July 25, 2023

An election for the people

..Rachel Maddow said tonight (as she shorthanded the latest Criminal Defendant developments) that the next election is a referendum on Trump and the rule of law.

That's just not how I see the future. It's Trump's plan to monopolize the election with his foolishness and lurid immaturity. In fact, a referundum on Trump is the republicans' ONLY election platform, that and undoing gains Americans and the nation have made through Pres. Biden's and Democrats' almost solitary legislative efforts.



The multi-indicted menace's criminal accountability, who the majority of republican voters stand solidly behind, is not Democrat's burden to bear. That is what our criminal justice system is charged with.

Pundits and their tv hosts have let the notion spread and fester that the prosecution of Trump is some race by DOJ to secure the election. Putting aside the ridiculousness (and utter corruption) of expecting DOJ to win the campaign for Dems, neither indictment nor conviction bars Trump from office.

The election's still our job, even though the media's overriding instinct is to bait Democrats into taking responsibility for the verdict of Trump's guilt. Nothing could be more defeating.

Our party is well involved in the business of making government work for the people, while every republican voter and pol is now the Criminal Defendant's co-conspirator. We're busy governing, and they're busy perpetrating.

Our nominee can't spend the majority of his time looped in Trump's foolishness. A unrelententing appeal to people-based progress and civic responsibility is the best offence against the sordid state of republicans in '24.

We don't need to wrap ourselves in any of the gloom and doom that permeates their maga world to defeat them. Our competence, optimism, and determination will provide voters much more than just a way out of Trump's vile game. We'll make this election mostly about the people, not just Donald Trump.

July 24, 2023

I get the criticisms and objections to Twitter

...it's not a truly moderated forum and it can be like that *time when you could hear several random idiots shouting things on your landline phones right before you hung up.

Twitter is just another place where randos, like me, can shout things into the receiver. It can be advocacy, outreach, political, personal, or vanity. I treasure the ability in real time to confront journos and pundits in real time, as opposed to the old ways I used to advocate several times a week with handwritten screeds on yellow legal pad paper sent to editorial editors, or phone calls to switchboard operaters and automated comment bots.

It really doesn't matter much who is at the top of an open forum, except, of course, in the case of a 'truthsocial,' or idiot boards promoting maga for morons. As long as there's a loop or a pipeline for us to shout out there will exist the opportunity to be heard. That's the essence of these forums.

Access equals voice. Reduce access, you limit the input. It doesn't matter much how you brand it, genuinely open access will attract a crowd.

Labeling your forum 'X' is as odd as a little blue bird, and the logo is as cheesy and tacky as porn. But I showed up again today, like I always do, and shouted my own nonsense into the void. As long as that's still an option, I'd guess most there will do the same.


https://twitter.com/BmoreCityDOT/status/1683499690900193281

July 21, 2023

When did we start relying on DOJ to win elections?

___________________________

...Susan Glasser did her best to gaslight us today about the Trump indictments by positing they're coming 'too late' for the political panacea against his return to the WH that she expected DOJ prosecutions to provide.

"For two and a half years, the failure to answer Trump’s brazen acts with a decisive rebuke has only empowered the former President, enabling him to regain political strength within his party," Glasser complains, as if Trump voter numbers have grown beyond the support of more than the GOP base which is still stuck in the low 40's against Pres. Biden in recent polls and several successive elections.

That's been the bugaboo for years about Trump, that he still enjoys solid support from his insurrectionist, anti-American base. What these polls have never shown is the ability of MAGA to move past their base and attract the independents and undecided who are the ONLY path for Trump to overcome the Democratic nominee.

That's what makes all of the fearmongering over Trump slipping past prosecutors and into the White House so unbelievable and sensationalistic. The notion that Trump can ride his minority of Big Lie faithful to a national victory over Joe Biden has never been evident in any poll, much less in polling that merely shows solidarity among the deplorable rabble who still believe a treasonous rapist is fit to serve as president.

Glasser's breathless, but mundanely obvious observation that, "Trump’s campaign is now explicitly a race not just to retake the Oval Office but to save himself from criminal conviction," plays right into the Defendant candidate's self-pitying political ploy by positing his criminal prosecution as a valid political position.

Thing is, there's nothing more we should expect DOJ or Jack Smith will do, or should do to influence that vote. It's one thing for them to be mindful of an election cycle, and quite another for them to spend time adjusting their investigations and prosecutions to fit a election timetable; presumably in Glasser's and others favor by disadvantaging Trump and enabling Biden. However sweet that would be for those of us who loath watching the Defendant out on the campaign trail, it's not what DOJ does, or should involve themselves in.

There's plenty of evidence that whatever disagreements FBI and DOJ engaged in at the beginning of the probe, it is ridiculous to assume, as Carol Leonnig made famous, that DOJ was either unconcerned with focusing their investigation on the Trump WH, or indifferent, or negligent, just based on the fact that there wasn't an official probe announced.

Nor has it been proven that some indictment of Trump in the first year of Garland's term would have resulted in an effective conviction, given that NONE of the major figures surrounding him were talking, and no incentive for them to talk at that time. What people assume was obvious from news reports doesn't necessarily translate into successful prosecutions.

It was Garland, by himself, who appointed Jack Smith over objections that he would slow the probe, and despite accusations that he was there to divert blame from Garland for declining to indict. Turned out, the man who appointed the SC that accelerated and broadened the probe is just as interested in prosecuting Trump as the rest of us.

All the cynicism, apathy, and fear about the pace of the DOJ probe has everything to do with a political process of elections which the legal process is dubiously accountable to (non-interference), or responsible for. Whatever delays Trump can engineer, the trial eventually will move forward to a verdict.

Always amazing to me how Fani Willis isn't tagged with the same nonsense about delay that DOJ is hampered with by pundits and other critics. Here we have an arguably less complex case moving at almost the same pace as the Smith probes. Always perplexed how the Fulton prosecution effort has escaped the same hyper concerns about delay in relationship to the election. Especially with any conviction there effectively insulated from the presidential pardon process.

How about these pundits use their expertise to remind readers just how complex these types of cases can be? Tell them how moneyed defendants are able to drag the process out, most often regardless of what the prosecution does. Don't just feed the cynicism.

For some reason, there's a belief out here, or the faint of a belief, that running against a multi-indicted, past election loser requires a DOJ prosecution to be successful. When did we start relying on DOJ to win elections?

July 21, 2023

One of the least discussed, but most significant Trump charge reported

...could be the 'Deprivation of Rights' charge, 18 USC 242.

Conspiracy to Defraud, and even the 'Witness Tampering' charge (which could turn out to be more about interference with a government proceeding than witness intimidation) are solid checks on Trump's criminal actions. Charges should be broadly defined to include several acts, from soliciting false electors and non-existent votes, to grifting around the Big Lie, and will bring the Defendant to accountability to the rule of law.

The curious, civil rights era charge has more of a feel of addressing the wrong perpetrated by Trump against the American people, the transgression against voters whose ballots he sought to subvert and supplant to his own benefit.

from crsreports at congress.gov:

Section 242 originates from section 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Congress amended and broadened the statute in 1874 pursuant to its constitutional authority to enforce the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment through “appropriate legislation.” Although Congress has amended the statute several times since then and changed its location in the U.S. Code, the law’s core prohibition has changed little since the nineteenth century. As currently in force, Section 242 imposes criminal penalties on any person acting “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom” who willfully subjects any person . . . to [1] the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to [2] different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens[.]

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted to protect people of African descent in wake of the Civil war. It was the first U.S. federal law to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law.

The Act was passed by Congress in 1866 and vetoed by United States President Andrew Johnson. In April 1866, Congress again passed the bill to support the Thirteenth Amendment, and Johnson again vetoed it, but a two-thirds majority in each chamber overrode the veto to allow it to become law without presidential signature.

It's a misdemeanor, a 1 year sentence unless there are aggravating actions like 'resulting death or injury,' or violent acts involving the imtimidation of weapons.

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It was reported a few years back that Trump's 2016 campaign 'targeted 3.5m black Americans to deter them from voting.'

Then, after he lost, Trump sued to invalidate votes in heavily majority black cities in his phony, opportunistic scheme to overturn the election results. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund sued him for disenfranchisement in Michigan, insisting that the Trump campaign attempted mass voter suppression by pressuring election officials into not certifying election results

NPR:

Trump and his allies have made similar efforts in Pennsylvania, with false claims about widespread voter fraud in Philadelphia. There have been charges leveled against the electoral process in Atlanta as the political universe is focused on Georgia ahead of two runoff elections that will determine control of the U.S. Senate. In Wisconsin, the Trump campaign has called for a recount of ballots in the diverse, large counties of Milwaukee and Dane, which put Biden over the top there, but the Trump campaign did not ask for recounts in the rest of the state's whiter counties.

A later report cited the similar law, 18 U.S.C. § 241 as another possibile charge, or instead of the one first reported.

SECTION 241 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
Although 18 U.S.C. § 241,' a criminal civil rights statute, receives scant recognition as a civil rights enforcement provision and is often eclipsed by its sister statute, 18 U.S.C. § 242,2 the Justice Department and U.S. attorneys realize that section 241, which proscribes conspiracies to violate individuals' federally pro- tected rights, is a powerful weapon in the federal civil rights en- forcement arsenal. Section 241 was designed to punish "tradition- al" civil rights crimes, such as those committed by the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations that sprung up after the Civil War, but the statute reaches far beyond such crimes to punish most conspiracies designed to interfere with another's exercise or enjoyment of a federally protected right.

The statute has been used, for instance, to prosecute local law enforcement officials who abuse their authority, federal executive branch officials who en- gage in illicit political schemes, and organized crime figures who conspire to prevent incriminating witnesses from testifying against them. With the continued manifestation of hate crimes in America, section 241 is becoming an increasingly valuable tool for federal civil fights enforcement. Since many hate crimes involve interference, or attempted interference, with the victim's exercise of his federal fights, prosecutors can link the protected interest to a section 241 conspiracy charge....
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3239&context=dlj#:~:text=Section%20241%20provides%2C%20If%20two%20or%20more%20persons,or%20for%20life.%2018%20U.S.C.%20%C2%A7%20241%20%281988%29.

I doubt, though that either of these are intended by the SC to just address the voter suppression in black communities, but to encompass all of our rights to vote and have our votes counted. It may also apply to Joe Biden's rights in that election, as well.

Whatever Jack Smith's intent in bringing either charge, they represent both the import and gravity of what Donald Trump perpetrated, but also our nation of law's determination to stand up for the rights of all Americans to participate in our democratic system of government without interference or intimidation.

July 13, 2023

Model prosecution memo shows potential crimes and evidence against Trump for Jan. 6

Barb McQuade @BarbMcQuade 40m
Model prosecution memo in @just_security shows the potential crimes and evidence against Trump surrounding Jan 6. The memo is based only on public info. Jack Smith may have more evidence that is inculpatory or exculpatory, but this memo makes a strong case

(*bigtree: Evidence also shows how important the convictions Merrick Garland obtained against Oath Keepers and Proud Boys for seditious conspiracy and other crimes will be in any Trump prosecution for the riot he incited.)


...excerpts from Trump on Trial: A Model Prosecution Memo for Federal Election Interference Crimes_

Norman Eisen, Noah Bookbinder, Donald Ayer, Joshua Stanton, E. Danya Perry, Debra Perlin, and Kayvan Farchadi
Published at Just Security, July 2023

This model prosecution memorandum (or “pros memo”) assesses federal charges Special Counsel Jack Smith may bring against former President Donald Trump for alleged criminal interference in the 2020 election. The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors, criminal defense lawyers, and other legal expertise. We conclude that the evidence likely now meets Department of Justice standards to commence a prosecution. We base that conclusion upon a stream of recent disclosures in court filings and in the press that have come on top of the findings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol (the “Select Committee”).

Our memo follows a common DOJ practice. Prior to indicting a case, federal prosecutors prepare a pros memo that lays out admissible evidence, possible charges, and legal issues. This document provides a basis for prosecutors handling the case and their supervisors to assess whether the case meets the standard set forth in the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which permit charges only when there is “evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

Here, we conclude there likely is sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction of Trump for his three-step plan to overturn the election:


___Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and Trump’s former campaign advisor, Roger Stone—both long-time loyal allies of Donald Trump—appear to have been in direct communication with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in the lead-up to the January 6 attack.

Photographs obtained by the Select Committee, which were taken on December 12, 2020, show Flynn and Patrick Byrne “guarded by indicted Oath Keeper Roberto Minuta” with “Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes” visible in another picture. As noted above, Flynn and Byrne, along with attorney Sidney Powell, had a lengthy strategy meeting with Trump at the White House just six days later, on December 18. It was immediately following that meeting that Trump sent out his first tweet calling supporters to a “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th.”

The Select Committee also presented photographic evidence of Roger Stone being guarded by two Oath Keepers who “have since been criminally indicted for seditious conspiracy,” and one of whom “pleaded guilty and, according to the Department of Justice, admitted that the Oath Keepers were ready to use, quote, lethal force if necessary against anyone who tried to remove President Trump from the White House.”

Additionally, the Select Committee presented video of Stone taking the “so-called fraternity creed required for the first level of initiation to the [Proud Boys].” According to the Select Committee, “Stone communicated with both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers regularly” and there was even an “encrypted…group chat” called “Friends of Stone, FOS, which included Stone, [Oath Keepers leader Stewart] Rhodes, [Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio] and Ali Alexander.” Rhodes used this group chat to communicate with the others during the attack. According to Rep. Zoe Lofgren, “Roger Stone's connection with Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys is well documented by video evidence, with phone records the Select Committee has obtained.

Kellye SoRelle, an attorney identified by the Select Committee as the Oath Keepers’ General Counsel and a volunteer lawyer for the Trump campaign, described Stone as one of the individuals at “the center point for everything” when it came to the Stop the Steal rallies.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren provided additional context with regard to Stone’s connections to the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys during an October 13, 2022 Select Committee hearing. She said:

Joshua James, the leader of the Alabama Oath Keepers, provided security for Roger Stone and was with him on January 5th. James entered the Capitol on January 6th. He assaulted a police officer….Earlier this year, he pled guilty to seditious conspiracy and—and obstruction of Congress. Another example, is the married couple, Kelly and Connie Meggs. Kelly Meggs was the leader of the Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers. Both he and his wife provided security for Roger Stone, and both are charged with leading a military style stack attack of Oath Keepers attacking the Capitol on January 6th. Perhaps even more disturbing is Roger Stone’s close association with Enrique Tarrio, the national chairman of the Proud Boys. Roger Stone’s connection with Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys is well documented by video evidence, with phone records the Select Committee has obtained.

Stone, who according to his own statement, spoke with Trump during this time period leading up to January 6, made numerous comments captured on video and online which give insight into his thinking, mindset, intent, and perhaps, by extension, the advice that he was providing Trump. In a video obtained and presented as evidence by the Select Committee, labeled as recorded on November 2, 2020, Roger Stone said “I said, fuck the voting, let's get right to the violence …. We’ll have to start smashing pumpkins if you know what I mean.”

Testimony obtained by the Select Committee appears to corroborate that Stone was advising Trump, or otherwise fulfilling some role for the Trump team, in the immediate lead-up to January 6. Trump’s allies set up a so-called “war room” or “command center” in “a set of rooms and suites in the … Willard hotel a block from the White House.”566 According to testimony from Cassidy Hutchinson, Trump asked Meadows to speak with Stone and Flynn on the evening of January 5. Here is Hutchinson’s public testimony in response to questions from Select Committee Vice Chair Cheney:

REP. CHENEY: …Ms. Hutchinson, Is it your understanding that President Trump asked Mark Meadows to speak with Roger Stone and General Flynn on January 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: That's correct. That is my understanding.
REP. CHENEY: And Ms. Hutchinson, is it your understanding that Mr. Meadows called Mr. Stone on the 5th?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I'm under the impression that Mr. Meadows did complete both a call to Mr. Stone and General Flynn the evening of the 5th. REP. CHENEY: And do you know what they talked about that evening, Ms. Hutchinson?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I'm not sure.

Hutchinson also testified:

Mr. Meadows had a conversation with me where he wanted me to work with Secret Service on a movement from the White House to the Willard Hotel so he could attend the meeting or meetings with Mr. Giuliani and his associates in the war room. …I had made it clear to Mr. Meadows that I didn't believe it was a smart idea for him to go to the Willard Hotel that night. I wasn't sure everything that was going on at the Willard Hotel, although I knew enough about what Mr. Giuliani and his associates were pushing during this period. I didn't think that it was something appropriate for the White House Chief of Staff to attend or to consider involvement in, and made that clear to Mr. Meadows. Throughout the afternoon, he mentioned a few more times going up to the Willard Hotel that evening, and then eventually dropped the subject the night of the 5th and said that he would dial in instead.

A few days earlier, on the evening of January 2, 2021, according to Hutchinson’s testimony, Meadows told her that “things might get real, real bad on January 6” after she inquired about the White House’s plans for that day. On January 5, 2021, Steve Bannon demonstrated the same apparent foreknowledge as Meadows of what was to come. The Select Committee presented a video of Bannon as evidence in which he said:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s all converging and now we’re on, as they say, the point of attack…I’ll tell you this: It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen…It’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. And all I can say is strap in.

According to the Select Committee, White House phone logs show that Trump “spoke to Steve Bannon…at least twice on January 5.” It was after Bannon’s first call with Trump, which according to the Select Committee lasted 11minutes, that Bannon made his prediction about January 6 on his public podcast.

In addition to Trump posting tweets that mobilized his followers to come to Washington D.C. on January 6, his political action committee also reportedly helped fund the rally. According to the Select Committee, Trump created an entity called Save America PAC to collect funds that he and his allies raised through his election fraud claims. The Select Committee found that Trump’s PAC gave Event Strategies Inc., which ran the January 6th rally at the Ellipse, more than $5 million. And rally organizers included members of Trump’s team, such as Pierson, who was Trump’s former campaign spokesperson. Moreover, there is documentation of direct communication with Meadows about the planning of the rally as well as individuals and groups the rally organizers were reaching out to in order to secure their appearance and share details.

Prosecutors may also be able to develop additional evidence that Trump assisted the insurrection by organizing his assemblage of people, including known violent extremist groups, and attempting to lead them to the Capitol. For example, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and Trump’s former campaign advisor, Roger Stone—both long- time loyal allies of Donald Trump—appear to have been in direct communication with the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in the lead-up to the January 6 attack. The Select Committee report also details evidence of coordination between the Proud Boys method of attack and Trump’s mobilization of the mob to march on the Capitol. These facts, and others, appear to indicate that it is at least conceivable that there was coordination between Trump and/or his allies and some of the violent groups who led the attack on the Capitol, evidence of which a prosecutor may be able to unearth. Such additional evidence would be helpful, but not necessary, to establish insurrection under this theory.

On January 6 itself, as described further in I.C.1 above, he directed the mob that he had assembled to “fight” to overturn the election results by marching to the Capitol to “stop the steal,” knowing that they were armed and that the likelihood of violence was high.

The crowd’s belief that the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the country, would be marching alongside them to the Capitol building added an aura of legitimacy to their efforts. In the words of one of the rioters, speaking through his attorney: “I was in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, because I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump and he was my President and the commander-in-chief. His statements also had me believing the election was stolen from him.”

After unsuccessfully attempting to join the mob, Trump actively encouraged it while the assault on the Capitol was ongoing with his 2:24 pm tweet as well as aiding it by failing to take action to disperse the mob for 187 minutes...


read more: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/model-prosecution-memo-january-6th-election-interference-just-security-july-2023.pdf

executive summary of the Jan. 6 committee's final report: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/19/1143650032/read-an-executive-summary-of-the-jan-6-committees-final-report

Select January 6th Committee Final Report and Supporting Materials
https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/january-6th-committee-final-report?path=/GPO/January%206th%20Committee%20Final%20Report%20and%20Supporting%20Materials%20Collection


...this analysis (and the Select Cmte.'s final report) shows just how key Merrick Garland's prosecutions and convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for seditious conspiracy and other crimes are to proving Trump conspired with the riot leaders, or that he was not only aware of their plans to storm the Capitol, but was coordinating his actions with those individuals charged and convicted.

July 12, 2023

DOJ is appealing the sentences against the Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney 8m
! DOJ is appealing the sentences imposed by Judge Mehta against the Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy or obstruction, including the 18-year term for Stewart Rhodes.

All of the sentences, even Rhodes’, were well below what the sentencing guidelines called for.



https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1679257036129697792

Joyce Alene @JoyceWhiteVance
The solicitor general has to give her permission for a govt's appeal like this. Sentencing appeals are unusual (judges have considerable discretion) & while the govt can object to procedural or substantive flaws at sentencing, the cases are hard to win. Strong sign DOJ wants clear precedent for long sentences for those even more responsible for the insurrection tha(n) the Oath Keepers.

July 11, 2023

Judge Cannon shouldn't be accommodating Trump's run for office in any way

...it's not the Court's responsibility to pave the way for an accused defendant to run for public office.

Trump chose to put himself in this position, knowing full well that he was at risk for more than one indictment when he announced his run for the presidency. He has a constitutional right to run for office, but he also has an obligation right now to the will and schedule of the courts which supersedes his ambitions for the presidency.

Trump can just drop out until his legal obligations are complete. No court should be made to account for, or alter their course for whatever he believes is his prerogative or need to perform in the election. At least that's what he said about Hillary Clinton:

Trump said in 2016 that a president under indictment would “cripple the operations of our government” and create an “unprecedented constitutional crisis” – years before he himself was indicted on federal charges while running for a second term as president.

Trump made the comments nearly seven years ago about Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial,” Trump said during a November 5, 2016, campaign rally in Reno, Nevada, reviewed by CNN’s KFile. “It would grind government to a halt.”

“If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government,” he said. “She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way.”

“She has no right to be running, you know that,” Trump said. “No right.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/03/politics/kfile-trump-president-indictment-halt-government/index.html

There's no reason why a court should accommodate his presidential run, any more than he believed they should for Hillary. He may have the right to run, but no court should feel compelled to make that easy for him, or smooth out the consequences of his own actions which led him there.

July 11, 2023

Siri! What does it usually mean when a grand jury deliberates all day without calling any witnesses?

Ryan J. Reilly @ryanjreilly 7h
The grand jury investigating efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power appears to be meeting at the Prettyman federal courthouse once again.

Per @dnlbrns, Thomas Windom (one of the special counsel's lead investigators) is in the building.

Ryan J. Reilly @ryanjreilly
The grand jury has left for the day, as has Windom. No notable witnesses were spotted in the courthouse.

Jack E. Smith ⚖️ @7Veritas4 (parody acct.)
Hey Siri! What does it usually mean when a grand jury deliberates all day without calling any witnesses?

Siri: Oh snap…it’s game time, Jack.

July 11, 2023

Tuberville finally chokes on the truth about 'white nationalists'

Ryan J. Reilly @ryanjreilly 4m
“‘White nationalists are racists,’ Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. said on Tuesday afternoon after a months-long saga in which he pointedly refused to say just that.”

Igor Bobic @igorbobic
“White nationalists are racists,” Tuberville tells reporters after rushing off the Senate floor.

Asked about Schumer calling on him to apologize, he says, “No, he needs to apologize.” He didn’t say why.

...hours ago:

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1678579616376651777

July 11, 2023

Delaying Trump's trial until after the election would be a deliberately political act by Cannon

...the ONLY deliberately political act so far in this indictment.

Delaying the trial for any political consideration would a rejection of the long-established notion that jurors can be fair and impartial, and a thumb on the scale of justice in favor of the defendant. Cannon shouldn't be allowed to erect some shield against prosecution for Trump that hasn't existed for any other political figure running for office.

Not only did Trump know well he would be in legal jeopardy when he announced, it was his clear intention to use that declaration to stave off an indictment.

Merrick Garland's appointment of Jack Smith, right after Trump announced, was the remedy to any conflict of interest with Biden's DOJ, so the question for Cannon would be less whether the SC could be fair and impartial, and more about whether she can keep herself from interjecting her own bias into this case to essentially advantage Trump in the next election.

Hell, there's actually more of an argument to be made with all in-consideration that the trial should be held much sooner than later.