024 election.” A recusal that broad would be unprecedented, particularly in light of the large number of ongoing criminal and civil cases related to the riot."

No question.

"In some of the text messages — copies of which were obtained by The Washington Post and CBS News — Ginni Thomas urged Meadows and Trump to follow the lead of lawyer Sidney Powell, who made numerous wild and unfounded claims of voter fraud. In one such message, Ginni Thomas urged Meadows to “release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,” the Post reported. The text messages were part of a trove of documents and messages that Meadows turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol before he stopped cooperating with the investigation. The Post and CBS obtained copies of the messages, which were reviewed by each news outlet and by five people who have seen the committee’s documents. A source familiar with the materials confirmed the veracity of the messages quoted in the Post report to NBC News."

Get this:

"Wyden and other Democrats said Justice Thomas had already crossed a line by not recusing himself from a case involving the Jan. 6 committee's attempts to get a hold of Trump White House records from the National Archives earlier this year. Meadows submitted a legal filing in the case urging the high court to block the committee from getting the records. In his amicus brief, Meadows noted that he'd already handed over some records to the committee, but the National Archives and Records Administration likely had more. “Many of the records that Amicus created, reviewed, or received during his tenure as White House Chief of Staff are now Presidential records in the custody of Respondent NARA. They are likely included among the documents directly at issue in this case, and in any event, the outcome of this case will bear directly on whether and to what extent those documents are produced to the Select Committee," his filing said. The Supreme Court allowed the records to be released to the committee in an 8-1 vote. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, which Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., pointed out online Friday. "Justice Thomas was the sole member of the Supreme Court who would have allowed records from Trump, Meadows, et al to be withheld from House Jan 6 Committee. He did not explain his reasoning. We need answers," Kaine tweeted."

No question. Stinks to high heaven.

"Justice Thomas is known for his frequent dissents and has on dozens of occasions been the lone dissent in 8-1 cases. Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said "Ginni Thomas can do whatever crazy things she wants. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas cannot rule on a case that would disclose the crazy things Ginni Thomas was doing. That was a clear conflict of interest."

Not surprisingly:

"Republican leaders did not express any such concerns. Asked if Justice Thomas should recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told reporters, “No, I think Justice Thomas could make his decisions like he’s made every other time. It’s his decision based upon law. If you spent any time studying the Supreme Court justice, he’s one who studies correctly and I mean, from all the way through. If he sees it’s not upholding the Constitution, he’ll rule against it.”

Crock of shit. Clearly, partisanship, not principle, reigns supreme.

"A spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the justice's behalf. The 73-year-old justice was discharged from a Washington, D.C., hospital Friday, a week after being admitted with flu-like symptoms. Federal judges are subject to a published official “Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” which includes specific rules about ethics, integrity and even appearances of impropriety relating to outside business and political activities and the acceptance of gifts."

The following is a problem, a big problem:

"Supreme Court justices say they consult the code, but they are not bound by it or required to follow it. Congress has tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation closing the loophole. In an interview with MSNBC on Friday, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said Justice Thomas' decision on the White House records shows that needs to change. "This is an example of why a clear code of conduct is necessary for every member of the judiciary, including the Supreme Court," she said."

No question.

4-1-22

Trump loses a big one. The Associated Press reports:

"A federal judge on Monday asserted it is “more likely than not” that former President Donald Trump committed crimes in his attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 election, ruling to order the release of more than 100 emails from Trump adviser John Eastman to the committee investigating the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge David Carter marked a major legal win for the House panel as it looks to correspondence from Eastman, the lawyer who was consulting with Trump as he attempted to overturn the presidential election. “Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” Carter, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in the ruling submitted in the federal Central District of California. Eastman was trying to withhold documents from the committee on the basis of an attorney-client privilege claim between him and the former president. The committee responded earlier this month, arguing that there is a legal exception allowing the disclosure of communications regarding ongoing or future crimes. An attorney representing Eastman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The March 3 filing from the committee was their most formal effort to link the former president to a federal crime. Lawmakers do not have the power to bring criminal charges on their own and can only make a referral to the Justice Department. The department has been investigating last year’s riot, but it has not given any indication that it is considering seeking charges against Trump."

Inexplicable. Sad. Tragic. Special treatment for the kingpin of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, -- the Trump nazi. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"The committee argued in the court documents that Trump and his associates engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College. Trump and those working with him then spread false information about the outcome of the presidential election and pressured state officials to overturn the results, potentially violating multiple federal laws, the panel said. The trove of documents the nine-member panel has publicly released so far, which include some emails already retrieved from Eastman, offers an early look at some of the panel’s likely conclusions, which are expected to be submitted in the coming months. The committee says it has interviewed more than 650 witnesses as it investigates the violent siege by Trump supporters, the worst attack on the Capitol in more than two centuries."

To date, no justice for the kingpin of the Capitol insurrection, -- the Trump nazi.

The Associated Press reports:

"The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol voted unanimously to hold former Trump advisers Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino in contempt of Congress for their monthslong refusal to comply with subpoenas."

What took so long? Why all the foot-dragging?

"The committee made its case Monday night that Navarro, former President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, and Scavino, a White House communications aide under Trump, have been uncooperative in the congressional probe into the deadly 2021 insurrection and, as a result, are in contempt. “They’re not fooling anybody. They are obligated to comply with our investigation. They have refused to do so. And that’s a crime,” Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in his opening remarks. The recommendation of criminal charges now goes to the full House, where it is likely to be approved by the Democratic-majority chamber. Approval there would then send the charges to the Justice Department, which has the final say on prosecution. As the committee enforces its subpoena power, it is also continuing to branch out to others in Trump’s orbit. Lawmakers now plan to reach out to Virginia Thomas — known as Ginni — the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, about her reported text messages with former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on the day of the attack, according to two people familiar with the investigation who were granted anonymity to discuss the panel’s private deliberations. But the panel has not decided what their outreach to Thomas, a conservative activist, will look like and whether that will come in the form of a subpoena or a voluntary request to cooperate."

Come on. Get on with it. Why all the foot-dragging?

"Also later this week, the committee plans to interview former Trump adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner, one of the people said. At Monday’s meeting, lawmakers made yet another appeal to Attorney General Merrick Garland, who has not yet made a decision to pursue the contempt charges the House set forward in December on former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. “We are upholding our responsibility,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a member of the committee, said in his remarks. “The Department of Justice must do the same.”

Why hasn't it? Equally to the point, why hasn't the kingpin, that is the Trump nazi, been indicted for inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection? Why is the 'Justice' Department protecting and coddling this traitorous, treasonous, fascist piece of shit? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

The Associated Press reports:

"The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol has identified a roughly eight-hour gap in official records of then-President Donald Trump’s phone calls as the violence unfolded and his supporters stormed the building, according to a person familiar with the probe. The gap extends from a little after 11 a.m. to about 7 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021, and involves White House calls, according to the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation and spoke to The Associated Press on Tuesday on the condition of anonymity. It’s unclear if that gap includes White House cellphones. It’s widely known that Trump had conversations on Jan. 6 with Republican lawmakers. House investigators are looking at whether the president was communicating during that time through other means, possibly through personal cellphones, or some other type of communication — like a phone passed to him by an aide or a burner phone. The committee has subpoenaed cellphone companies for records and is awaiting data. Trump had no immediate comment Tuesday, but he has previously disparaged the investigation. The committee also is continuing to receive records from the National Archives and other sources, which could produce additional information. But the lack of information about Trump’s calls is a frustrating challenge to investigators as they work to create the most comprehensive record yet of the attack, with a particular focus on what the president was doing in the White House as hundreds of his supporters violently beat police, broke into the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. It also raises questions of whether Trump purposefully circumvented official channels to avoid records."

This is precisely why the 'Justice' Department needs to be investigating the Trump nazi and his henchmen. It has the power and resources a congressional panel does not have.

"During the missing hours, Trump went to a rally at the Ellipse, spoke, then watched as the violent mob of his supporters broke into the Capitol, overwhelming police and marauded through the building for hours before they were finally kicked out and the building was declared secure at about 5:30 p.m. More than 700 people have been arrested in the violence. Trump communicated with at least some lawmakers during the insurrection. He spoke, for example, with House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, who asked him to call off the mob, according to Republican Rep. Jaime Lynn Herrera Beutler of Washington state, who said McCarthy told her about the call. She said in a statement, “That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said, ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’”

Jesus Christ. That's goddamned pathetic. A treasonous, traitorous nazi determined to remain in power despite the fact he had lost the election. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama also said he spoke with the president in that time period, telling reporters: “I said, ’Mr. President, they’ve taken the vice president out. They want me to get off the phone. I gotta go.” That call by Trump apparently first went to Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who then handed the phone to Tuberville. The gap in records was previously reported by the AP. The exact length of time of the gap was first reported by The Washington Post. The committee is focused on Trump’s actions that day because he waited hours to tell his supporters to stop the violence and leave the Capitol. The panel is also interested in the organization and financing of the rally that morning in Washington, D.C., where Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell.” Among the unanswered questions is how close organizers of the rally coordinated with White House officials. In many cases, the committee may not need direct confirmation from the White House about Trump’s calls. Lawmakers have already interviewed more than 500 witnesses, including several people in Trump’s inner circle who may be able to fill in those gaps. They are hampered, though, by the former president’s claims of executive privilege over his personal conversations, which have prompted many witnesses to refuse to answer some questions."

Precisely, why the 'Justice' Department needs to be investigating this entire fiasco. It has the power to force compliance.

3-18-22

Irony at its very best. Certainly, a figurative kick in the ass of the nazi element in the Republican Party. LOL. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. CBS News reports:

"A Colorado grand jury has indicted Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters in relation to an investigation into allegations of election equipment tampering and official misconduct. Peters, who has been a proponent of unfounded claims of widespread election fraud, is facing a 10-count indictment, according to Mesa County. The charges include attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, identity theft, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state. Peters announced last month that she was running to be Colorado's top election official, secretary of state. In January, Colorado's current secretary of state, Democrat Jena Griswold, filed a lawsuit to try to bar Peters from overseeing the 2022 elections after Peters failed to certify that she'd comply with election security protocols. The criminal indictment alleges that Peters and Knisley "devised and executed a deceptive scheme which was designed to influence public servants, breach security protocols, exceed permissible access to voting equipment, and set in motion the eventual distribution of confidential information to unauthorized people."

"According to the indictment, Peters and Knisely worked to get an individual who was not a county employee access to secure areas before and during a voting software upgrade in May 2021. The secretary of state's office previously said that only authorized state, county or Dominion Voting Systems staff were allowed to be present during that process. Peters, claiming this person was a county employee, introduced him to a state worker and a Dominion Voting Systems employee during the upgrade process. The indictment noted that the person whose identity Peters had used was not present at the office on those days. Officials have been trying to determine that person's identity. In early August, the indictment says, Colorado secretary of state employees learned that images of Mesa County election management systems and passwords had been posted online.

"Peters spoke last year at an event organized by Trump ally and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, who has frequently promoted unfounded election conspiracy theories. She and several candidates who have questioned the results of the 2020 election and are now running to be the top elections officials in their states."

Be interesting to see what comes of this.

3-11-22

Why all the foot-dragging? The Associated Press reports:

"The House panel investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol said Wednesday for the first time that its evidence suggests crimes may have been committed by former President Donald Trump and his associates in the failed effort to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Trump and his associates engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College, the House committee said in a court filing. Trump and those working with him spread false information about the outcome of the presidential election and pressured state officials to overturn the results, potentially violating multiple federal laws, the panel said. “The Select Committee also has a good-faith basis for concluding that the President and members of his Campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” the committee wrote in a filing submitted in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. The 221-page filing marks the committee’s most formal effort to link the former president to a federal crime, though the actual import of the filing is not clear. Lawmakers do not have the power to bring criminal charges on their own and can only make a referral to the Justice Department. The department has been investigating last year’s riot, but it has not given any indication that it is considering seeking charges against Trump."

The Department of Justice appears to be dragging its feet. Why?

NBC News reports:

"Former Attorney General William Barr said then-President Donald Trump became furious when Barr told him there was no evidence that the 2020 election was fraudulent. "I told him that all this stuff was bulls--- ... about election fraud. And, you know, it was wrong to be shoveling it out the way his team was," Barr said in an interview with NBC News' Lester Holt that is scheduled to air Sunday night. First highlights of the interview aired Thursday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." The televised interview was Barr's first since he stepped down as attorney general in late December 2020. Barr is publishing a book about his time in the Trump administration, which has prompted criticism from some people that he remained silent about Trump until he could profit from book sales."

Certainly, appears that way.

"Barr pushed back against allegations that he abused his position as attorney general by essentially acting as Trump's personal lawyer, targeting Trump's political enemies while cutting breaks for allies like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. "The narrative was I was a toady to Trump and I would do Trump’s bidding. And the media constantly went out with that story," Barr says in a clip airing Thursday night on "NBC Nightly News." Asked by Holt whether he had been a toady, Barr responded, "Well, I think no, because I tried to take every issue that came to me and decide it what I thought was the right thing." Barr acknowledged that Trump contributed to the image of him as the president's lackey, including by bringing his name up in the 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that led to Trump's first impeachment. In the call, which Trump would later describe as "perfect," he told Zelenskyy that he would have Barr reach out to him or his "people" concerning two investigations he wanted: one related to an email server tied to Trump’s former political rival Hillary Clinton and the other related to Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Barr told Holt he hadn't been aware of the scheme and was "livid" when he found out about what Trump had said. "This whole maneuver of trying to get the Ukrainians to investigate Biden — that was a harebrained scheme. It was ridiculous," Barr said."

If so, why didn't you immediately resign in protest?

"Trump, he said, "never really had a good idea of, you know, the role of the Department of Justice [and] to some extent, you know, the president’s role." Barr pointed to his publicly speaking out against Trump's election fraud claims as an instance of his standing up to the president. He said Trump was so enraged that he thought it would be his last day on the job. Barr said Trump summoned him to a meeting in the White House on Dec. 1, 2020, after The Associated Press published an interview in which Barr said there was no evidence of any widespread voter fraud in the election, despite Trump's claims to the contrary. "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election,” Barr told the AP. Barr said Trump called him in to a meeting that day in his private dining room and questioned him about his comments. Barr said he told Trump the Justice Department had investigated and found no evidence to support the various conspiracy theories that Trump and his legal team were pushing. "He was asking about different theories, and I had the answers. I was able to tell him, 'This was wrong because of this,'" Barr recounted. Trump listened, but "he was obviously getting very angry about this." Barr said he told Trump: "I understand you're upset with me. And I'm perfectly happy to tender my resignation." Barr said Trump then slapped his desk and said: "Accepted. Accepted." "And then — boom. He slapped it again. 'Accepted. Go home. Don't go back to your office. Go home. You're done,'" he said. In a letter responding to Barr's interview, Trump said he was the one who asked Barr to resign that day and said his account was a fabrication. Barr said Trump had White House lawyers stop him before he left the premises to tell him he wasn't fired, but Trump continued to take shots at him in public."

All the more reason Barr should have immediately called a news conference, resigned in protest. Certainly, would have rattled Trump's cage, exposed him for the unfit idiot he truly is.

2-4-22

Kangaroo justice. U.S. Supreme Court. The Washington Post reports:

"Ginni Thomas’s name stood out among the signatories of a December letter from conservative leaders, which blasted the work of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection as “overtly partisan political persecution.” One month later, her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took part in a case crucial to the same committee’s work: former president Donald Trump’s request to block the committee from getting White House records that were ordered released by President Biden and two lower courts. Thomas was the only justice to say he would grant Trump’s request. That vote has reignited fury among Justice Thomas’s critics, who say it illustrates a gaping hole in the court’s rules: Justices essentially decide for themselves whether they have a conflict of interest, and Thomas has rarely made such a choice in his three decades on the court. “I absolutely do believe that Clarence Thomas should have recused from the Jan. 6 case,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan advocacy group, who called the Supreme Court “the most powerful, least accountable, institution in Washington.” While the Supreme Court is supposed to operate under regulations guiding all federal judges, including a requirement that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” there’s no procedure to enforce that rule. Each justice can decide whether to recuse, and there is no way to appeal a Supreme Court member’s failure to do so.

"Ginni Thomas has long been one of the nation’s most outspoken conservatives. During her husband’s time on the Supreme Court, she has run organizations designed to activate right-wing networks, worked for Republicans in Congress, harshly criticized Democrats who she said were trying to make the country “ungovernable,” and handed out awards to those who agree with her agenda. Ginni Thomas also worked closely with the Trump administration and met with the president, and has come under fire over messages praising Jan. 6 crowds before the attack on the Capitol. In a number of instances, her activism has overlapped with cases that have been decided by Clarence Thomas. Thomas’s vote in the Jan. 6 case is such a striking conflict of interest, critics say, that some hope it sparks further support for long-sputtering efforts to toughen rules governing the justices — an effort bolstered by a White House commission last month that noted the inherent problem with court’s recusals. “It doesn’t get more partisan than sending a letter to the Republican caucus” criticizing the Jan. 6 committee, said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), author of several bills that would require an independent review to determine when Supreme Court justices should recuse. He said in an interview that Clarence Thomas’s conflicts with his wife’s work make him “the poster child” for passing the ethics legislation."

2-4-22

Walls clearly closing in on the Trump nazi, his family, and other henchmen. The Associated Press reports:

"The prosecutor who’s investigating whether Donald Trump and others broke the law by trying to pressure Georgia officials to overturn Joe Biden’s presidential election victory is asking the FBI for security help after the former president railed against prosecutors investigating him. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Sunday wrote a letter to the FBI office in Atlanta asking for a risk assessment of the county courthouse, where her office is located, and government center. She also asked the FBI to provide protective resources, “to include intelligence and federal agents.” At his rally Saturday night outside Houston, Trump lashed out against the ongoing investigations in New York, Georgia and Washington and called on his supporters to stage mass protests if he is mistreated by them. In her letter, Willis quoted comments Trump made at the rally. “If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt,” Trump said. The comments were particularly notable given Trump’s role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol building. Trump also suggested he might pardon those charged for their role in the riot if he runs for president again and wins reelection."

Outrageous, isn't it? Why has Trump yet to be indicted for treasonously inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection?

Readers will recall:

"Willis last year opened an investigation into any potential attempts to improperly influence the 2020 general election in Georgia by Trump and his associates. A special grand jury is set to be seated May 2 to aid in that investigation and Willis asked the FBI to take the steps she requested well in advance of that date. “My staff and I will not be influenced or intimidated by anyone as this investigation moves forward,” Willis wrote. She added that her office has already taken steps to address security concerns “considering the communications we have received from persons unhappy with our commitment to fulfill our duties.” She said she’s also working with county officials on the need for extra security measures as the investigation progresses. But she said security concerns were “escalated” over the weekend as Trump focused on the prosecutors looking into his actions, calling them “vicious, horrible people” and “racists.” The rhetoric is especially alarming, Willis wrote, in light of Trump’s suggestion that if he returns to the White House, he could give pardons to people who stormed the U.S. Capitol last year in an effort to block the certification of Biden’s win. “We must work together to keep the public safe and ensure that we do not have a tragedy in Atlanta similar to what happened at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021,” Willis wrote in the letter to the FBI. Jenna Sellitto, a spokesperson for the FBI in Atlanta, confirmed receipt of the letter but declined to comment further."

Fascinating, isn't it?

"In his pushback against the various investigations centered on him, Trump has taken particular aim at New York Attorney General Letitia James, who recently said her office has uncovered evidence that Trump’s company used “fraudulent or misleading” valuations of his properties to secure loans and tax benefits. That includes playing a video at a previous rally that features footage of her vowing to take on Trump as she ran for election. Trump did not mention James, Willis, or any of the others by name Saturday. Willis has declined to speak about the specifics of her investigation, but in a recent interview with The Associated Press, she confirmed that its scope includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election. In a statement earlier this month, Trump said his call to Raffensperger was “perfect” and said he did not say anything wrong. Graham has also denied any wrongdoing."

Believe it?

NBC News reports:

"Some Trump White House documents preserved by the National Archives were ripped up by the former president and had to be taped back together by government officials, the records agency said Tuesday. "Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump,” the agency said in a statement to NBC News. "As has been reported in the press since 2018, White House records management officials during the Trump administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records," a reference to reports that Trump habitually ripped up documents and threw them away after reading them. “These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House,” the agency said."

Readers will recall:

"The National Archives recently turned over hundreds of pages of Trump White House documents to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The records were handed over after a months-long court battle that culminated with the Supreme Court deciding last month to reject Trump’s efforts to block their release."

Interestingly:

"The National Archives did not make clear in its statement Tuesday whether some of the documents the committee received included the torn up and re-taped records. The Jan. 6 committee did not immediately return a request for comment. The President Records Act requires that all presidential records be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations, the agency's statement noted. Politico reported in 2018 that White House officials had to use clear Scotch tape to reconstruct large piles of shredded paper from former President Donald Trump as if it were a “jigsaw puzzle.”

In an editorial, NPR opines:

"With former President Donald Trump off mainstream social media, his messages aren't as ubiquitous. It makes it harder for them to break through. But in recent rallies and statements, Trump has seemed to escalate a message rooted in racism and lies. Trump alleged during a rally in Texas over the weekend that Black prosecutors investigating him are "racist," and he is again flirting with mob violence, calling for mass protests if they do anything he deems to be "wrong or illegal." And after teasing a 2024 run — "to take back that beautiful, beautiful house that happens to be white" — he said one of his actions as president could be to pardon those convicted as a result of their actions during last year's insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. More than 750 people and counting have been charged with crimes. "If I run and I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly," Trump said. "We will treat them fairly. And if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons, because they are being treated so unfairly." Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called Trump's comments "inappropriate." But Graham criticized Trump after the Capitol attack itself, only to wrap his arms around him again."

No honor, Lindsey? No principles, sir? Just nazi partisanship, Senator?

"Tempered GOP criticism isn't something that has cowed Trump, and neither has the violence that's taken place in his name. Instead, Trump is pouring gasoline on a fire of white grievance."

Called racist fascism. Nazi America. De facto fascist police-state, democratic republic in name only. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

2-4-22

Blame the gutless idiot in the Texas governor's mansion. United Press International reports:

"In October, amid a historic surge of Texas National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, one soldier's leader told him "not to worry" about getting sent there. He could sit this one out. The part-time senior noncommissioned officer said he still feared an unanticipated call-up -- he owns a small business, and he has a son with a disability. Usually, long-term Guard deployments come from the federal government, with nearly a year's notice -- the NCO had several months to settle his affairs before two previous deployments. But Operation Lone Star is different. Faced with a humanitarian crisis along the Rio Grande, pressured by conservative rivals and chided by right-wing cable pundits, Gov. Greg Abbott decided last fall to move thousands of troops to the border as quickly as possible. And the Texas Military Department, which oversees the state's National and State Guard branches, did all it could to comply -- with haste.

"A few days after being told he'd likely sit the deployment out, the NCO was ordered to report within 72 hours, he said. If he didn't, his commanders told him, the state would issue an arrest warrant. "I had to cancel $60,000 worth of business contracts," the NCO, who requested anonymity because he feared retaliation from Guard leaders, said in a text to Army Times and The Texas Tribune. His employees all quit. After "three weeks of sitting on my ass with zero task or purpose," he was sent home. But it may be too late to save his business. He says he still hasn't found a new project and had to sell his company's van to pay his mortgage, car payments and business loans. "I didn't want to get out of bed for a week," the soldier said. "I was unemployed ... and [I] felt exactly as if [the Texas Military Department] put me there because of their ... lack of planning and leadership." His story is just one of many hardships service members say have resulted from Abbott's unprecedented border security push, called Operation Lone Star.

"During a two-month period beginning in September, Operation Lone Star ballooned from a lean 1,000-volunteer outfit to a mandatory mobilization of up to 10,000 members of the Texas Military Department. According to a senior Guard leader's leaked comments during a virtual town hall for unit leaders, they're expecting the current wave of troops to be there for a year, and they're preparing for yet another wave of deployments."

1-28-22

New York Attorney General closing in on the Trump nazi. The Associated Press reports:

"The New York attorney general says her investigators have uncovered evidence that former President Donald Trump’s company used “fraudulent or misleading” valuations of its golf clubs, skyscrapers and other property to get loans and tax benefits. In a court filing late Tuesday, lawyers for Attorney General Letitia James told a judge they have not decided whether to bring a lawsuit in connection with the allegations, but that investigators should be allowed to question Trump and his two eldest children under oath as part of the civil probe. The Trump Organization issued a statement Wednesday calling the investigation “baseless” and politically motivated. The court documents contain the attorney general’s most detailed accounting yet of a long-running investigation into allegations that Trump’s company exaggerated the value of its holdings to impress lenders or misstated what land was worth to slash its tax burden. The Trump Organization, James’ office said, overstated the value of land donations made in New York and California on paperwork submitted to the IRS to justify several million dollars in tax deductions. When giving estimates of Trump’s wealth, the company misreported the size of his Manhattan penthouse, saying it was nearly three times its actual size — a difference in value of about $200 million, James’ office said, citing deposition testimony from Trump’s longtime financial chief Allen Weisselberg, who was charged last year with tax fraud in a parallel criminal investigation. James’ office detailed its findings in a court motion seeking to force Trump, his daughter Ivanka Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. to comply with subpoenas seeking their testimony. Investigators, the court papers said, have “developed significant additional evidence indicating that the Trump Organization used fraudulent or misleading asset valuations to obtain a host of economic benefits, including loans, insurance coverage, and tax deductions.” In its statement, the Trump Organization said “the only one misleading the public is Letitia James.” “She defrauded New Yorkers by basing her entire candidacy on a promise to get Trump at all costs without having seen a shred of evidence and in violation of every conceivable ethical rule,” they wrote. “Three years later she is now faced with the stark reality that she has no case.” Donald Trump Jr. said on Twitter that the investigation “is nothing more than political retribution from her on behalf of the entire Dem Party. She should be disbarred!”

If there is nothing to hide, Trump and his henchmen should welcome the investigation. Do all they can to cooperate instead of stonewalling.

"In a statement late Tuesday, James’ office said the evidence gathered so far shows that her investigation should proceed unimpeded. “For more than two years, the Trump Organization has used delay tactics and litigation in an attempt to thwart a legitimate investigation into its financial dealings,” James said. “Thus far in our investigation, we have uncovered significant evidence that suggests Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit.” Although James’ investigation is separate from the criminal investigation, her office has been involved in both, dispatching several lawyers to work side by side with prosecutors from the Manhattan D.A.’s office. James’ office said that under state law, it can seek ”a broad range of remedies” against companies found to have committed commercial fraud, including revoking licenses to conduct business in the state, seeking the removal of company officers or seeking restitution and “disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.”

Get this:

"In the court papers, James’ office said evidence shows that Trump’s company:

— Listed his Seven Springs estate north of New York City as being worth $291 million, based on a dubious assumption that it could reap $161 million from building nine luxury homes.

— Added a “brand premium” of 15% to 30% to the value of some properties because they carried the Trump name, despite financial statements explicitly stating they did not incorporate brand value.

— Inflated the value of a suburban New York golf club by millions of dollars by counting fees for memberships that were not sold or were never paid.

— Valued a Park Avenue condominium tower at $350 million, based on proceeds it could reap from unsold units, even though many of those apartments were likely to sell for less because they were covered by rent stabilization laws.

— Valued an apartment being rented to Ivanka Trump at as high as $25 million, even though she had an option to buy it for $8.5 million."

— Said in documents that its stake in an office building, 40 Wall Street, was worth $525 million to $602 million — two to three times the estimate made by appraisers working for the lender Capital One."

Fascinating, isn't it?

The Washington Post reports:

"New York Attorney General Letitia James alleged on Tuesday that former president Donald Trump’s business inflated the value of his properties and misstated his personal worth in representations to lenders, insurance brokers and other players in his real estate empire. James, a Democrat who is leading a civil probe into Trump and his business, spelled out the claims in a court filing late Tuesday that was offered in support of her bid to see Trump and his adult children deposed under oath. In the nearly 160-page document, James cited examples of Trump allegedly lending his signature to financial statements that estimated the worth of properties in the Trump Organization portfolio and the value of his own fortune — estimates that James’s team has long suggested were misleading and potentially key to taking legal action against the Manhattan-based company. “Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., and Ivanka Trump have all been closely involved in the transactions in question, so we won’t tolerate their attempts to evade testifying in this investigation,” James said in a statement released Tuesday night along with the documents. James said that the trio’s testimony is necessary to advance a probe that is based on at least 900,000 documents obtained from the Trump Organization, interviews with employees and other evidence. The filings were in response to a motion to quash subpoenas to the three Trumps that demanded they sit for depositions and produce related records. Eric Trump, who along with his siblings has served as a high-ranking officer at the company, was deposed in late 2020. Trump Organization attorney Alan Futerfas, who is representing Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump in this matter, argued that the subpoenas violate the constitutional rights of the family, which is also under criminal investigation in New York by the Manhattan district attorney. Lawyers for the Trumps have also said that James has demonstrated a political bias, including in statements she made on the campaign trail and in other public appearances. Futerfas said that in the submission on Tuesday, James’s team “never addresses the fundamental contentions of our motion to quash or stay the subpoenas.” In a statement Wednesday morning, the Trump Organization accused James of trying to “mislead the public yet again” and said her allegations “are baseless and will be vigorously defended.”

If there is indeed nothing to hide, Trump and his henchmen should be complying and not stonewalling every step of the way.

"James and her office combed through statements of personal financial condition that were compiled by Donald Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, from 2004 until 2020. They discovered numerous alleged discrepancies between the actual condition of his properties and his assertions about them in the statements. In her filing on Tuesday, James alleged that Trump’s company provided statements to banks and insurers that included incorrect or misleading information on his Seven Springs estate in Westchester County, N.Y., his triplex in Trump Tower, his Scotland golf resort, his Westchester golf club, Trump Park Avenue in Manhattan, and his 40 Wall Street office building. James also alleged that Trump’s company passed faulty information to the Internal Revenue Service regarding his Los Angeles golf club and Seven Springs. Investigators argued that outside lawyers, appraisers and engineers helped generate millions of dollars in tax savings for Trump by misrepresenting the properties. Trump’s statements of financial condition have come under scrutiny previously. Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, told Congress in early 2019 that the statements had been given to Deutsche Bank. A month later The Washington Post reported on additional discrepancies in Trump’s 2011, 2012 and 2013 statements. Investigators also tied Trump directly to some of the conduct under investigation, showing that he personally signed off on a letter to one commercial lender regarding the value of his brand, which James alleged was faulty. In another instance Trump initialed and wrote “ok” on an email from his longtime chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg about agreeing to a lease as part of a refinancing of the 40 Wall Street property, according to the filing. Weisselberg appears to remain a central obstacle in James’s investigation, with the attorney general’s office arguing in the filings that his unwillingness to provide information about Trump’s role in the business made it more essential that Trump be compelled to testify. During testimony in September 2020, Weisselberg “invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to more than 500 questions over five-and-a-half hours,” according to the filing."

If there is nothing to hide, Donny boy, why are you and your henchmen stonewalling?

"James is also a partner in the long-running criminal investigation now overseen by recently sworn-in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) — a relationship that Trump and two of his adult children have pointed to as proof that evidence collected in the civil case can easily be shared with criminal investigators. Tuesday’s filing by the attorney general was in response to a Jan. 3 motion to quash subpoenas for the latest round of requested testimony and records. The Trumps have asked a New York State Supreme Court judge to void the subpoenas or at least put off their enforcement until the criminal case is over on the grounds that the two investigations are inextricably linked through James."

1-28-22

No honor, Rudy? No principles? The Washington Post reports:

"On Dec. 14, 2020, the day of the electoral college vote, Republican electors convened in the capitals of five states that Joe Biden had won. They declared themselves “duly elected and qualified” and sent signed certificates to Washington purporting to affirm Donald Trump as the actual victor. At the time, the gatherings in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin — all states that had officially approved Biden electors — were widely derided as political stunts intended to bolster Trump’s baseless allegations of fraud. Understanding the origins of the rival slates has now become a focus of the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to people familiar with the panel’s activities. Two Democratic attorneys general have asked federal prosecutors in recent days to investigate whether crimes were committed in assembling or submitting the Trump slates. The Trump electors gathered in plain sight, assisted by campaign officials and Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, who said publicly that the rival slates were necessary and appropriate. Internally, Giuliani oversaw the effort, according to former campaign officials and party leaders who, like some others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. One of the people familiar with the plan said Giuliani was assisted at times by an anchor from the right-wing network One America News. The extent and particulars of the behind-the-scenes coordination — and the refusal by some Trump electors to go along with the plan — have not been previously reported. The campaign scrambled to help electors gain access to Capitol buildings, as is required in some states, and to distribute draft language for the certificates that would later be submitted to Congress, according to the former campaign officials and party leaders. The campaign also worked to find replacements for the electors who were unable to participate, or unwilling. Among the unwilling were a state GOP chairman, a lawmaker who was one of the first in Congress to endorse Trump and a son of legendary Republican senator Johnny Isakson, The Washington Post found. When the electoral college votes were cast, Trump’s allies claimed that sending rival slates to Washington echoed a move by Democrats in a close race in Hawaii six decades earlier. They said they were merely locking in electors to ensure they would be available if courts determined that Trump had won any of those states. Republican electors in two additional states, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, sent certificates, but those documents explicitly stated that they were to be considered only if the election results were upended. In ways that were not publicly known until months later, however, the rival slates were leveraged as evidence in last-ditch efforts to give Vice President Mike Pence the ability to reject Biden’s victory when he presided over the electoral vote count in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021."

Delusionally believe it's patriotic to fraudulently overturn an election, that is, the will of the electorate?

Here's how the process is supposed to work:

"Before Election Day, presidential candidates or their parties nominate a slate of potential electors in each state where they appear on the ballot. After the popular vote is certified, the governor in each state is required under federal law to certify the winning candidate’s electors. The electors then meet in mid-December and send signed certificates recording their votes to, among other places, the national archivist and the president of the U.S. Senate. The votes are tallied on Jan. 6."

Here's the problem:

"In a subpoena Tuesday to lawyer Jenna Ellis, who worked closely with Giuliani, the House committee wrote that she “prepared and circulated two memos purporting to analyze the constitutional authority for the Vice President to reject or delay counting electoral votes from states that had submitted alternate slates of electors.” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), who referred the matter to federal prosecutors, last week said that submitting the electoral certificates to historical archives and government officials turned what might have been a political event into a “an open-and-shut case of forgery of a public record.” “This is not political theater. It‘s not protected speech,” Nessel said in an interview. “It’s an attack on the very fabric of our system of government. And so it deserves to have federal prosecutorial and investigative scrutiny.”

For damned good reason.

Get this:

"A spokesman for the Michigan Republican Party, Gustavo Portela, accused Nessel of “playing political games.”

Think so? Believe the bullshit? That is, deception embraced and promulgated by the nazi element in the Republican Party? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said this week that he, too, had referred the matter to federal prosecutors, while his counterpart in Wisconsin — fellow Democrat Josh Kaul — said he believed the federal government should investigate any unlawful act that furthered “seditious conspiracy.”

Fascinating, isn't it?

"Giuliani did not respond to messages from The Post seeking comment. A spokesman for Trump also did not respond."

What could they say? Extremely difficult to defend the indefensible. Especially, when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

"Ellis declined to comment on her role in the Trump elector plan. She did not respond to a request for comment about the subpoena."

Surprised?

"Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn told The Post he took part in conference calls with the campaign’s legal team, including Giuliani, to discuss elector participation. “This was in total congruence with the overall effort to send it back to the states,” Epshteyn said last week. “With the rampant fraud across the country, the interplay of the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act made it important to have alternate slates of electors be available when a challenge to states’ slate of electors would be successful.”

LOL. The bastard is either shamelessly lying, -- or, psychotically believes Trump's lies.

Here's the truth:

"Multiple courts, recounts and audits have found no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election."

Yet, the lies continue unabated.

"Pence’s chief of staff, Marc Short, told The Post that Giuliani and his associates forwarded letters from individual state legislators objecting to Biden’s electors and arguing the Trump electors should be recognized instead. Short and Pence’s legal team reviewed the unsolicited letters but were not persuaded there was any legal basis to accept Trump electors who had not been certified by their states, Short said."

That's effectively the bottom line. The report goes on and on as pressure increases on the Trump nazi and his henchmen.

The Associated Press reports:

"The Georgia prosecutor looking into possible attempts to interfere in the 2020 general election by former President Donald Trump and others has asked for a special grand jury to aid the investigation. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Thursday sent a letter to Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Christopher Brasher asking him to impanel a special grand jury. She wrote in the letter that her office “has received information indicating a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions.” Willis has declined to speak about the specifics of her investigation, but in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month she confirmed that its scope includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election."

Not surprisingly:

"A Trump spokesman has previously dismissed the investigation as a politically motivated “witch hunt.” Graham has also denied any wrongdoing."

Think so?

"Willis’ office has tried to interview multiple witnesses and gather evidence, but some witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate without a subpoena, she wrote in the letter to Brasher. For example, Willis wrote in the letter that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom she calls an “essential witness,” has “indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena by my office.” A special grand jury would have the power to subpoena witnesses. Raffensperger’s office did not immediately respond to an email Thursday asking whether he would decline to participate without a subpoena. Special grand juries, which are not used often in Georgia, can help in the investigation of complex matters. They do not have the power to return an indictment but can make recommendations to prosecutors on criminal prosecutions. Willis said the special grand jury is needed because it can serve a term longer than a normal grand jury term. It would also be able to focus on this investigation alone, allowing it to focus on the complex facts and circumstances. And having a special grand jury would mean that the regular seated grand jury wouldn’t have to deal with this investigation in addition to their regular duties, Willis wrote."

Get this:

"Willis, who took office in January 2021, sent letters to top elected officials in Georgia in February instructing them to preserve any records related to the general election, particularly any evidence of attempts to influence election officials. The probe includes “potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local government bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” the letters said. In her letter to Brasher, Willis said her office has learned that people who may have tried to influence Georgia’s election have had contact with the secretary of state, the state attorney general and the U.S. attorney’s office in Atlanta. That means her office is the only one with the authority to investigate these matters that is not also a potential witness."

Think Trump and his henchmen aren't feeling the heat?

The Washington Post reports:

"The Atlanta-area prosecutor weighing whether former president Donald Trump and others committed crimes by trying to pressure Georgia election officials has requested a special purpose grand jury to aid in her investigation. In a letter Thursday, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) told the chief judge of Fulton County’s Superior Court that the move was needed because a “significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony.” Willis cited Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) as an example. Fani has previously confirmed that part of her probe centers on the Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Raffensperger in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” enough votes to overturn Joe Biden’s win in the state’s presidential election. ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor. Willis launched the criminal probe in February. At the time, a Trump spokesman dismissed the investigation, calling it “the Democrats’ latest attempt to score political points by continuing their witch hunt against President Trump.”

Think so?

Interestingly:

"In her letter to Christopher S. Brasher, chief judge of Fulton County’s Superior Court, Willis cited several advantages to impaneling a rarely used special purpose grand jury. Among them: It could sit for a longer period of time than a normal grand jury and it would focus solely on the matter at hand, which she called “appropriate to the complexity of the facts and circumstances involved.” Willis noted that the type of grand jury she is requesting would not have the authority to return an indictment but could make recommendations concerning criminal prosecutions. In an interview earlier this month with the Associated Press, Willis said that her team was making solid process in its investigation. “I believe in 2022 a decision will be made in that case,” Willis said. “I certainly think that in the first half of the year that decisions will be made.” In her letter Thursday, Willis called Raffensperger “an essential witness to the investigation” and said he “has indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena.” Willis pointed to comments Raffensperger made during an October interview with Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “If she wants to interview me, there’s a process for that, and I will gladly participate in that because I want to make sure that I follow the law, follow the Constitution,” Raffensperger told Todd. “And when you get a grand jury summons, you respond to it.”

Think the following isn't incriminating?

"At one point during his call with Raffensperger, Trump told him: “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

More pressure brought to bear. The Associated Press reports:

"Judges have approved a request for a special grand jury by the Georgia prosecutor who’s investigating whether former President Donald Trump and others broke the law by trying to pressure Georgia officials to throw out Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week sent a letter to county superior court Chief Judge Christopher Brasher asking him to impanel a special grand jury. Brasher issued an order Monday saying the request was considered and approved by a majority of the superior court judges. The special grand jury is to be seated May 2 for a period of up to a year, Brasher’s order says. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney is assigned to supervise and assist the special grand jury. Willis wrote in her letter to Brasher that her office “has received information indicating a reasonable probability that the State of Georgia’s administration of elections in 2020, including the State’s election of the President of the United States, was subject to possible criminal disruptions.” She said her office has “opened an investigation into any coordinated attempts to unlawfully alter the outcome of the 2020 elections in this state.” The special grand jury “shall be authorized to investigate any and all facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to alleged violations of the laws of the State of Georgia, as set forth in the request of the District Attorney,” the order says."

Interestingly:

"Willis has declined to speak about the specifics of her investigation, but in an interview with The Associated Press earlier this month she confirmed that its scope includes — but is not limited to — a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a November 2020 phone call between U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Raffensperger, the abrupt resignation of the U.S. attorney in Atlanta on Jan. 4, 2021, and comments made during December 2020 Georgia legislative committee hearings on the election. In a statement last week, Trump called his call to Raffensperger “perfect” and said he did not say anything wrong. Graham has also denied any wrongdoing. Special grand juries, which are not used often in Georgia, can help in the investigation of complex matters. They do not have the power to return an indictment but can make recommendations to prosecutors on criminal prosecutions."

Readers will recall:

"Willis wrote in her letter that the special grand jury is needed because it can serve for longer than a normal grand jury term, which is two months in Fulton County. It also would be able to focus on this investigation alone, allowing it to focus on the complex facts and circumstances. And having a special grand jury would mean the regular seated grand jury would not have to deal with this investigation in addition to their regular duties, Willis wrote. Willis’ investigation became public last February when she sent letters to top elected officials in Georgia instructing them to preserve any records related to the general election, particularly any evidence of attempts to influence election officials. The probe includes “potential violations of Georgia law prohibiting the solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local government bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration,” the letters said."

1-28-22

Things certainly aren't going well for the Trump nazi and his henchmen. The walls are finally closing in. The Associated Press reports:

"In a rebuff to former President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court is allowing the release of presidential documents sought by the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The justices on Wednesday rejected a bid by Trump to withhold the documents from the committee until the issue is finally resolved by the courts. Trump’s lawyers had hoped to prolong the court fight and keep the documents on hold."

If there is nothing to hide, why all the stonewalling?

"Following the high court’s action, there is no legal impediment to turning over the documents, which are held by the National Archives and Records Administration. They include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts and handwritten notes dealing with Jan. 6 from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows. The committee already has begun to receive records Trump wanted kept secret, said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., the committee chairman and vice chairwoman, respectively. “The Supreme Court’s action tonight is a victory for the rule of law and American democracy,” Thompson and Cheney said in a statement pledging to “uncover all the facts about the violence of January 6th and its causes.” White House spokesman Mike Gwin called the ruling “an important step forward” for the investigation, “and in ensuring accountability for an unprecedented assault on our democracy and the rule of law.”

About time.

"The House committee agreed to defer its attempt to get some documents, at the request of the Biden White House. The current administration was concerned that releasing all of the Trump administration documents sought by the committee could compromise national security and executive privilege. Alone among the justices, Clarence Thomas said he would have granted Trump’s request to keep the documents on hold."

Surprise, surprise. LOL.

"Trump’s attorneys had asked the high court to reverse rulings by the federal appeals court in Washington and block the release of the records even after President Joe Biden waived executive privilege over them. In an unsigned opinion, the court acknowledged there are “serious and substantial concerns” over whether a former president can win a court order to prevent disclosure of certain records from his time in office in a situation like this one. But the court noted that the appeals court determined that Trump’s assertion of privilege over the documents would fail under any circumstances, “even if he were the incumbent. It said the issue of a former president’s ability to claim executive privilege would have to wait for another day. The court took issue with the conclusion of the appeals court that downplayed a former president’s interests, suggesting that the current president could in essence ignore his predecessor’s claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush, wrote separately to argue that “a former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim.” But Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, did not object to the outcome Wednesday, and neither did the other two justices Trump selected, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett."

Trump's 'Big Lie:'

"Before and after the riot, Trump promoted false theories about election fraud and suggested the “real insurrection” was on Election Day, when he lost to Biden. Repeating arguments they made before lower courts, Trump’s attorneys had urged the justices to step in, arguing that the case concerned all future occupants of the White House. Former presidents had “a clear right to protect their confidential records from premature dissemination,” Trump’s lawyers said. “Congress cannot engage in meandering fishing expeditions in the hopes of embarrassing President Trump or exposing the President’s and his staff’s sensitive and privileged communications ‘for the sake of exposure,’” they added."

That's a crock of shit perpetrated by these shysters. Justice demands Trump needs to be prosecuted for treasonously inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Why is the kingpin of the insurrection receiving special treatment?

"But the House committee responded in its high court brief that although the facts of the case are “unprecedented,” the decision was “not a difficult one.” There was no explanation for the timing of the court’s action. But the National Archives told the appeals court and Trump’s lawyers that it would turn over some documents it asserted were not part of the court case on Wednesday absent a new court order. Also on Wednesday, the House committee investigating the Capitol insurrection issued subpoenas to leaders of an alt-right group who appeared at events promoting baseless claims of voter fraud after the 2020 election. The committee demanded records and testimony from Nick Fuentes and Patrick Casey — internet personalities who have promoted white supremacist beliefs — regarding what lawmakers say is their promotion of unsupported claims about the election and their presence on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, 2021. Since its creation last summer, the committee has interviewed almost 350 people as it seeks to create a comprehensive record of the attack and the events leading up to it."

Pressure on Trump and his henchmen certainly mounting. NPR reports:

"During the chaotic two months following the 2020 presidential election, groups of Republicans in seven states won by Joe Biden met and signed documents falsely asserting that Donald Trump was or may be the rightful recipient of their state's Electoral College votes. The efforts, which in many cases seem to have been coordinated by high-ranking members of Trump's campaign team, weren't successful. Congress did not accept any of the illegitimate results on Jan. 6, 2021. But the actions by those groups across the U.S. still may have been illegal. Attorneys general in at least two of the seven states where the Republicans met, Michigan and New Mexico, say they have referred investigations regarding the separate slates of electors up the ladder to federal prosecutors. "Election laws are the foundation of our democracy and must be respected," said New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas, in a statement to NPR confirming his referral of the matter to U.S. Attorney Fred Federici. Republicans in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin also sent in illegitimate Electoral College results, according to public records requests and subsequent disclosures by the left-leaning watchdog group American Oversight. Those efforts were uncovered shortly after the election, but they're now getting renewed scrutiny for a number of reasons."

Why the delay? Over a year has passed. Why all the foot dragging?

"The House committee tasked with investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol is focusing on them, according to the panel's chairperson, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss. The committee subpoenaed two high-ranking Trump campaign officials last week who were reportedly involved in the scheme: Rudy Giuliani and Boris Epshteyn. Epshteyn told MSNBC on Friday that he was involved in the effort, and the The Washington Post and CNN reported last week on Giuliani's involvement. "We are concerned that documents have been filed saying they were individuals responsible for conducting and certifying elections, and they are not," said Thompson over the weekend on CBS. "And when you falsify documents, in most instances, that's a criminal act."

Again, why the delay? Why special treatment not accorded the rest of the population?

"The announcements this month from Balderas and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel similarly seemed to indicate there could be legal ramifications for people in Trump's orbit who sought to overturn the election, after more than a year without any. Ben Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election attorney, called it "pretty unlikely" anyone involved in the scheme to send fake election results sees jail time, for instance, because there aren't clear laws that outlaw the specific action."

Again, why special treatment for the top of the food chain not accorded the bottom and middle class? Why are these bastards at the very top nearly always granted a free pass?

"Nessel, of Michigan, mentioned forgery and conspiracy against the U.S. as possible charges, but Ginsberg said what transpired in 2020 doesn't fit cleanly. "What went on was certainly intentionally misleading," Ginsberg told NPR. "But I think it is one of those areas probably not contemplated by those who drafted the laws, so the specific statutes are not immediately obvious — as bad as this was."

Clearly, treason. Yet, no accountability.

"This scenario is itself an argument, Ginsberg says, in favor of reforming the Electoral Count Act, which governs the process for certifying the presidential election. The law is notoriously vague when it comes to settling electoral disputes, which opens the door for scenarios like 2020 where a losing party can submit a competing set of electors in hopes of taking advantage of cracks in the poorly written law. Momentum is building in Congress for refreshing the 1887 law, and Ginsburg says rewriting it would go a long way toward discouraging losing parties from trying similar tactics in the future. "The key to the electoral system is the integrity of the people involved," Ginsberg said. "There is no way possible to legislate for every kind of bad act. All you can do is firm up the guardrails around the process."

Yet, commit a crime on the bottom of the food chain or middle class, guess what? Nearly always, get it figuratively shoved hard up your ass.

1-28-22

Dysfunctional U.S. Senate. The Associated Press reports:

"Senators faced off in emotional, raw debate Wednesday on voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights leaders say is vital for protecting democracy but that’s almost certain to be defeated without a filibuster rules change. It’s a stunning setback for President Joe Biden and his party. Despite his late push, Biden has been unable to persuade two holdout Democrats, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, to change Senate rules so the party can overpower a Republican filibuster that is blocking the voting bill. The two senators have withstood an onslaught of criticism from Black leaders and civil rights organizations, and they risk further political fallout as other groups and even their own colleagues threaten to yank campaign support. In piercing speeches, the debate is carrying echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed by opponents of civil rights legislation. It comes as Democrats and other voting advocates nationwide warn that Republican-led states are passing laws making it more difficult for Black Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed the fight is not over and ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states won’t end up hurting voter access and turnout. “We are going to keep fighting long after today,” Schumer said Wednesday as he opened the Senate."

Empty, hollow, meaningless rhetoric.

"Democrats decided to push ahead at a tumultuous time for the president and his party. Biden is marking his first year in office with his priorities stalling out in the face of solid Republican opposition and the Democrats’ inability to unite around their own goals. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act combines earlier bills into one package that would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots — which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic — and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. Both Manchin and Sinema say they support the package, which has passed the House, but they are unwilling to change the Senate rules to muscle it through that chamber over Republican objections. With a 50-50 split, Democrats have a narrow Senate majority — Vice President Kamala Harris can break a tie — but they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome the GOP filibuster. Instead, Schumer announced the Senate will vote on a more specific rules change for a “talking filibuster” on this one bill — requiring senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections. Ahead of initial voting, one pivotal Democrat, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, announced he would join in supporting the limited Schumer plan to pass the voting bill, noting his career as an astronaut and combat veteran. “If NASA functioned like the United States Senate, they would never get the rocket off the launchpad,” Kelly tweeted."

Total dysfunction.

"But even the proposal for a “talking filibuster” is expected to fail, since Manchin and Sinema have said they are unwilling to change the rules on a party-line vote by Democrats alone. Emotions were on display as the debate began. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois asked Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell if he would pause for a question, but the Republican leader left the chamber refusing to respond. Durbin said he would have asked McConnell: “Does he really believe that there’s no evidence of voter suppression?” The No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, said flatly at one point: “I am not a racist.”

Yes, sir, you are. You've bought the Trump nazi's lies. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"McConnell, who led his party in doing away with the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees during Donald Trump’s presidency, warned off changing the rules again."

Goddamned hypocrite. A Republican nazi.

"McConnell derided the “fake hysteria” from Democrats over the states’ new voting laws and called the pending bill a sprawling federal takeover of election systems. He said doing away with filibuster rules would “break the Senate.”

Look in the mirror, you hypocritical fascist.

"Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowksi said a bipartisan coalition of senators should work on the legislation, to ensure voter access, particularly in far-flung areas like her state of Alaska, and to shore up Americans’ faith in democracy. “We don’t need, we do not need a repeat of 2020 when by all accounts our last president, having lost the election, sought to change the results,” said Murkowski. She said the Senate debate had declined to a troubling state: “You’re either a racist or a hypocrite. Really, really? Is that where we are?”

Called the truth, Senator. Sadly, so.

"Just as Manchin and Sinema blocked Biden’s broad “Build Back Better” domestic spending package, the two senators are now dashing hopes for another major part of Biden’s presidential agenda. They are infuriating many of their colleagues and facing a barrage of criticism, particularly from civil rights leaders."

Well-deserved. Again, rightly so.

"Manchin did open the door to a more tailored package of voting law changes — including to the Electoral Count Act, which was tested during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol — that he said a bipartisan group of senators are working on and could draw Republican support."

You're in the wrong party, Senator. You've bought the Trump nazi's bullshit.

"Once reluctant himself to change Senate rules, Biden has stepped up his pressure on senators to do just that. But the push from the White House, including Biden’s blistering speech last week in Atlanta comparing opponents to segregationists, is seen as too late."

Too little. Way too late.

"Leading sports figures from Manchin’s home state of West Virginia also have weighed in. In a letter last week, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban, NBA Hall of Famer Jerry West and others urged him to support the legislation. The political group Emily’s List said it won’t endorse Sinema if she cannot support a path forward for the voting bill. Before Republicans lowered the vote threshold for Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, Democrats had similarly dropped it to a simple majority for confirmation of administrative positions and lower court nominees. It typically takes a 67-vote supermajority to change party rules, but both were done on party-line votes."

Neither party is worth a shit. For totally different reasons.

The Associated Press reports:

"Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights leaders say is vital to protecting democracy collapsed when two senators refused to join their own party in changing Senate rules to overcome a Republican filibuster after a raw, emotional debate. The outcome Wednesday night was a stinging defeat for President Joe Biden and his party, coming at the tumultuous close to his first year in office. Despite a day of piercing debate and speeches that often carried echoes of an earlier era when the Senate filibuster was deployed by opponents of civil rights legislation, Democrats could not persuade holdout senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia to change the Senate procedures on this one bill and allow a simple majority to advance it. “I am profoundly disappointed,” Biden said in a statement after the vote. However, the president said he is “not deterred” and vowed to “explore every measure and use every tool at our disposal to stand up for democracy.”

Where you been the last year in office, Joe? All talk. No action. Empty, hollow, meaningless rhetoric. No substance. Why no justice for the Trump nazi?

"Voting rights advocates are warning that Republican-led states nationwide are passing laws making it more difficult for Black Americans and others to vote by consolidating polling locations, requiring certain types of identification and ordering other changes. Vice President Kamala Harris briefly presided over the Senate, able to break a tie in the 50-50 Senate if needed, but she left before the final vote. The rules change was rejected 52-48, with Manchin and Sinema joining the Republicans in opposition. The nighttime voting brought an end, for now, to legislation that has been a top Democratic priority since the party took control of Congress and the White House. “This is a moral moment,” said Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga. The Democrats’ bill, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, ensure access to early voting and mail-in ballots — which have become especially popular during the COVID-19 pandemic — and enable the Justice Department to intervene in states with a history of voter interference, among other changes. It has passed the House. Both Manchin and Sinema say they support the legislation, but Democrats fell far short of the 60 votes needed to push the bill over the Republican filibuster. It failed to advance 51-49 on a largely party-line vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., cast a procedural vote against so the bill could be considered later. Next, Schumer put forward a rules change for a “talking filibuster” on this one bill. It would require senators to stand at their desks and exhaust the debate before holding a simple majority vote, rather than the current practice that simply allows senators to privately signal their objections. But that, too, failed because Manchin and Sinema were unwilling to change the Senate rules a party-line vote by Democrats alone.

"Schumer contended the fight is not over and he ridiculed Republican claims that the new election laws in the states will not end up hurting voter access and turnout, comparing it to Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 presidential election."

1-21-22

Sedition. The Associated Press reports:

"The seditious conspiracy case against members and associates of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group marks the boldest attempt so far by the government to prosecute those who attacked the U.S. Capitol, but invoking the rarely used charge carries considerable risks. Still, legal experts who have reviewed the indictment unsealed this past week against Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and 10 others said prosecutors stand a good chance of winning convictions on allegations that the defendants were working together to use force to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power. The Civil War-era charge is hard to prove, and scholars say overzealousness in applying it, going back centuries, also discredited its use. The experts who examined the indictment against the 11 Oath Keepers members and associates said the government’s case is supported by detailed allegations that participants in the plot discussed their plans in encrypted chats, traveled to the nation’s capital from across the country, organized into teams, used military tactics, stashed weapons outside Washington in case they felt they were needed and communicated with each other during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021. “This is as a good a case as you could bring,” said Carlton Larson, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who is an expert in treason law."

Get this:

"In the weeks leading up to the insurrection, the indictment alleged, Oath Keepers discussed trying to overturn the results of the 2020 White House election, preparing for a siege by purchasing weapons and setting up battle plans. “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit,” the indictment quoted Rhodes as writing in a November 2020 chat after President Donald Trump was projected to have been defeated by Democrat Joe Biden. Authorities say several members of the Oath Keepers shouldered their way through the crowd on Jan. 6 and into the Capitol in a military-style stack formation. Group members are accused of setting up “quick reaction force” teams that stationed weapons outside of Washington and were prepared to deliver arms to group members and associates if they believed the need arose. In late December 2020, Rhodes wrote in a chat that the only chance Trump had to succeed in overturning the election outcome was if he and the Oath Keepers frightened members of Congress and “convince them it will be torches and pitchforks time is (sic) they don’t do the right thing. But I don’t think they will listen,” according to the indictment."

Traitors.

"Rhodes did not enter the Capitol building on Jan. 6, but authorities say he was communicating with Oath Keepers outside on the Capitol grounds. Phillip Linder, one of the lawyers representing Rhodes, said his client intends to fight the charges. Rhodes remains jailed in Texas and has a detention hearing this coming Thursday. “We believe he is not a flight risk, not a danger and should be released,” Linder said after Rhodes’ first court appearance on Friday. Rhodes has said in interviews with right-wing hosts that there was no plan to storm the Capitol and that the members who did so went rogue. But he has continued to push the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. University at Albany assistant professor Sam Jackson, author of the book “Oath Keepers: Patriotism and the Edge of Violence in a Right-Wing Antigovernment Group,” said it wasn’t clear to him before the indictment whether Rhodes or Oath Keepers leaders were involved in a plot to attack the Capitol. “Now it’s clear that that is the case,” he said. “It’s also clear that national leadership was not solely focused on some anticipated or perceived threat from antifa or other opponents of Donald Trump. But they really were thinking about, ‘OK, how do we prevent the certification of the Electoral College vote if members of Congress don’t see things the way that we do?’”

Consider these traitorous bastards patriots?

"The last sedition case was filed in 2010 against members of a Michigan militia. Two years later, they were acquitted by a judge who said their hateful diatribes didn’t prove they ever had detailed plans for a rebellion. Lawyer William Swor, who represented Hutaree militia leader David Stone, said prosecutors in the decade-old case failed to prove that group members were “more than just talking” and were “actively planning to oppose the government.” “It’s a substantial burden on the government and it is a substantial risk,” he said. “If the government fails to meet its burden, they’re out on the street.” Among the last successful convictions for seditious conspiracy stemmed from the storming of the Capitol in 1954 when four Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire on the House floor, wounding five representatives. Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism, said the collapse of earlier sedition cases against far-right extremists suggests that judges and juries may have difficulty believing that a small group of people “seriously thought they could take on the entire U.S. government.” Pitcavage said prosecutors in the case against Oath Keepers appear to have a “tremendous amount of evidence about planning beforehand” as well as compelling video evidence of the group members storming the Capitol. “That sort of evidence was largely missing from all these previous cases,” Pitcavage said. “Sedition cases, in my opinion, are always inherently risky to a certain degree. But I do think prosecutors in this case have a far stronger case to make for the jury than some of their predecessors did.” If convicted of seditious conspiracy, the defendants could face a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, compared with five for the other conspiracy charges."

Get this:

"In all, more than 700 people have been arrested and charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 riot. More than 70 defendants remain detained on riot charges. At least 186 defendants have pleaded guilty to riot-related charges as of Thursday."

Begs the question when will the kingpin who incited the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, that is the Trump nazi, be prosecuted?

1-21-22

2020 Census interfered with by Trump Administration. NPR(AP) reports:

"Former President Donald Trump's administration alarmed career civil servants at the Census Bureau by not only ending the 2020 national head count early, but also pressuring them to alter plans for protecting people's privacy and producing accurate data, a newly released email shows. Trump's political appointees at the Commerce Department, which oversees the bureau, demonstrated an "unusually" high level of "engagement in technical matters, which is unprecedented relative to the previous censuses," according to a September 2020 email that Ron Jarmin — the bureau's deputy director — sent to two other top civil servants. At the time, the administration was faced with the reality that if Trump lost the November election he could also lose a chance to change the census numbers used to redistribute political representation. The window of opportunity was closing for his administration to attempt to radically reshape the futures of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Electoral College."

When will this traitorous nazi finally be prosecuted for all his crimes? Why an outrageous double standard? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"Despite the 14th Amendment's requirement to include the "whole number of persons in each state," Trump wanted to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census counts used to reallocate each state's share of congressional seats and electoral votes. While the former president's unprecedented push did not reach its ultimate goal, it wreaked havoc at the federal government's largest statistical agency, which was also contending with the coronavirus pandemic upending most of its plans for the once-a-decade tally. The delays stemming from COVID-19 forced the bureau to conclude that it could no longer meet the legal reporting deadline for the first set of results and needed more time. The administration's last-minute decision to cut the counting short sparked public outcries, including a federal lawsuit that reached the U.S. Supreme Court."

Why was all this tolerated? Gets worse. Get this:

"But its interference in other areas related to the 2020 census largely flew under most radars. The newly released email — first reported by The New York Times and obtained by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School through an ongoing public records lawsuit — details the wide scope of its attempts to buck the bureau's experts and tamper with the count. According to the document, the agency's career civil servants saw when to end counting as a "policy decision that political leadership should make." But the methodologies and procedures for filling in data gaps, reviewing the counts for errors and protecting the confidentiality of people's information should strictly stay in the lane of civil servants at "an independent statistical agency," the email says. Trump officials — including Wilbur Ross, who served as commerce secretary — however, "expressed interest" in many technical areas, including exactly how the bureau could produce a state-by-state count of unauthorized immigrants and citizenship data that could have politically benefited Republicans when voting districts are redrawn. The email suggests that the bureau's civil servants were planning to discuss their concerns with Ross through the end of 2020. The bureau's public information office did not immediately respond to NPR's questions about whether those discussions took place."

1-14-22

Rep. Liz Cheney and her father, the former Vice President, stand tall. ABC News reports:

"While most Republicans were absent on Capitol Hill for the Jan. 6 anniversary Thursday, one of the party's most prominent elder statesmen was there. ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl spoke to former Vice President Dick Cheney just off the House floor. Asked why he came to the Capitol this day, Cheney said, "It's an important historical event," referring to the anniversary of the insurrection. "You can't overestimate how important it is." He added, "I'm deeply disappointed we don't have better leadership in the Republican Party to restore the Constitution." He noted that his daughter, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., is an exception. She is the vice chair of the House select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol, and has come under heavy fire from fellow Republicans."

Indeed, Uncommon Valor.

"Cheney then went to the House floor with his daughter -- he has lifetime floor privileges as a congressman who held the seat she now occupies -- to observe a moment of silence. One by one, Democratic members, including some liberals who castigated him and his politics when he was vice president -- approached him to shake his hand and pay their respects. Besides the Cheneys and her staffers, there were no other Republicans in sight."

Sad, isn't it? Nazism now reigns supreme in the Republican Party. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"As Cheney departed the House chamber, walking alongside his daughter, he told ABC News, "Very proud of Liz," when asked for some parting thoughts."

Should be. Indeed, she's stood tall.

“It’s great coming back,” he told a swarm of reporters. "Liz is doing a hell of a job. I’m here to support her." When asked for his reaction to Republican leadership’s handling of this day, Cheney -- not one to mince words -- said, "Well, it’s not a leadership that resembles any of the folks that I knew when I was here for 10 years -- dramatically." Rep Liz Cheney said it was "very concerning," adding, "I think a party that is in thrall to a cult personality is a party that is dangerous to the country, and I think we clearly have got to get to a place we are we are focused on substance and on issues."

... As Republicans were a half century ago when they forced the resignation of Richard Nixon.

"The former vice president then took the long walk across the Capitol toward the Senate chamber, stopping momentarily to take in a white stone bust of himself outside the office of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who is far from the Capitol, and instead, at a funeral for a late GOP senator in Atlanta."

1-14-22

The following is the full transcript of President Biden's speech to the nation on January 6, 2022 courtesy of ABC News:

"Madam Vice President and fellow Americans, to state the obvious, one year ago today, in this sacred place, democracy was attacked. Simply attacked. The will of the people was under assault. The constitution -- our constitution -- faced the greatest of threats. Outnumbered in the face of a brutal attack, the Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, the National Guard and other brave law enforcement officials saved the rule of law.

Our democracy held. We the people endured. We the people prevail. For the first time in our history, a president had not just lost an election -- he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol. But they failed. They failed. And on this day of remembrance, we must make sure that such an attack never, never happens again.

I'm speaking to you today from Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol. This is where the House of Representatives met for 50 years in the decades leading up to the Civil War. It's on this floor where a young congressman of Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, sat at desk 191. Above him, above us, over that door leading into the rotunda is a sculpture depicting Clio, the muse of history.

In her hands, an open book, in which she records the events taking place in this chamber below. Clio stood watch over this hall one year ago today, as she has for more than 200 years. She recorded what took place -- the real history, the real facts, the real truth, the facts and the truth that Vice President Harris just shared, and that you and I and the whole world saw with our own eyes.

The Bible tells us that we shall know the truth and the truth shall make us free. We shall know the truth. Well here is God's truth about Jan. 6, 2021. Close your eyes. Go back to that day. What do you see? Rioters rampaging, waving for the first time inside this Capitol, the confederate flag that symbolizes the cause to destroy America, to rip us apart.

Even during the Civil War that never ever happened. But it happened here in 2021. What else did you see? A mob, breaking windows, kicking in doors, breaching the Capitol, American flags on poles being used as weapons, as spears. Fire extinguishers being thrown at the heads of police officers. A crowd that professes their love for law enforcement assaulted those police officers. Dragged them, sprayed them, stomped on them.

Over 140 police officers were injured. We all heard the police officers who were there that day testify to what happened. One officer called it “a medieval battle” and that he was more afraid that day than he was fighting the war in Iraq. They repeatedly asked since that day, "How dare anyone, anyone diminish, belittle or deny the hell they were put through?"

We saw with our own eyes, rioters menace these halls, threatening the life of the Speaker of the House. Literally erecting gallows to hang the Vice President of the United States of America.

What did we not see? We didn't see a former president who had just rallied the mob to attack sitting in the private dining room off the Oval Office in the White House watching it all on television. And doing nothing. For hours. As police were assaulted. Lives at risk. The nation's capital under siege.

This wasn't a group of tourists. This was an armed insurrection. They weren't looking to uphold the will of the people. They were looking to deny the will of the people. They were looking to uphold-- they weren’t looking to uphold a free and fair election, they were looking to overturn one. They weren’t looking to save the cause of America. They were looking to subvert the Constitution.

This isn't about being bogged down in the past. It's about making sure the past isn't buried. That's the only way forward. That's what great nations do. They don't bury the truth, they face up to it. Sounds like hyperbole, but that's the truth, they face up to it.

We are a great nation. My fellow Americans, in life there's truth, and tragically, there are lies. Lies conceived and spread for profit and power.

We must be absolutely clear about what is true and what is a lie. And here's the truth. The former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election. He's done so because he values power over principle. Because he sees his own interest as more important than his country's interest than America's interest, and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our Constitution. He can’t accept he lost.

Even though that's what 93 United States senators, his own attorney general, his own vice president, governors and state officials in every battleground state have all said. He lost. That's what 81 million of you did as you voted for a new way forward. He's done what no president in American history, the history of this country has ever, ever done. He refused to accept the results of an election and the will of the American people.

While some courageous men and women in the Republican Party are standing against it, trying to uphold the principle of that party, too many others are transforming that party into something else. They seem no longer to want to be the party, the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan, the Bushes. But whatever my other disagreements are with Republicans who support the rule of law and not the rule of a single man, I will always seek to work together with them, to find shared solutions where it’s possible because we have a shared belief in democracy, that anything is possible. Anything.

So at this moment, we must decide, what kind of nation are we going to be? Are we going to be a nation that accepts political violence as a norm? Are we going to be a nation where we allow partisan election officials to overturn the legally expressed will of the people? Are we going to be a nation that lives not by the light of the truth, but of the shadow of lies?

We cannot allow ourselves to be that kind of nation. The way forward is to recognize the truth and to live by it. The big lie being told by the former president and many Republicans who fear his wrath is that the insurrection in this country actually took place on Election Day, Nov. 3, 2020. Think about that.

Is that what you thought? Is that what you thought when you voted that day? Taking part in an insurrection, is that what you thought you were doing? Or did you think you were carrying out your highest duty as a citizen and voting? Former president's supporters are trying to rewrite history. They want you to see Election Day as the day of insurrection. And the riot that took place here on Jan. 6 as a true expression of the will of the people.

Can you think of a more twisted way to look at this country? To look at America? I cannot. Here's the truth. The election of 2020 was the greatest demonstration of democracy in the history of this country. More of you voted in that election than have ever voted in all of American history.

Over 150 million Americans went to the polls and voted that day. In a pandemic. Some at great risk to their lives. They should be applauded, not attacked. Right now in state after state, new laws are being written not to protect the vote, but to deny it.

Not only to suppress the vote but to subvert it. Not to strengthen and protect our democracy but because the former president lost. Instead of looking at the election results in 2020, and saying they need new ideas or better ideas to win more votes, the former president and his supporters have decided the only way for them to win is to suppress your vote and subvert our elections. It's wrong, it's undemocratic and frankly, it's un-American.

The second big lie being told by the former president and his supporters is that the results of the election of 2020 can't be trusted. The truth is that no election, no election in American history has been more closely scrutinized or more carefully counted. Every legal challenge questioning the results and every court in this country that could have been made was made and was rejected.

Often rejected by Republican-appointed judges, including judges appointed by the former president himself. From state courts to the United States Supreme Court. Recounts were undertaken in state after state. Georgia, Georgia counted its results three times with one recount by hand. Phony partisan audits were undertaken long after the election in several states, none changed the results. In some of them, the irony is the margin of victory actually grew slightly. So let's speak plainly about what happened in 2020.

Even before the first ballot was cast, the former president was preemptively so in doubt about the election results. He built his lie over months, wasn't based on any facts. He was just looking for an excuse, a pretext, to cover for the truth. He's not just a former president. He's a defeated, former president -- defeated by a margin of over 7 million of your votes in a full and free and fair election.

There is simply zero proof the election results were inaccurate. In fact, in every venue where evidence had to be produced, an oath, to tell the truth, had to be taken, the former president failed to make his case. Just think about this. The former president and his supporters have never been able to explain how they accept as accurate the other election results that took place on Nov. 3. The elections for government, United States Senate, House of Representatives.

Elections that close the gap in the House. They challenged none of that. President’s name was first. Then we went down the line: Governor, senators, House of Representatives. Somehow those results are accurate on the same ballot but the presidential race was flawed. And on the same ballot, the same day cast by the same voters.

The only difference, the former president didn't lose those races. He just lost the one that was his own.

Finally, the third big lie being told by a former president and his supporters is that the mob who sought to impose their will through violence are the nation's true patriots.

Is that what you thought when you looked at the mob ransacking the Capitol, destroying property, literally defecating in the hallways, rifling through the desks of senators and representatives, hunting down members of Congress? Patriots? Not in my view.

To me, the true patriots were the more than 150 million Americans who peacefully expressed their vote at the ballot box. The election workers who protected the integrity of the vote. And the heroes who defended this capital.

You can't love your country only when you win. You can't obey the law only when it’s convenient. You can't be patriotic when you embrace and enable lies.

Those who stormed this Capitol and those who instigated and incited and those who called on them to do so held a dagger at the throat of America and American democracy.

They didn't come here out of patriotism or principle. They came here in rage. Not in service of America, but rather in service of one man. Those who incited the mob, the real plotters who were desperate to deny the certification of this election, defy the will of the voters, but their plot was foiled. Congressmen, Democrats and Republicans stayed. Senators, representatives, staff -- they finished their work the Constitution demanded.

They honored their oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Look, folks, now it's up to all of us, to we the people to stand for the rule of law. To preserve the flame of democracy. To keep the promise of America alive.

The promises at risk targeted by the forces that value brute strength over the sanctity of democracy -- fear over hope, personal gain over public good.

Make no mistake about it, we're living at an inflection point in history, both at home and abroad. We're engaged anew in a struggle between democracy and autocracy. Between aspirations of the many and the greed of the few, between the people's right of self-determination and self-seeking autocrat. From China to Russia and beyond, they’re betting that democracies' days are numbered.

They actually told me democracy is too slow, too bogged down by division to succeed in today’s rapidly changing and complicated world. They're betting, they’re betting America will become more like them and less like us.

They’re betting that America is a place for the autocrat, the dictator, the strong man. I do not believe that. That is not who we are. That is not who we have ever been. And that is not who we should ever, ever be. Our founding fathers, as imperfect as they were, set in motion an experiment that changed the world, literally changed the world.

Here in America, the people would rule. Power would be transferred peacefully, never at the tip of a spear or the barrel of a gun. They committed to paper an idea that they couldn't live up to, but an idea that couldn't be constrained.

Yes, in America, all people are created equal. The reject of you, that if you succeed, I fail. If you get ahead, I fall behind. If I hold you down, I somehow lift myself up.

The former president who lies about this election and the mob that attacked this Capitol could not be further away from the core American values. They want to rule or they will ruin. Ruin what our country fought for at Lexington and Concord, at Gettysburg and Omaha Beach, Seneca Falls, Selma, Alabama. And what we were fighting for -- the right to vote, the right to govern ourselves, the right to determine our own destiny.

With rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to see each other as neighbors. Maybe we disagree with that neighbor but they're not an adversary. Responsibility to accept defeat then get back in the arena and try again the next time to make your case.

Responsibility to see that America is an idea. An idea requires vigilant stewardship. As we stand here today, one year since Jan. 6, 2021, the lies that drove the anger and madness we saw in this place, they have not abated. So we have to be firm, resolute and unyielding in our defense of the right to vote and to have that vote counted.

Some have already made the ultimate sacrifice in this sacred effort. Jill and I have mourned police officers in this Capitol Rotunda not once but twice in the wake of Jan. 6. Once to honor Officer Brian Sicnick, who lost his life the day after the attack and the second time to honor Officer Billy Evans, who lost his life defending this capital as well.

We think about the others who lost their lives and were injured and everyone living with the trauma of that day, and those defending this capital, to members of Congress in both parties and their staffs, to reporters, cafeteria workers, custodial workers and their families. Don't kid yourself. The pain and scars from that day run deep.

I’ve said it many times, and it's no more true or real when we think about the events of Jan. 6. We are in a battle for the soul of America. A battle that -- by the grace of God, and the goodness and greatness of this nation -- we will win. Believe me, I know how difficult democracy is, and I’m crystal clear about the threats America faces.

But I also know that our darkest days can lead to light and hope. From the death and destruction as Vice President referenced in Pearl Harbor can then triumph over the forces of fascism, from the brutality of Bloody Sunday and the Edmund Pettus Bridge came historic voting rights to this nation. So now let's step up, write the next chapter in American history where Jan. 6 marks, not the end of democracy but the beginning of a renaissance of liberty and fair play.

I did not seek this fight brought to this Capitol one year ago today. But I will not shrink from it either. I will stand in this breach. I will defend this nation. And I will allow no one to place a dagger at the throat of democracy. We will make sure the will of the people is heard. That the ballot prevails not violence. That authority in this nation will always be peacefully transferred. I believe the power of the presidency and the purpose is to unite this nation. Not divide it. To lift us up, not tear us apart. To be about us, about us, not about me.

Deep in the heart of America burns a flame lit almost 250 years ago of liberty, freedom and equality. This is not a land of kings or dictators or autocrats. We’re a nation of laws, of order not chaos. Of peace, not violence. Here in America, the people rule through the ballot and their will prevails.

So let us remember together. We’re one nation, under God, indivisible. That today, tomorrow, and forever at our best, we are the United States of America. God bless you all. May God protect our troops. And my God, bless those who stand watch over democracy."

1-14-22

Think our gutless president may finally be finding his voice? Why did it take a year, Joe? The Associated Press reports:

"President Joe Biden says that he supports changing Senate rules in order to pass voting rights legislation, declaring that changing the rules would be to protect the “heart and soul of our democracy.”

Sounds like empty, hollow rhetoric, Joe.

"Biden told a crowd in Atlanta that he’d been having quiet conversations with Senators for months over the two bills up for debate, stalled because there aren’t enough Republican votes to move them past filibuster to votes. “I’m tired of being quiet!” he said, emphatically pounding the podium. “I will not yield. I will not flinch,” in the effort to protect democracy."

Too little. Too late.

"Current rules require 60 votes to advance most legislation — a threshold that Senate Democrats can’t meet alone because they only have a 50-50 majority with Vice President Kamala Harris to break ties. Republicans unanimously oppose the voting rights measures. Not all Democrats are on board with changing the filibuster rules. Conservative West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin threw cold water on the idea Tuesday, saying he believes any changes should be made with substantial Republican buy-in. And even if Democrats clear the obstacles to passage of the voting rights laws, it could be too late to counter widespread voting restrictions passed in 19 states following former President Donald Trump’s 2020 loss and his lies — embraced by many in the GOP -- that the election was stolen through voter fraud."

1-14-22

Truth the nazi element in the Republican Party cannot ignore, and/or deny. The Washington Post reports:

"More than 1,700 congressmen once enslaved Black people. This is who they were, and how they shaped the nation. The Washington Post has compiled the first database of slaveholding members of Congress by examining thousands of pages of census records and historical documents. For the first seven decades of its existence, Congress returned again and again to one acrimonious topic: slavery. Many of the lawmakers arguing in Washington were participants in the brutal institution at home. Here’s what that looked like on March 7, 1850. As Sen. Daniel Webster delivered a famous speech about slavery, 45 of the 106 congressmen listening owned human beings. Those slaveholders included Jefferson Davis, Andrew Johnson and Sam Houston."

Why is it nearly all Republicans cannot, will not accept the unvarnished truth?

"From the founding of the United States until long after the Civil War, hundreds of the elected leaders writing the nation’s laws were current or former slaveowners. More than 1,700 people who served in the U.S. Congress in the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries owned human beings at some point in their lives, according to a Washington Post investigation of censuses and other historical records. The country is still grappling with the legacy of their embrace of slavery. The link between race and political power in early America echoes in complicated ways, from the racial inequities that persist to this day to the polarizing fights over voting rights and the way history is taught in schools."

Sadly, brought to a head currently by the racist Trump nazi and his supporters.

"The Washington Post created a database that shows enslavers in Congress represented 37 states, including not just the South but every state in New England, much of the Midwest, and many Western states. Some were owners of enormous plantations, like Sen. Edward Lloyd V of Maryland, who enslaved 468 people in 1832 on the same estate where abolitionist Frederick Douglass was enslaved as a child. Many exerted great influence on the issue of slavery, like Sen. Elias Kent Kane, who enslaved five people in Illinois in 1820, and tried to formally legalize slavery in the state. For the first 18 years of American lawmaking, from 1789 to 1807, more than half the men elected to Congress each session were slaveholders. As Northern states outlawed slavery, the proportion of congressmen who were slaveowners declined. But some congressmen in New England continued to enslave people until at least 1820, and some representatives of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and other states continued to enslave people for at least a decade longer. When 11 Southern states seceded in 1860 and 1861, their lawmakers left Congress, and the number of slaveholders dropped accordingly. Still, more than 20 percent of the members who remained in Congress as the country fought the Civil War over slavery were current or former slaveholders. After Reconstruction, the proportion of congressmen who had been slaveholders dropped as some Northerners moved south and then represented Southern states in Congress. But other Southerners who had been enslavers were also elected. People who had been slaveholders continued to serve in Congress well into the 20th century. William Richardson, for example, a Democrat who fought for the Confederacy, died in office in 1914 after representing Alabama for 14 years. Another Democrat, Rebecca Latimer Felton, a suffragist and a white supremacist, was appointed to fill a Senate vacancy in 1922 and briefly represented Georgia at age 87. The first woman ever to serve in the Senate was a former slaveholder. [The Senate’s first woman was also its last enslaver]"

For Democrats who think they're so high and mighty? Get this:

"Enslavers came from all parts of the political spectrum. The Post’s database includes lawmakers who were members of more than 60 political parties. Federalists, Whigs, Unionists, Populists, Progressives, Prohibitionists and dozens more: All those parties included slaveholders. The most common political affiliation among enslavers was the Democratic Party — 606 Democrats in Congress were slaveholders."

For Republicans who think they're so high and mighty? Get this:

"While the early Republican Party is associated with abolition, The Post found 481 slaveowners who identified as Republicans at some point in their elected careers."

Equally interesting?

"This database helps provide a clearer understanding of the ways in which slaveholding influenced early America, as congressmen’s own interests as enslavers shaped their decisions on the laws that they crafted. One example: When Congress voted on the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which prohibited the expansion of slavery in the northern half of the country, the House and Senate contained a nearly equal number of slaveholders and non-slaveholders, a Post analysis found. Almost twice as many slaveholders, 44 percent, voted against the agreement, compared with 25 percent of non-slaveholders. The law was crafted by a slaveholder, Henry Clay, who is so renowned as one of America’s greatest statesmen that 16 counties across the country are named for him."

How about that? Couldn't be, could it? LOL.

"When Congress voted during the Civil War on the 13th Amendment, which added a ban on slavery to the U.S. Constitution, nine men who had been slaveholders remained in the Senate. Just three of them voted to approve the amendment, while 35 out of 40 non-slaveholders voted yes. Historian Loren Schweninger, who spent years driving to more than 200 courthouses across the South to collect records on slavery, notes the importance of lawmakers’ personal stake in slavery as they passed laws codifying the practice. “They were protective of the institution, that’s for sure,” Schweninger said of state and federal lawmakers’ relationship with slavery. “There was brutality and there was all kinds of exploitation of slaves — but still there were laws.” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he thinks about that history in the halls of Congress, from the portraits on the walls to the votes once taken there. “I’m very conscious of this as only the fourth Black person popularly elected to the United States Senate. … The very monuments you walk past: There’s very little acknowledgment of the degree that slavery, that wretched institution, shaped the Capitol,” Booker said in an interview. He added, “All around you, the very Capitol itself, was shaped by this legacy that we don’t fully know or don’t fully acknowledge.”

Surprised? Why? Remain in abject denial?

"The same is true of the White House. Of the first 18 U.S. presidents, 12 were enslavers, including eight during their presidencies."

How about that?

"To Booker, those stories about his predecessors in Congress call for action from their counterparts today — namely, a bill he has championed that would commission the first national study on reparations for the descendants of enslaved people. Without acknowledging the harm and trauma caused by slavery, both for the enslaved and their descendants, “it’s very hard to heal and move on,” Booker said. “We have never really tried, in any grand way as a country, to take full responsibility for the evil institution of slavery and what it has done.”

Nothing has changed. Nothing will. Certainly, not in the foreseeable future.

"America’s atrocity was carried out not in shadow, but with extensive documentation, in carefully recorded censuses and court cases and wills. To create this database, The Washington Post researched all of the 5,558 men and one woman, Felton, who served in the U.S. Congress and were born before 1840, meaning they came of age before the Civil War. The verdicts on who enslaved people and who did not are based on journal articles, books, newspapers and many other texts, with the vast majority of the information coming from the 1790 through 1860 decennial censuses. Today, as America struggles with how to understand its history and which historical figures to honor, many of these lawmakers’ statues stand in town squares across the country, and their names adorn streets and public schools, with almost no public acknowledgment that they were enslavers."

No problem with that? Worse? Get this:

"The men, women and children they enslaved are less recognized still, often recorded in a census by just their age and gender, without even a name."

Chattel. Human chattel. Bought and paid for.

"The nation’s capital, like many cities, is dotted with reminders of these members of Congress. Rep. John Peter Van Ness of New York, an enslaver, has a D.C. elementary school, a street and a Metro station named in his honor. Sen. Francis Preston Blair Jr. of Missouri, who has a statue in the Capitol and a homeless shelter named after him in Northeast Washington, was an enslaver who opposed allowing Black citizens to vote after the Civil War. (The guesthouse across from the White House is named for the senator’s father, who was not a lawmaker but also was a slaveowner.) An 1844 photograph of John Peter Van Ness, an enslaver who represented New York in Congress and later served as mayor of Washington. In D.C., an elementary school, a street and a Metro station are named for him. (Library of Congress) Francis Preston Blair Jr. in 1859. A Missouri enslaver who served in both houses of Congress, he has a statue in the Capitol and a homeless shelter named after him in Northeast Washington. (Library of Congress) An 1844 photograph of John Peter Van Ness, an enslaver who represented New York in Congress and later served as mayor of Washington. In D.C., an elementary school, a street and a Metro station are named for him. (Library of Congress) Francis Preston Blair Jr. in 1859. A Missouri enslaver who served in both houses of Congress, he has a statue in the Capitol and a homeless shelter named after him in Northeast Washington. (Library of Congress)"

No problem with any of the above?

"Cities, towns, universities and other institutions across the country have started commissions to reconsider whose names should be on buildings and streets, and many institutions have removed statues and portraits because the people they honored enslaved others. But until now, there has never been a comprehensive list of slaveholding members of Congress. To create this database, Washington Post reporter Julie Zauzmer Weil started with a list of every person elected to Congress who was born before 1840 – meaning he had reached 21 by the time the last census before the Civil War was conducted in 1860. Weil then researched each person on that list, examining a variety of sources. This database helps reveal the glaring holes in many of the stories that Americans tell about the country’s history."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2022/congress-slaveowners-names-list/

Report goes on and on in great detail. Time to wake up. Smell the coffee.

1-14-22

Think Republicans don't have a serious problem? Cannot distinguish between fact and fiction. The Washington Post reports:

"Mo Brooks urged a Jan. 6 crowd to ‘fight.’ Now his actions long before the insurrection face new scrutiny."

For damned good reason.

"In early January 2021, as President Donald Trump summoned his supporters to Washington, Rep. Mo Brooks says he received a dire warning from a fellow lawmaker: Antifa was planning to infiltrate the Jan. 6 rally “dressing like Trump supporters.”

No truth to this fantasy. None.

"The Alabama Republican was so convinced that his life was in danger that he stopped going home and began sleeping on his office floor. He was there Jan. 5 when, shortly before going to sleep, he tweeted that Trump had asked him “personally to speak & tell the American people about the election system weaknesses that the Socialist Democrats exploited to steal this election.”

No truth to his delusion. None.

"The next morning, Brooks slipped into body armor underneath a yellow-and-black jacket, and then delivered an incendiary speech to a sea of Trump backers near the White House. “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” Brooks said. “Now, our ancestors sacrificed their blood, their sweat, their tears, their fortunes and sometimes their lives … Are you willing to do the same? My answer is yes. Louder! Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?” Brooks has faced intense scrutiny over his fiery rhetoric that morning to a crowd that soon stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent attack."

He certainly followed up on his fuhrer's (the Trump nazi's) incitement of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.

"But less public attention has been paid to Brooks’s key role in the lead-up to Jan. 6. A review of his speeches, tweets and media appearances as well as affidavits and other court filings reveals his central part in mobilizing the effort to overturn Joe Biden’s victory by repeatedly claiming that the election was stolen and then becoming the first member of Congress to declare he would challenge the electoral college results. “I led the charge,” Brooks, 67, said on a podcast hosted by Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former adviser. “At first, it was pretty lonely. I was the only one willing to go out on that limb and say, ‘Look, I’ve looked at it, and in my judgment, there was massive voter fraud, election theft.’ ”

No truth to his delusion. None.

"Brooks’s actions are now the subject of a novel lawsuit brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) that accuses him of conspiring with Trump and others to undermine the election and help incite the insurrection. Brooks has denied the allegations and is expected to represent himself in U.S. District Court on Monday, arguing that he should be dismissed from the case. Brooks’s extraordinary efforts to subvert the election were the culmination of a political transformation mirroring the GOP’s larger embrace of Trump. After starting as a traditional conservative, serving as a district attorney and county commission member, Brooks became a leading anti-Trumper in Congress before abruptly turning into one of Trump’s most loyal backers on false claims of mass election fraud. Now he’s running for the U.S. Senate with Trump’s endorsement and is still campaigning on those falsehoods. A leading opponent in the tight primary race has also called for a “nationwide forensic audit” of the election, and claims that the election was stolen are still so popular in Alabama that Brooks was booed at a Trump rally in August when he suggested it was time to look beyond 2020."

Not surprisingly:

"Brooks has recanted or distanced himself from some of his statements. He has acknowledged that he was wrong to suggest antifa may have played a significant role in the insurrection. And he said in a court filing that his tweet saying Trump “personally” asked him to appear at the rally was false; he blamed an unnamed staffer for the tweet and said the invite came from a White House official. The congressional committee investigating the insurrection is weighing whether to seek testimony from Brooks and has cited his invitation to deliver a Jan. 6 speech in a subpoena to the White House official who invited him to the rally. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a member of the committee, said she has long been concerned by her colleague’s words and actions. “He did publicly say over and over things that were not true,” Lofgren said in an interview. “He said the election had been stolen. That’s not true … He admitted he showed up at the rally in body armor, making really extravagant comments about overturning the election and urging people to take action.” Brooks — who has denied any intent to spark the attack on the Capitol and said he was merely urging protesters to battle at the ballot box — declined an interview request. In response to a list of questions from The Washington Post, his campaign spokesman said in a statement via email that Brooks has not received questions from the committee, or talked or corresponded with it. “But if Congressman Brooks is asked to testify, the testimony must be in public, not in secret and not denying the American people their right to hear the entirety of testimony by any and all witnesses,” the statement said, lambasting the House’s “Witch Hunt Committee” as politically motivated. Brooks’s role is even more remarkable given that until Election Day in 2016, few Republicans had spoken more loudly than Brooks to warn voters that nothing said by Trump should be trusted."

Fascinating, isn't it?

Report goes on and on in great detail.

1-14-22

NPR sticks it to the Trump nazi. CBS News reports:

"Former President Donald Trump abruptly ended an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep after the reporter pressed him repeatedly about his false claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Before hanging up nine minutes into what was scheduled to be a 15-minute interview, the former president insisted the only way to have fair elections in the future is to "solve the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020." Trump also lashed out at GOP Senator Mike Rounds, who on Sunday called the 2020 election "fair, as fair as we have seen" and said Republicans didn't win the presidency. Speaking to NPR, Trump said Rounds was "totally wrong," and that Republican senators aren't standing by him "because Mitch McConnell is a loser." Inskeep cited federal judges who had ruled against Trump's legal efforts to overturn the results after the 2020 election, as well as remarks by his attorneys who told courts that they were not claiming fraud had occurred. He then asked Trump about his potential endorsements in the 2022 midterm elections, at which point Trump cut the interview short:

NPR: If I can just move on to ask, are you telling Republicans in 2022 that they must press your case on the past election in order to get your endorsement? Is that an absolute?

TRUMP: They're gonna do whatever they want to do. Whatever they have to do they're gonna do. ... People have no idea how big this issue is and they don't want it to happen again. It shouldn't be allowed to happen and they don't want it to happen again. The only way it's not gonna happen again is you have to solve the problem of the presidential rigged election of 2020.

NPR: Mr. President, if I —

TRUMP: So Steve, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

NPR: Whoa, whoa, whoa, I have one more question. I want to ask about a court hearing yesterday on Jan. 6. Judge Amit Mehta — He's gone. OK.

This writer listened to the interview on NPR the morning it aired. Inskeep, figuratively speaking, took no prisoners. Held Trump's feet to the fire. Precisely, why Trump gutlessly hung up on him. A transcript of the interview can be found by clicking https://www.npr.org/2022/01/12/1072176709/transcript-full-npr-interview-former-president-donald-trump

1-7-22

When will they nail the kingpin who incited the treasonous, traitorous January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection? The Washington Post reports:

"Federal prosecutors in the District have charged more than 725 individuals with various crimes in connection with the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection, when hundreds of rioters forced their way into the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. attorney’s office said Friday. As the country nears the first anniversary of the storming of the Capitol, the U.S. attorney’s office in the District, the largest office of federal prosecutors in the nation, released a breakdown of the arrests and convictions associated with the attack. The Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol was neither a spontaneous act nor an isolated event."

No question.

"Of those arrested, 225 people were charged with assault or resisting arrest. More than 75 of those were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon against police officers. The office said 140 police officers, including Capitol officers and members of the D.C. police department, were victimized during the attack. The office said about 10 individuals were charged with assaulting members of the media or destroying their equipment. Some 640 people were charged with entering a restricted federal building or its grounds. And another 75 were charged with entering a restricted area with a deadly weapon. Prosecutors in the office have been working with the FBI as well as prosecutors in various locations around the nation. The office said the individuals arrested come from nearly all 50 states."

Chilling, isn't it?

"One person, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt of California, was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to breach a set of doors deep in the Capitol during the riot. Federal prosecutors later cleared the officer of any wrongdoing in Babbitt’s death. According to a May estimate by the Architect of the Capitol, the attack caused about $1.5 million worth of damage to the building. About 165 individuals, the office said, have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, from misdemeanors to felony obstruction. So far, 70 defendants have received some kind of sentence from a judge. Of those, 31 people were ordered jailed, and 18 were sentenced to home detention. The remaining 21 defendants were placed on probation. In early December, Robert Scott Palmer, 54, of Largo, Fla., received the longest prison sentence to date among those convicted in the attack. A U.S. District Court judge sentenced him to more than five years in prison. In October, Palmer pleaded guilty to resisting arrest and assaulting officers with a dangerous weapon. Prosecutors said Palmer broke into the Capitol building and, while inside, threw a wooden plank at police officers; then, they said, while he was on the front line of the riot, he sprayed police officers with a fire extinguisher and hurled the emptied extinguisher at the officers. No officers, prosecutors said, were injured. The FBI is continuing to identify suspects in the case and is collecting tips at fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence, 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) or tips.fbi.gov."

Ferociously pointedly, why hasn't the treasonous, traitorous Trump nazi been prosecuted for inciting the insurrection? Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter. The traitor continues to falsely claim the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him. His fellow nazis in the Republican Party continue to buy his lies. He'll likely run again. This time, with newly enacted voter suppression laws and other statutes cleverly, perniciously designed to enable Republican officials aligned with Trump to throw out election results and install whom they please.

1-7-22

Insurrection. The Associated Press reports:

"In the weeks leading up to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, a handful of Americans — well-known politicians, obscure local bureaucrats — stood up to block then-President Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to overturn a free and fair vote of the American people. In the year since, Trump-aligned Republicans have worked to clear the path for next time."

Treason.

"In battleground states and beyond, Republicans are taking hold of the once-overlooked machinery of elections. While the effort is incomplete and uneven, outside experts on democracy and Democrats are sounding alarms, warning that the United States is witnessing a “slow-motion insurrection” with a better chance of success than Trump’s failed power grab last year."

Time for Biden to get up off his sorry ass and address this issue. Not only is he not talking about it, he's done nothing substantive.

"They point to a mounting list of evidence: Several candidates who deny Trump’s loss are running for offices that could have a key role in the election of the next president in 2024. In Michigan, the Republican Party is restocking members of obscure local boards that could block approval of an election. In Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the GOP-controlled legislatures are backing open-ended “reviews” of the 2020 election, modeled on a deeply flawed look-back in Arizona. The efforts are poised to fuel disinformation and anger about the 2020 results for years to come."

'Can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.' Sadly, now the nazi Republican Way. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"All this comes as the Republican Party has become more aligned behind Trump, who has made denial of the 2020 results a litmus test for his support. Trump has praised the Jan. 6 rioters and backed primaries aimed at purging lawmakers who have crossed him. Sixteen GOP governors have signed laws making it more difficult to vote. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll showed that two-thirds of Republicans do not believe Democrat Joe Biden was legitimately elected as president."

Insanity now reigns supreme in the Republican Party.

“It’s not clear that the Republican Party is willing to accept defeat anymore,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the book “How Democracies Die.” “The party itself has become an anti-democratic force.” Republicans who sound alarms are struggling to be heard by their own party. GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming or Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, members of a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection, are often dismissed as party apostates."

Fascinating, isn't it? Not all Republicans, however, are out to lunch:

"Some local officials, the people closest to the process and its fragility, are pleading for change. At a recent news conference in Wisconsin, Kathleen Bernier, a GOP state senator and former elections clerk, denounced her party’s efforts to seize control of the election process. “These made up things that people do to jazz up the base is just despicable and I don’t believe any elected legislator should play that game,” said Bernier."

You think?

"In Georgia, an election bill signed this year by the GOP governor gave the Republican-controlled General Assembly new powers over the state board of elections, which controls its local counterparts. The law is being used to launch a review of operations in solidly-Democratic Fulton County, home to most of Atlanta, which could lead to a state takeover. The legislature also passed measures allowing local officials to remove Democrats from election boards in six other counties. In Pennsylvania, the GOP-controlled legislature is undertaking a review of the presidential election, subpoenaing voter information that Democrats contend is an unprecedented intrusion into voter privacy. In Michigan, the GOP has focused on the state’s county boards of canvassers. The little-known committees’ power was briefly in the spotlight in November of 2020, when Trump urged the two Republican members of the board overseeing Wayne County, home to Democratic-bastion Detroit, to vote to block certification of the election. Michigan officials say that if boards of canvassers don’t certify an election they can be sued and compelled to do so. Still, that process could cause chaos and be used as a rallying cry behind election disputes. "They’re laying the groundwork for a slow-motion insurrection,” said Mark Brewer, an election lawyer and former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party. The most prominent Trump push is in Georgia, where the former president is backing U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, who voted against Biden’s Electoral College victory on Jan. 6, in a primary race against the Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. He rejected Trump’s pleas to “find” enough votes to declare him the winner. Trump also encouraged former U.S. Sen. David Perdue to challenge Gov. Brian Kemp in the GOP primary. Kemp turned down Trump’s entreaties to declare him the victor in the 2020 election. In Nevada, multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn Biden’s victory were thrown out by judges. A suit aimed at overturning his congressional loss was filed by Jim Marchant, a former GOP state lawmaker now running to be secretary of state, and it too was dismissed. The current Republican secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, who is term limited, found there was no significant fraud in the contests."

The above in its entirety presents an insidious exigent threat to a democratic republic. Worse?

Sadly, there is no substantive Democratic and Republican opposition.

At least:

"In Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Democratic governors have been a major impediment to the GOP’s effort to overhaul elections. Most significantly, they have vetoed new rules that Democrats argue are aimed at making it harder for people of color to vote."

Sadly, the racist nazi element in the GOP has no intention of backing down anywhere.

"Governors have a significant role in U.S. elections: They certify the winners in their states, clearing way for the appointment of Electoral College members. That raises fears that Trump-friendly governors could try to certify him — if he were to run in 2024 and be the GOP nominee — as the winner of their state’s electoral votes regardless of the vote count. Additionally, some Republicans argue that state legislatures can name their own electors no matter what the vote tally says."

Called treason.

Here's the problem:

"But Democrats have had little success in laying out the stakes in these races. It’s difficult for voters to believe the system could be vulnerable, said Daniel Squadron of The States Project, a Democratic group that tries to win state legislatures. “The most motivated voters in America today are those who think the 2020 election was stolen,” he said. “Acknowledging this is afoot requires such a leap from any core American value system that any of us have lived through.”

All the more reason our gutless president should be front and center on this issue. Needs to address this threat every time he speaks publicly. So should all Democrats. Remain gutlessly silent, guess what? An unwanted, dreaded second American revolution catastrophically looming could become reality.

CBS News reports:

"One year ago today, on January 2, 2021, President Donald Trump set in motion his most brazen effort to overturn his election defeat. In a recorded phone call, he told Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have." Mr. Trump also told Raffensperger he could face unspecified criminal charges if he did not bend. "That's a criminal offense … That's a big risk to you," Mr. Trump warned. "I listened," Raffensperger told CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett. "But I also knew that, 'You can dig all you want, Mr. President. We have the facts, and I'm sorry, you lost.'" Garrett asked, "Did it shock you?" "I was going to make sure that we followed the law and we followed the constitution, and I wasn't going to be swayed, pushed, or deviating from that."

Called Uncommon Valor.

"Raffensperger was dogged by accusations that he helped steal the election from Mr. Trump. He faced death threats; his wife was threatened with sexual violence. Raffensberger, a lifelong Republican and conservative who voted for Mr. Trump, felt hunted – by fellow Republicans. Garrett asked, "What's that been like?" "You watch yourself," Raffensperger replied. "You watch your back. And you need to start looking for people's tells." Meaning? "Is there anything on the side of their hip? Things like that." Raffensperger also got a dog. "Is it a guard dog?" Garrett asked. "No. But he's an awareness dog," he smiled. Baseless allegations of fraud in Georgia and other states — amplified by Mr. Trump ("This election was stolen, from you, from me, and from the country") — fueled the violent Capitol siege on January 6. Raffensperger said, "They were misled, they were deceived, they were given falsehoods about the results of the election." Those falsehoods were on display in full color in Maricopa County, Arizona, where the GOP-controlled State Senate sponsored a so-called "election audit" last May. It concluded Mr. Biden actually won with more votes than originally indicated. A summer symposium on 2020 election fraud, conducted by the CEO of My Pillow, Mike Lindell, yielded no evidence. Even so, 2021 saw 19 states, most led by Republicans, tighten election laws, according to the Brennan Center for Justice."

Called nazism. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"One irony of all this: the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation found four of the states President Trump most vociferously contested had some of the nation's most secure voting procedures. Helen Butler is a proud Democrat who served on the Board of Elections in Trump-friendly Morgan County, Georgia, for more than a decade. Republican county leaders there recently enacted new rules, allowing them to purge board members, including Butler. She told Garrett, "If you re-constitute the board with a lot of members that are made up of one political party and the political line of that party is that you have to change the outcome of the election to keep someone in power, this is a way to do it." Meaning, as the old saying goes, it doesn't matter as much who votes; it matters more who counts. Butler said, "I see it as, 'We didn't get it done this time, but next time I'm gonna get it done because I have total control of the election process.'"

Gets worse:

"Threats of violence still stalk Americans who did nothing more than count ballots. One of them is Tom Freitag, director of elections in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. He told Garrett he's received "a lot of angry calls, emails, threats." "What kind of things are we talking about?" "We received one email that said that we would all hang for treason." Bucks County is a swing county in a swing state. Mr. Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes in 2016; he lost by nearly twice that many in 2020. Garrett first met Frietag in September of 2020 when he was working around the clock to build a vote counting facility from scratch, all to comply with a staggering new demand for voting by mail, set in motion by a new state law, intensified by pandemic safety concerns. They were installing high-speed scanners to scan the ballots quickly. "We have ten of them," he said. When asked today how the counting process played out, Frietag said, "We were all nervous going into it. Overall, I think it went really smoothly with the hand we were dealt." And yet, the threats and bullying continued for a full year. "Are you frustrated so much that you might quit?" Garrett asked. "There's been days I wonder why I'm still doing this," Frietag replied. "I don't think I've gotten to the point where I want to quit just yet, but there's been days where I don't really want to come into work." Bob Harvie, an elected county commissioner in Bucks County, said, "This is not something I've seen except going back to the Civil War. And it does scare me." We asked Harvie about January 6: "If you wanted to destroy democracy, the first thing you do is turn members of that country against each other," he said. "And the second thing you do is to get people to start doubting the validity of the elections." Doubts – they circulate the country as a contagion of conspiracies."

Raw nazism.

"Wisconsin, long a hotbed of hard-fought and very close elections, is in the throes of a secretive Republican-led investigation into voter fraud in 2020. State Senator Kathy Bernier, a former election administrator herself, is a loud Trump supporter and among the most conservative voices in the legislature. Yet, she said, "I am a Republican. [but] we can't continue to beat a dead horse. We need to move on. "Were there voter fraud cases? Yes, there were. And they're being investigated now. But there was not organized, widespread voter fraud in the state of Wisconsin that anyone has provided proof of." The man leading the effort to find it, Republican State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, declined "CBS Sunday Morning"'s interview request for this story. For some pro-Trump Republicans, contesting or denying the result is no different than Democrats refusing to accept Mr. Trump's election – no less harmful, they would say, than persistent allegations of Russian collusion. Bernier accepts Mr. Biden as president, but adds, "The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans for perpetuating misinformation or outright lies."

Laughable. Simply, not true. Sadly, Republicans remain in a class all their own.

"Secretary of State Raffensperger, in general, agrees: "These stolen election claims, what they do is they undermine voters' confidence in the election process." He's more focused now on his next election, a GOP referendum of sorts on election denialism. His opponent, Congressman Jody Hice, objected to certifying Georgia's election results. Garrett asked Raffensperger, "How do you feel about this coming up, the primary?" "Well, see, I can stand on the truth," Raffensperger. "What's he going to stand on? Hice declined our repeated requests to speak with him. Raffensperger said, "I think at some point people have to face the brutal truth of what the election results were." "Do you feel ever that on this particular topic, you are howling into the wind?" "Like a voice in the wilderness? Yeah."

ABC News reports:

"Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., the top Republican on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, said former President Donald Trump is "clearly unfit for future office [and] clearly can never be anywhere near the Oval Office ever again." "He crossed lines no American president has ever crossed before," she said in an interview with "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday. "When a president refuses to tell the mob to stop, when he refuses to defend any of the coordinate branches of government, he cannot be trusted."

No question. Exceptionally courageous of Rep. Cheney. A class act. Indeed, Uncommon Valor.

"The Wyoming Republican said her party has a "particular duty" to not only reject the events of Jan. 6, but "to make sure that Donald Trump is not our nominee, and that he's never anywhere close to the reins of power ever again."

Trump presents an exigent threat to a democratic republic. Encouraging to see a growing number agree.

"As Trump publicly weighs whether to seek the White House again in 2024, Cheney said she agreed with Trump's former Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who said recently that a Trump victory in the next presidential election "could be the end of our democracy." "Do you share that fear?" Stephanopoulos asked. "I do," she said. As the one-year anniversary of the Capitol siege nears, the House select committee's sprawling probe is in full swing. In the past six months, the panel has interviewed more than 300 people, issued more than 50 subpoenas and obtained tens of thousands of records. Cheney said the panel's substantial efforts have already garnered important findings regarding Trump's actions that day. "The committee has firsthand testimony now that [Trump] was sitting in the dining room next to the Oval Office watching the attack on television," she said. She went on to add, "We have firsthand testimony that his daughter Ivanka went in at least twice to ask him to please stop this violence." "He could have told them to stand down. He could have told them to go home – and he failed to do so," Cheney continued. "It's hard to imagine a more significant and more serious dereliction of duty than that." "Is his failure to make that statement criminal negligence?" Stephanopoulos asked. Cheney replied that there are several "potential criminal statutes at issue here."

Why are prosecutors dragging their feet?

"But I think that there's absolutely no question that it was a dereliction of duty, and I think one of the things the committee needs to look at is we're looking at a legislative purpose is whether we need enhanced penalties for that kind of dereliction of duty," she said. Cheney, one of two Republicans on the congressional panel probing Jan. 6, said Sunday that "the Republican Party has to make a choice. We can either be loyal to our Constitution or loyal to Donald Trump, but we cannot be both."

No question. Precisely, the issue. Why do your fellow Republicans remain out to lunch, hopelessly clueless? Nearly a half century ago, Republicans stood tall. Rightfully, forced the resignation of Richard Nixon.

"Despite her pessimism about the state of her party, Cheney said she remains in high spirits about the work her committee has done. "This committee gives me hope," she said. "It is very much one that brings together a group of us who have very different policy views, but who come together when the issues have to do with the defense of the Constitution. So, that does give me hope."

Changing focus of nazism in our formerly great country. NBC News reports:

"Denise Aguilar was in Washington on Jan. 6, appearing as a featured speaker at the “Health Freedom” stage — one of the many events held hours before a wide range of far-right groups and Trump supporters would storm the Capitol. Shortly after the riot, Aguilar claimed in a since-deleted Instagram video that “we stormed the Capitol, and patriots broke open the doors” and “we’re taking back our states.” She called the day a “revolution.” Nearly a year later, Aguilar appeared at a more low-key event with a different tone: a school board meeting in San Joaquin County, just south of Sacramento. That evening, the board would be considering Covid vaccine guidance for the district’s students, and she was there to raise her voice against any government mandates. The shift from national to local is one with a purpose. “We figured out that going to the Capitol and working that particular piece doesn’t do anything, because these legislators have already made up their mind,” Aguilar told NBC News in December outside the Stockton meeting. “It’s all about local legislation, your local school districts, your City Council Board of Supervisors,” she said. “These people live in our community. They work here, and they’re going to have to face us every single day.”

Get this:

"Aguilar’s changing focus is indicative of a broader transformation by many of the extremist groups that participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. After a brief cooling-off period, groups like Aguilar’s all-women militia group, Mamalitia, and many others have focused on local politics — most notably school boards and county health boards — where they have found success in pushing back against everything from Covid mitigation proposals to public school curricula. Domestic extremist groups ranging from the QAnon conspiracy movement and the Proud Boys to militia organizations and avowed white nationalists have re-emerged in recent months, frequently trying to effect change at the local level. But it’s not just the strategy that has shifted. Most far-right domestic extremist movements have also adapted their infrastructure and messaging, according to a forthcoming report by the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, a nonprofit international affairs think tank. That analysis, which tracked violent domestic extremism and political violence since Jan. 6 via news reports and known extremist networks, found that despite an initial decline, domestic extremist groups have evolved and resurfaced, encouraging local action while recruiting and spreading their messages through culture-war debates including vaccines, race and education. “The domestic extremist landscape was battered by Jan. 6,” said Jared Holt, a resident fellow at the Digital Forensic Research Lab and author of the new report. “But extremism is dynamic and fluid. It is always trying to adapt to fit the container that it’s in.”

Like a cancer, it grows, spreads.

"At the event in Stockton, Aguilar spoke through a bullhorn outside, and later at the microphone inside, asking the board to “challenge the state’s mandates.” Aguilar was immediately followed at the microphone by two more parents, who claimed radiofrequency radiation from computers used for distance learning poisoned their children and possibly gave them a case of “Havana Syndrome,” a mysterious brain ailment reported by many diplomats and U.S. intelligence officers. Minutes after that, the Board of Education agreed to push back against California’s still-pending vaccination mandate. The protesters gave the school board a standing ovation."

Raw insanity. Perpetrated by the nazi element in our formerly great country.

"After their failed attempt to overturn a presidential election perceived as stolen, domestic extremists retreated to their backyards. Extremist movements faced “a massive PR crisis,” Holt said. “A lot of these movements spent 2020 raising their visibility, building out their ranks, going to mainstream conservative rallies at state Capitols, showing up in opposition to racial justice protests over the summer and getting very active during the election in the period afterward. All of that perceived momentum got sucked out of the room very quickly.” Then the arrests started. More than 700 people have been charged with crimes allegedly committed at the Capitol on Jan. 6. Many of those arrested have since been linked by prosecutors, researchers and journalists to extremist groups: the Proud Boys, QAnon, militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, and white supremacists. But by spring, there were already internal calls for the far right to refocus. Steve Bannon, a former Trump adviser and promoter of the Jan. 6 Stop the Steal rallies, called for foot soldiers in his far-right nationalism movement to get involved in local politics. “We’re going to take this back village by village,” he told his podcast listeners in May. A Propublica investigation found an unusual increase in local-level party officers following Bannon’s rallying. A move toward local action allowed extremist groups “to evade the scrutiny, surveillance and attention that they might receive when they operate on a national level,” Holt said."

That's a problem. A big problem. A direct, exigent threat to a democratic republic. A democratic republic in name only. In reality, a de facto fascist police-state.

"While far-right extremists may be less willing to telegraph their activities than they were in recent years, news reports documented some of their efforts, particularly the harassment of local officials and disruption of local governments. Public schools in Vancouver, Oregon, went into lockdown in September, after the far-right group Patriot Prayer, known in the Pacific Northwest for targeting political opponents at violent pro-Trump Portland rallies, spread a rumor that a child faced arrest for failing to wear a mask. The false claim was amplified by Proud Boys members, which resulted in an impromptu anti-mask protest outside a high school. In October, more than a dozen reportedly “agitated and angry” members of a Colorado militia, the United American Defense Force, filed into a school board meeting to oppose mask mandates. It’s not just the audience, but the message that’s changed. “A lot of these incidents are still happening near major metropolitan areas, high population areas, but the targets of these protests are not national causes anymore,” Holt said. As part of the effort to stay relevant and engaged in local fights, extremists have put new focus on Covid-19 vaccines and safety protocols, race in school curricula and other culture war battles."

Raw nazism.

"Over the summer, QAnon believers changed their mythology of Donald Trump as savior to include themselves as part of a plan to save the world. On popular QAnon forums, influencers urged followers to get involved with school committees and boards and run for election at any level. In November, Super Happy Fun America (SHFA), a far-right trolling organization, announced an anti-vaccine rally in Boston. Two SHFA leaders, Mark Sahady and Suzanne Ianni, are currently facing charges in the Jan. 6 attack. That same month, around 30 men dressed in the black and yellow uniforms of the Proud Boys, a far-right gang known for political violence and an allegiance to so-called Western values, marched the streets of Rockville Centre, a Long Island suburb of New York. In their Telegram channel, the Long Island Proud Boys posted a hodgepodge of purposes behind the march, which included honoring the victims of a mass killing of holiday revelers the weekend before in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and fighting against “illegal vaccine mandates.” (As of now, there is no evidence that the six deaths in Waukesha, which happened when a Black man drove his car into the crowd at a Christmas parade, were racially motivated. In addition to acting as muscle for anti-vaccine rallies in New York and Los Angeles, the Proud Boys have been an intimidating presence at schools. In November, 10 members of the group attended a school board meeting in suburban Illinois to protest an LGBTQ-friendly book in its library. They “jeered” at students who came to support the book, and called them “pedophiles,” according to The Chicago Sun-Times. Members of the Cape Fear Proud Boys chapter who showed up in uniform and full face masks at health and school board meetings in New Hanover, North Carolina, in November made their purpose clear. “If our presence escalates that pressure,” one member told a local reporter, “and makes it to the point where we become a distraction to conducting business and they just change the mask mandate so we go away, that’s a win.”

The 'cancer' continues to spread.

Tactics change:

"Efforts to organize follow-up events to Jan. 6 were quickly panned once the crowdsourced identification and arrests began. And so instead of rallying at the U.S. Capitol or their statehouses, the far right turned back to the internet. “It doesn’t take an event every weekend to sustain one of these communities,” said Megan Squire, a senior fellow for data analytics at the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks online extremism. “You can sustain a community online.” After Jan. 6, various internet platforms and digital infrastructure companies, some of which had already banned various groups involved in the riot, took action. Website hosts ended service agreements, online storefronts removed militia and QAnon content, groups including the Oath Keepers were dropped by their payment processors, and mainstream streaming platforms banned popular creators who participated in or promoted violence at the Capitol. Extremists reacted by moving to unmoderated alternative platforms, many of which offer a way for extremists to broadcast their messages and make money doing so. “Everybody and their brother has a podcast now and a videocast, and they’re doing nightly streams,” Squire said. “There are a billion platforms now that offer streaming, and most of that is monetized.” The shift away from mainstream platforms has also given some extremists groups reason to band together. TheDonald forum, which spun off from Reddit to become an independent website that hosted some of the most violent pro-Trump content, including specific plans to breach the Capitol, has only grown in the last year, rebranding as a new site, patriots.win, and expanding to host new far-right communities as they are banned from Reddit, according to the Digital Forensic Research Lab report."

A growing exigent threat to a democratic republic.

"Some people, including Mike Lindell, the pillow company owner and funder of Stop the Steal rallies and causes, created their own online spaces. Nick Fuentes, an influential 22-year-old white nationalist who urged a crowd of his supporters gathered at Freedom Plaza on Jan. 6, to “take this country back by force,” created his own streaming service after he was booted from DLive, which he had been using before the Capitol riot. “We’re back,” Fuentes said in a livestream from his new platform in October. “We can’t be censored. We can’t be de-platformed. We’re all here.”

Think so?

"The U.S. government is taking the threat of domestic extremism more seriously. More than 700 people so far have been arrested and charged with crimes related to the Capitol breach. A select House committee is investigating the attack, and President Joe Biden has established a national strategy that devotes $100 million to the Justice Department to address the threat of domestic violent extremism. The vigilance is warranted, said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino. Because even while extremist groups go through a time of “fragmentation and realignment,” he said the environmental elements that contributed to the rise in extremism up to the attack on the Capitol remain strong. Indeed, white nationalist groups are beginning to re-emerge, planning large-scale events that had mostly ceased since the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. “Our demonstrations are an exhibition of our unified capability to organize, to show our strength,” Thomas Ryan Rousseau, founder of the white nationalist group Patriot Front, explained in a propaganda video made from his group’s December march on the National Mall, during which 100 khaki-dressed men, flanked by police, chanted “Reclaim America,” and marched to the Capitol, then piled into the back of a moving truck and left. The car attack that killed six people and injured more than 60 at the parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, was animating for white nationalist groups and movements, which are looking for race-based incidents to further incite violence and division. Levin is concerned about the rise in anti-social markers — political polarization, internet use, alcoholism and psychological distress, among others — that indicate prime conditions for extremist ideas and groups to take hold. “These extreme communities may very well ebb and flow and even hit their ceiling, but they’re not going to disintegrate,” Levin said. “It’s like hitting mercury with a hammer. Distribution and size will vary. But the toxins are still there.”

Why hasn't the kingpin himself, the Trump nazi, been prosecuted for treasonously, traitorously inciting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection?

1-7-22

The following is well beyond chilling. Hard to believe it could ever be an opinion piece by three retired American generals. Yet, sadly, it is. For damned good reason. The Washington Post reports:

"Paul D. Eaton is a retired U.S. Army major general and a senior adviser to VoteVets. Antonio M. Taguba is a retired Army major general, with 34 years of active duty service. Steven M. Anderson is a retired brigadier general who served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.

"As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk. In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time."

Readers? Time to wake up.

"One of our military’s strengths is that it draws from our diverse population. It is a collection of individuals, all with different beliefs and backgrounds. But without constant maintenance, the potential for a military breakdown mirroring societal or political breakdown is very real. The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections."

Sadly, the above was well-known in the aftermath of the Trump-incited insurrection. Yet, ignored by the population.

"Recently, and perhaps more worrying, Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, the commanding general of the Oklahoma National Guard, refused an order from President Biden mandating that all National Guard members be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Mancino claimed that while the Oklahoma Guard is not federally mobilized, his commander in chief is the Republican governor of the state, not the president."

Jesus Christ. Think that's not a problem? A serious problem? Worse? Far worse?

"The potential for a total breakdown of the chain of command along partisan lines — from the top of the chain to squad level — is significant should another insurrection occur. The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed."

Think it can't, won't happen in the United States? That we're somehow different, exclusive, incapable of being overthrown by an internal traitorous, treasonous element? Think the following couldn't happen?

"Imagine competing commanders in chief — a newly reelected Biden giving orders, versus Trump (or another Trumpian figure) issuing orders as the head of a shadow government. Worse, imagine politicians at the state and federal levels illegally installing a losing candidate as president. All service members take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution. But in a contested election, with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured depending on who was overseeing them. Under such a scenario, it is not outlandish to say a military breakdown could lead to civil war. In this context, with our military hobbled and divided, U.S. security would be crippled. Any one of our enemies could take advantage by launching an all-out assault on our assets or our allies."

Ever thought you'd hear that from American generals? Retired or otherwise. Gets worse. Get this:

"The lack of military preparedness for the aftermath of the 2020 election was striking and worrying. Trump’s acting defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller, testified that he deliberately withheld military protection of the Capitol before Jan. 6. Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reportedly scrambled to ensure the nation’s nuclear defense chains were secure from illegal orders. It is evident the whole of our military was caught off-guard. With the country still as divided as ever, we must take steps to prepare for the worst."

Send a chill up your spine, -- especially considering the source?

"First, everything must be done to prevent another insurrection. Not a single leader who inspired it has been held to account. Our elected officials and those who enforce the law — including the Justice Department, the House select committee and the whole of Congress — must show more urgency. But the military cannot wait for elected officials to act. The Pentagon should immediately order a civics review for all members — uniformed and civilian — on the Constitution and electoral integrity. There must also be a review of the laws of war and how to identify and deal with illegal orders. And it must reinforce “unity of command” to make perfectly clear to every member of the Defense Department whom they answer to. No service member should say they didn’t understand whom to take orders from during a worst-case scenario. In addition, all military branches must undertake more intensive intelligence work at all installations. The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists. Finally, the Defense Department should war-game the next potential post-election insurrection or coup attempt to identify weak spots. It must then conduct a top-down debrief of its findings and begin putting in place safeguards to prevent breakdowns not just in the military, but also in any agency that works hand in hand with the military. The military and lawmakers have been gifted hindsight to prevent another insurrection from happening in 2024 — but they will succeed only if they take decisive action now."

Wake up. ... Hear the rumble? An unwanted, dreaded second American revolution catastrophically looms.

CBS News reports:

"Opinion this morning comes from retired U.S. Army General Steven Anderson: Forty-three years ago, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Back then, who could have imagined the domestic attack on our democracy a year ago this week? I've become increasingly concerned that our military has become politicized and infected by the acrimony that plagues our society today.

"Just consider this:

    At least 10% of the January 6th insurrectionists charged with crimes served in the military;
    Over 100 retired senior service leaders signed an open letter supporting Trump's "Big Lie" about the 2020 election;
    Convicted felon retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn advocated military action to support this claim; and
    The Republican Party spent the last year downplaying the insurrection and obstructing investigations."

Frightening, isn't it? Time to wake up.

"All this nonsense may confuse our troops on the difference between allegiance to a leader and allegiance to our Constitution. Such confusion could set conditions for another coup attempt, a thought that chills me to the bone. So, what should we do? First, all insurrectionists must be held accountable, to include the politicians that supported the Capitol assault. We need to educate our service members on the Constitution, and the integrity and legitimacy of our election system. The Pentagon must identify emerging threats, and war game against future domestic terrorist acts. And we need policy that prevents troops from joining hate groups. Military service is a profound privilege, and we cannot allow extremists to contaminate unit morale and cohesion. Ultimately, our military is merely a reflection of us – you and me. The misinformation and hateful rhetoric that infects our country and our political discourse weakens our national defense and vitalizes our adversaries. We must learn from the January 6th insurrection and take immediate actions to protect our great democracy from the domestic cancer that continues to grow within."

Hat's off, General.

1-7-22

Think Trump's 'heroine,' Ashli Babbitt, a martyr? Delusionally, believe his bullshit? The Associated Press reports:

"The first time Celeste Norris laid eyes on Ashli Babbitt, the future insurrectionist had just rammed her vehicle three times with an SUV and was pounding on the window, challenging her to a fight. Norris says the bad blood between them began in 2015, when Babbitt engaged in a monthslong extramarital affair with Norris’ longtime live-in boyfriend. When she learned of the relationship, Norris called Babbitt’s husband and told him she was cheating. “She pulls up yelling and screaming,” Norris said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, recounting the July 29, 2016, road-rage incident in Prince Frederick, Maryland. “It took me a good 30 seconds to figure out who she was. … Just all sorts of expletives, telling me to get out of the car, that she was going to beat my ass.” Terrified and confused, Norris dialed 911 and waited for law enforcement. Babbitt was later charged with numerous misdemeanors. The attack on Norris is an example of erratic and sometimes threatening behavior by Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer while at the vanguard of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Former President Donald Trump and his supporters have sought to portray her as a righteous martyr who was unjustly killed."

Think so?

"Trump has called her “an incredible person” and he even taped a posthumous birthday greeting to her in October. Trump has also demanded the Justice Department reinvestigate Babbitt’s death, though the officer who shot her was cleared of any wrongdoing by two prior federal investigations. But the life of the Air Force veteran from California, who died while wearing a Trump campaign flag wrapped around her shoulders like a cape, was far more complicated than the heroic portrait presented by Trump and his allies. In the months before her death, Babbitt had become consumed by pro-Trump conspiracy theories and posted angry screeds on social media. She also had a history of making violent threats. Babbitt, 35, was fatally shot while attempting to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby inside the Capitol, where police officers were evacuating members of Congress from the mob supporting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. She was one of five people who died during or immediately after the riot, including a Capitol Police officer.

"Her Twitter account, which was taken down after her death, was rife with references to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which centers on the baseless belief that Trump has secretly battled deep-state enemies and a cabal of Satan-worshiping cannibals that includes prominent Democrats who operate a child sex trafficking ring. “Nothing will stop us,” Babbitt tweeted Jan. 5. “They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!” Among Q followers, “The Storm” refers to the predicted day Trump would finally unmask the pedophile cabal, arrest and execute those deemed traitors and restore America to greatness. Trump has repeatedly insisted Babbitt was murdered, and she has achieved martyr status among Trump supporters. Her name and likeness now appear on T-shirts and flags at pro-Trump rallies.

"Court records involving the violent 2016 confrontation between Babbitt and Norris have previously been reported by media outlets, including the AP. But Norris, now 39, agreed to speak about it publicly for the first time in an interview with the AP and shared previously unreported details. She also provided documents and photos from the crash scene to support her account. Norris was in a six-year relationship with Aaron Babbitt when she said she learned he was cheating on her with a married co-worker from his job as a security guard at a nuclear power plant near the Chesapeake Bay. She eventually found out the other woman was Ashli McEntee, who at the time went by the last name of her then-husband. “He was telling me about this foulmouthed chick that’s on his shift, blah, blah, blah,” Norris recounted. “Come to find out a few months later ... they were basically having this relationship while they were at work.” When she learned of the affair, she reached out to Babbitt’s husband, Timothy McEntee."

Report goes on and on. Trump's 'heroine' is certainly not what he made her out to be. Expect better of a congenital liar?

1-7-22

Were Capitol Police brass out to lunch? CBS News reports:

"Three days before the January 6 riot, a top Capitol Police intelligence official sounded the alarm about potential violence at the U.S. Capitol. Julie Farnam, now the acting director of intelligence for the Capitol Police, had been with the department for 72 days when violent protesters attacked the Capitol on January 6th. In an interview with CBS News, she said her team didn't bear any responsibility for the insurrection, pointing to an intelligence report she gave to Capitol Police leadership on January 3rd. "I think we provided the information. I think we did an excellent job," Farnam said. "We knew there were going to be thousands of protesters. And we knew there were gonna be extremists there. And I knew things were not gonna be good that day." CBS News obtained her final intelligence assessment before the riot, dated January 3. "Bottom line," it read, "Protesters ... plan to be armed." Her team's "overall analysis" raised concerns about permits given to groups affiliated with "Stop the Steal," known to attract "white supremacists" and "militia members … who actively promote violence." The analysis warned that Trump supporters "see January 6 … as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election. … This sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent," and "unlike previous post-election protests … Congress itself is the target of the 6th." Farnam said the Capitol Police was the only federal agency "that wrote a comprehensive assessment and report that outlined the violence that was expected that day." "In some regards, on January 6th our intelligence division was an island. And we bear some responsibility for that," she added. Farnam said she passed the warning to her leadership."

... And no one in command did anything?

"When Yogananda Pittman, who became acting chief after the insurrection, testified to Congress about the January 3 assessment last February, she said there was "no credible threat" that indicated thousands of protesters would attack the Capitol, but the agency did know there was "a likelihood for violence by extremists."

Sounds like double talk, that is, blatant bullshit. Whose gluteus maximi was she protecting? Her own?

"Pittman is now back in the position she held on January 6, overseeing all intelligence operations for the Capitol Police, including Farnam's team. The department declined to make Pittman available for an interview."

Surprised? Think she's qualified? ... Or, just protecting her turf?

"In a statement following our report, the Capitol Police said the January 3 assessment was also shared with other top officials in the department "for planning purposes and distribution to rank and file officers as appropriate." But the department and the Capitol Police Inspector General acknowledge the intelligence was not widely disseminated."

Also sounds like blatant bullshit. So does the following. Leaves much to be desired:

"Current chief Tom Manger, who took over the force in July, said he couldn't speak to why the intelligence wasn't acted on because he wasn't there. "But I can tell you this, that the way intelligence was shared, the way it was disseminated needed vast improvement. And so today, that kind of intelligence, it would be acted on. We're in a posture now where we're not taking any chances," Manger said. "Overall, the department bears the majority of the responsibility. I mean, the organization let the men and women of this police department down."

After a year of investigation since the insurrection, the brass, including new Chief Tom Manger, should have a far better understanding of what went down and why. To know precisely why Farnum's heads-up on expected violence had no traction at the top of the command chain.

"Congressman Tim Ryan, who chairs the House committee that oversees the Capitol Police, blamed the agency's leadership. "They had the intelligence, the intelligence was right, but the leadership, I think, failed the rank and file members and they failed Congress," he said. The agency has since made improvements but there is still more to be done, Ryan said. Over the last year, the department opened its first field offices, the intelligence unit has doubled in size and improved the training of its analysts in an effort to ensure something like the January 6 riot never happens again. Manger is set to testify to Congress on Wednesday about the steps he has taken to overhaul the department since he came on board. After warning her superiors, Farnam said it was difficult to watch her assessment come to fruition on January 6. "I was listening to the police radio when that was happening," she said. "And to hear the officers' screams and everything that happened that day. It's very difficult."

It's appalling. Those in charge at the time must be held accountable.

1-7-22

Why did it take precisely a year for the President to finally take on his predecessor, the Trump nazi? In a fiery speech given at the Capitol on the one-year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 Trump-incited insurrection (and Trump's ongoing 'Big Lie' since the 2020 election), Biden finally let loose, all guns figuratively ablaze. ... Did you mean it, Joe? Why remain gutlessly silent a year, Mr. President?

12-31-21

The exigent threat of Trump's 'Big Lie' to a democratic republic. NPR reports:

"It's been nearly a year since the United States suffered an unprecedented attack on constitutional democracy."

-- Sadly, a democratic republic in name only. In reality, a de facto fascist police-state since at least 9/11 courtesy of the USA 'Patriot' Act. Actually, dating back decades before to the McCarthy Era of the early 50s. Fascism, nazism, national socialism defined as the pernicious blend of government, business, and religion. 'Justified' by perversion and bastardization of the latter.

"When a violent mob stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the goal was to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and install Donald Trump in a second term."

Exactly, what it was. A mob incited by the Trump nazi and his henchmen. -- The kingpin himself, Trump, has yet to be indicted. To date, protected and coddled.

"Call it an insurrection or a coup attempt, it was fueled by what's known as the "Big Lie": the verifiably false assertion that Trump won. Joe Biden won 306 votes in the Electoral College, while Trump received 232. In the popular vote, Biden won by more than seven million votes."

Yet, the nazi element in the Republican Party can't, won't be confused by the truth.

Worse? Far worse?

"Many are warning that over the past year, that "big lie" of a stolen election has grown more entrenched and more dangerous. "I've never been more scared about American democracy than I am right now, because of the metastasizing of the 'big lie,'" says election law expert Rick Hasen, co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center at the University of California, Irvine. "This is not the kind of thing I expected to ever worry about in the United States," Hasen says. "I kind of feel like a climate scientist from five years ago, or [an] expert on viruses a couple of years ago, sounding the alarm and just hoping that we're not too late already." In rallies around the country, Trump continues to hammer on the fiction that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him."

That, despite the fact both Republican and Democratic election officials state that is simply not true. Did not happen.

"Speaking at a rally in Georgia in September, Trump trumpeted his familiar, baseless claim that the election was "corrupt" and "rigged." "I have no doubt that we won, and we won big," Trump said. "The headlines claiming that Biden won are fake news, and a very big lie." A couple of weeks later, he repeated the fiction at a rally in Iowa. "We didn't lose," he insisted to a crowd that rewarded him with chants of "Trump won!"

Not true. Not reality. Remains raw insanity.

By inverting the narrative, attempting to slough off the "big lie" and pin it instead on his opponents, Trump exploited an age-old tactic, says Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder. "Part of the character of the 'big lie' is that it turns the powerful person into the victim," he says. "And then that allows the powerful person to actually exact revenge, like it's a promise for the future." Snyder, author of the books The Road to Unfreedom and On Tyranny, has spent years studying the ways tyrants skewer truth. Snyder points to Hitler's original definition of the "big lie" in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, and the ways he used it to blame Jews for all of Germany's woes."

Readers who support the Trump nazi need to read Mein Kampf. That Nazi ideology is precisely what Trump is perpetuating to perpetrate his autocratic ideology. ... And installation as autocrat, that is, dictator.

"The lie is so big that it reorders the world," Snyder says. "And so part of telling the big lie is that you immediately say it's the other side that tells the big lie. Sadly, but it's just a matter of record, all of that is in Mein Kampf."

It is. Read it. Wake up.

"Over the past year, Trump's lie that election fraud cost him the White House has become firmly anchored in public opinion. According to a CNN poll conducted this summer, fully 36% of Americans do not believe that President Biden legitimately won the election. Among Republicans, that number leaps to 78%."

Raw insanity.

"In an NPR/PBS Newshour/Marist poll conducted in October, just 34% of Republicans say they trust that elections are fair, while 75% of Republicans say Trump has a legitimate claim that there were "real cases of fraud that changed the results." Just 2% of Democrats agreed with that statement. What's more, says Timothy Snyder, "the 'big lie' is not just in people's minds. It's also now in the law books."

That's right. Called voter suppression. Worse? Enables Republican nazi election officials to throw out election results that don't benefit Republicans.

"Snyder points to the raft of new laws passed in Republican-led states that restrict voting. Over the past year, at least 19 states have passed laws limiting ballot access. In addition, Trump loyalists in battleground states are running for powerful offices that control elections. These are candidates who are endorsed by Trump, because they've embraced his lie that he won the 2020 election. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures have moved to seize power over elections, opening a path where they could overrule voters and substitute their own slate of electors to choose the winner."

Called nazism. De facto fascist police-state, democratic republic in name only.

"All of it, Snyder says, is a direct outcome of Trump's "big lie," and is deeply troubling for the future. "All of those things set us up for a scenario where the candidate who loses by every measure, not just by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College, the candidate who loses by every measure will nevertheless be installed as president of the United States," Snyder says. "I think that is probably the most likely scenario in 2024 as things stand now." That scenario needs to be confronted immediately, Snyder says: "It's right in front of our eyes. The most interesting and the most distressing thing about American news coverage right now is that we don't treat the end of democracy in America as the story. That is the story." We delude ourselves, Snyder says, if we think we're immune from an anti-democratic turn. "We imagine that there's somehow this immovable American democratic background, which doesn't really exist," he says. "We can lose democracy just like anybody else can, just like most people have in the history of democracy. We can lose it, and we're losing it right now."

That's right. The roots of all this date back to the McCarthy Era of the early 1950s.

"As of yet, the Democratic-led Congress has been unable to pass legislation to protect voting rights, a fact that Carol Anderson, professor of African-American Studies at Emory University, finds appalling. She argues that passing voting rights laws would "short-circuit the damage that the 'big lie' is doing and will do." Anderson sees "a Democratic party that does not understand that American democracy is hanging by a thread, and does not grapple with the fierce urgency of now." We have been, in her words, "baptized in American exceptionalism": the naive belief that the demise of democracy can't happen here."

Already, has.

"Even after you have had the insurrection," Anderson says, "even after you have had these legislatures write these laws figuring out not only how to stop Black people, brown people, indigenous people from voting, but also how to lower the guardrails of democracy that prevented Trump from being able to overturn the results in these states; so even after seeing this, to not move and do what needs to be done to protect this nation?" Anderson sighs. "It's unconscionable."

Nazism.

"For Anderson, author of the books White Rage and One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy, Trump's lie about the election sprouts from the same twisted roots as his birtherism lie: the conspiracy theory Trump peddled, falsely claiming that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. and therefore ineligible to serve as president. Linking both, she says, is a clear racist through-line. "Foundational to that is the devaluation and the dismissing of American citizenship for Black people," Anderson says. "This is about, 'My nation is about the real Americans. And all of those folks aren't real Americans.' It is so vile. It is so racist. And it works. That's the thing, it works."

Worked for Hitler and Mussolini until hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest died fighting this cancer. Second World War European Theater. Wake up.

"After all, Anderson says, if you repeat the lie enough times, it starts to sound like the truth. A failed coup is practice for a successful one. In Congress, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has interviewed hundreds of witnesses to establish the truth of what happened that day. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., is one of just two Republicans on the Committee. An outspoken Trump critic, he has announced he won't run for re-election. Kinzinger compares conspiracy theories to a cancer eating away at the Republican party, and feeding that cancer, he says, is the "big lie." "The thing that's most concerning is that it has endured in the face of all evidence," he says. "And I've gotten to wonder if there is actually any evidence that would ever change certain people's minds." Beyond his Committee's mission of uncovering what happened on Jan. 6 itself, Kinzinger has broader questions. "More importantly in my mind, what is the rot in the system that led up to Jan. 6? And where have we come since? And how do we stop anything like this from happening again?" he asks. "'Cause even though Jan. 6 technically failed, there's a lot of areas where you can learn from, if your goal is to overthrow a legitimate election and potentially do it successfully next time." And that is precisely the lesson from history, says Yale professor Timothy Snyder. "It wasn't enough, but next time it could well be enough. And the fact that it's been rehearsed makes me worry," he says. "This is what historians and political scientists who study coups d'etat say. They say a failed coup is practice for a successful one."

All the more reason Kinzinger and Cheney need to remain in office. To fight the insanity embraced by their fellow Republicans.

"What we're potentially looking at, Snyder warns, is nothing less than the end of the democratic United States as we've come to know it. "That's just the reality," he says. "And in order to prevent things from being frightening, you have to look right at them and say, 'OK, that's the monster. How can I disassemble it? How can I take it to pieces? How can I make sure that that story isn't our only story?' But it will be unless we tell it to ourselves straight." We have to confront that reality, Snyder says, if we are to find the courage and conviction to do something about it."

If not, hear the rumble? An unwanted, dreaded second American revolution catastrophically looms. The Nazi element lost the war nearly eight decades ago in Germany. At horrendous cost for both sides. No question, their successors here in our formerly great country will lose again. The current insanity our nation is suffering will not last forever.

Tim Chorney, Publisher
Liberty In Peril

Tim Chorney, Publisher
Liberty In Peril
Formerly,
The Llano Ledger
libertyinperil.com
United States Of America