July 6, 2023

I believe attacks on Garland are an effort to deny the Biden admin credit for prosecuting Trump

...that's what I think is behind Nicolle Wallace's constant bleating about investigations she only (barely) reads about in news reports.

It's always like that from the never-Trumpers who were forced to admit their party is, and has always been a pack of bigots, racists, and corporate stooges when their insurrectionist president took each and every one of their anti-American, anti-worker, anti-family, anti-immigrant, anti-education, anti-democracy policies and tried his best to actually enact them.

It was one thing for republicans like Wallace to wrap themselves in the 'kinder gentler' approach to enacting extremist policies that Bush made famous. When Trump explained clearly that he actually intended to enact those policies to screw everyone save his sweet self and his party's right wing agenda it caught the cutesy conservative who handpicked Sarah Palin off guard.

Like Morning Joe, Wallace has improbably assumed some kind of authoritative role in telling us all how best to take down the despicable monsters they spent their political lifetimes feathering and enabling. I get it. It's nice to see republicans attacking republicans. It's schadenfreude.

But Wallace and her ilk are just stalking horses for the same disingenuous tripe that the Democrat party spent decades defending against. Anti-Trump is easy and predictable for any republican looking for a way out of the catastrophe that their party has become. The most cynical consequences of their politics have come uncomfortably close to becoming reality.

There is no middle ground to fascism, and these erstwhile republicans are challenged to either shed their complicit politics, or follow their authoritarian republican leadership down to their anti-democratic, anti-American end.

Before Wallace and Joe get comfortable telling Democrats how they should run their party, or our White House, or our Senate majority, they'll need to come clean on the garbage they, themselves, cravenly introduced into our political system.

Thing is, the choices Joe Biden made early in his administration are paying dividends for the nation, including his appointment of the man republicans denied a seat on the Supreme Court.

Not only was it Merrick Garland's correct and prescient decision to appoint Jack Smith, it was his efforts laying the ground work; fighting the court challenges over privilege and access; obtaining the search warrant of Maralago which has resulted in an indictment of Trump on dozens of charges; which effectively enabled this administration's DOJ to carry out their responsibilities of checks and balances.

The notion spread lately that Garland's DOJ was unconcerned, indifferent, or otherwise negligent in his duty to investigate (and prosecute) the Trump WH because of disagreements within the FBI is such a simplistic and really inane view of how the department operates.

...from the recent, otherwise gaslighting article by WaPo's Carol Leonning:

"It is not unusual for FBI agents and Justice Department prosecutors to disagree during an investigation about how aggressively to pursue witnesses or other evidence. Often, those disagreements are temporary flare-ups that are debated, decided and resolved in due course."

"The idea of closing the probe was not something that was discussed or considered by FBI leadership and would not have been approved, a senior law enforcement official said."

..the notion that DOJ was just sitting on their hands in the interim before they announced a formal investigation into Trump's activities is belied by report after report of FBI and DOJ activity behind the scenes, like this one today:

Pete Strzok @petestrzok 22h
Newly unredacted Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit information: before the search, the FBI and DOJ knew more than half (between 34 and 39 of approximately 64) of the boxes that were removed from the storage area had not been returned.

or this one:

This July 26, 2022 article by Carol D. Leonnig, the same person who claimed there wasn't attention at DOJ on the Trump WH, including the president, should give pause in accepting the claims that DOJ was negligent in the early days of Garland's time in office.

Justice Department investigators in April (2022) received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, according to two people familiar with the matter. That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject.

The Washington Post and other news organizations have previously written that the Justice Department is examining the conduct of Eastman, Giuliani and others in Trump’s orbit. But the degree of prosecutors’ interest in Trump’s actions has not been previously reported, nor has the review of senior Trump aides’ phone records.

...or, consider this:

(@MuellerSheWrote) Before Jack Smith was appointed, Merrick Garland:

Seized John Eastman's phone
Seized Jeffrey Clark's phone
Seized Scott Perry's emails
Seized Eastman's emails
Seized Epshteyn's phone
Seized Mike Lindell's phone
Seized Mike Roman's phone
Seized Scott Perry's phone
Got Kash Patel's testimony
Appointed Windom
Appointed Cooney
Subpoenaed the fraudulent electors
Subpoenaed 7 state's election officials
Subpoenaed Sidney's PAC
Subpoenaed Rudy
Opened IG probe into Clark
Opened IG probe into DoJ response to 1/6
Negotiated subpoena for Meadows
Battled the 11th circuit for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for classified docs
Subpoenaed trump for surveillance video
Executed a search warrant on trump
Convicted Bannon of contempt
Indicted Navarro for contempt
Subpoenaed the speakers from 1/6
Subpoenaed the organizers of 1/6
Secured seditious conspiracy convictions
Subpoenaed records for any member of congress involved in 1/6
Subpoenaed info on Jenna Ellis
Secured testimony from Mark Short
Secured testimony from Jacob Engel
Secured testimony from Philbin
Secured testimony from Cippollone
Subpoenaed info on trump's PACs
Won privilege battles for Short, Engel, and the Pats
Negotiated for Pence's subpoena
Seized the phone records of Meadows
Secured the 1/6 committee transcripts
Subpoenaed 7 secretaries of state
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1647043510544273408.html


...that's just what's in the public record. DOJ secrecy rules (correctly) prevent us from definitively knowing or saying just what they did in the early days of the investigation. The absence of that information may well be an open invitation for Garland critics to speculate the worst of his actions and intentions, but it's still bunk without that inside knowledge, which is essentially the bulk of the case, and not available in anything we read in the news.

So, save some praise and credit for this unassuming man who's been subject to so much gaslighting and misinformation - dumbfoundedly from all sides. He's not seeking recognition for his many successes; that workaday posture is its own reward. But he's steadily racking up the successes and unprecedented accountabilities.

He hasn't botched anything by being deliberate and cautious, nor has he diminished his role or importance by handing off his most consequential investigations of the former president to an outside counsel; an action many, many pundits and critics wrongly claimed would slow the probe.

The argument that the man who, by himself, appointed the person who deepened and accelerated the probes into the Trump WH was somehow negligent is an insult to logic.

Common sense should tell us that Merrick Garland is overseeing a smart and deliberately effective collection of investigations and prosecutions which he, himself, set in motion. If we can't acknowledge that, we're left pretending all of this prosecutorial progress before us just appeared out of thin air.

June 29, 2023

What is an 'institutionalist?'

Like so many terms used in political debates these days in dumbfounding diatribes argued by the indicted ex-president and his similarly prevaricating supporters, where up is often defined as down and night as day, the notion of an institutionalist has been bastardized lately as an anathema to justice by some who believe legal judgment against the Criminal Defendant* has been slowed or impeded by undue adherence to investigative norms and legal precedent.

Whether there was some unreasonable delay in DOJ directing their investigative resources to the CD remains to be seen. There is more than a little proof available to anyone interested that Merrick Garland's DOJ was just as interested in pursuing justice as anyone, wherever the evidence leads, right from the start of his appointment. That's going to be revealed in the end, so it's really a meaningless, and nonfactual debate to be had right now over just whatever is in the public domain. It's an opportunistic and incomplete debate that isn't worth anything at this point.

What I think is important to recognize is the political dynamic occurring today between a republican party working overtime to tear down the institutions of government, as they always have, and our Democratic party working overtime to hold them together and make them work for the people.

When we talk about an institutionalist in politics today, it's basically someone who believes in the ability and impetus of our government to make a positive difference in our lives. It's the exact opposite of today's maga-republicanism which intends to tear down those institutions of government or neuter them to deny benefits and rights to the people.

When Pres. Biden, for instance, speaks about his belief in the Courts, and his belief in what's essentially our democratic process, to make the changes, and afford us the protections and resources the nations needs to advance and progress, it's what we should expect out of the ones we put in charge of those institutions.

Republicans, like our gravest and most dangerous adversaries abroad, want to degrade our respect for and adherence to our system of government in favor of an autocratic rule in which our laws are dictated down, instead of legislated up to the people. Their most effective tool is the spread of cynicism and to create a sense of chaos and division in society in which they can pick and choose what laws to obey with impunity.

In all of that lawlessness, demagogues swarm to declare that all is broken and all is lost. 'Democracy has failed, our courts have failed, and our society is collapsing.' What better rallying cry could there be for the demagogic rabble than an anti-institutionalist fervor and movement?

On the other hand, what better antidote for that deliberate unrest and agitation is there than a steady, firm adherence to institutional principle and practices? Indeed, it is the very aim of anti-institutionalists to draw the nation into false questioning of established laws and norms resulting from their OWN flagrant abuses of the same.

What sly magician's trick has people agitating for actual justice, flailing at the very institutions and institutionalists pursuing and prosecuting it? Our elected and government officials aren't saddled with some Hobson's Choice over defending institutions, or pursuing justice. The aims are one in the same.

Moreover, legal and social justice derived through those institutions, while not immutable to political rhetoric or whim, is the most enduring of such actions.

John Rawls, an American philosopher and a leading figure in moral and political philosophy, wrote in 'A Theory of Justice..."

“Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests.”

Government institutions or institutionalists aren't inherently anti-progressive. They are a table, a platform, a springboard for action that involves more than just expressing some elegant or economical theory or position. Without them there is just political bargaining, or the shifting calculus of disparate and diverse interests.

June 19, 2023

Banking on a Garland Jan. 6 indictment

... immediately after the DOJ indictment of Trump in the docs case was announced, there came the predictable wave of second-guessing which swirled around in the very same speculative air as the absurd defenses from republicans.

More than that, pundits who had spent years wringing their hands over whether the DOJ/Special Counsel probe would hold consequences for Trump, shifted right away to cynicism and doubt - over the judge; over the venue, over court date; over the political implications; coming a bit late to the realization there are many actual considerations for the DOJ, other than following news reports, which challenge their prosecution to make absolutely certain the value and weight of their evidence.

Of these, concern about political bias screams the loudest. It's the wild card in all of this, because the politics has never been in the DOJ's control, and never will be. The simple fact that Trump can still run for, and presumably be elected even if convicted means that voters, not the Justice Dept., will be in charge of the task of keeping Trump from office.

That means most of DOJ's concern is best spent making sure what they ultimately do or decide can be judged as a deliberative process based on the evidence they uncover and produce, and not out of favoritism toward any political aim or individual.

There would be little defense against charges of political bias if Merrick Garland began with the presumption Trump was guilty of something and just had the U.S. Justice Dept. gather together whatever fit that assumption into an indictment. That's basically what we do on the outside. There's nothing wrong with that, but isn't what could be fairly reasoned to be just, and it isn't how Garland rolls.

“All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, the due process of the law and to the presumption of innocence,” said Garland in a press appearance unsealing the Maralago search warrant (months before the appointment of Jack Smith). “Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations.”Garland said.

IF there was any actual delay or resistance in making the DOJ's Jan. 6 probe about Donald Trump and his allies in and out of the WH, it was because it was early days in the investigation. The players and their potential roles had to be obvious to Garland, but there wasn't any sense in rushing to get Pence's recalcitrant testimony, or Meadows, or any of the other Trump confidantes who were hiding behind dubious claims of privilege and other obstructions of the DOJ investigation.

It was an obvious task ahead to then make certain every underling or associate of Trump, and those of his cabal, was thoroughly broken down in interviews and other coercive methods available to the FBI and prosecutors to gather testimony which they would later present to those resisting targets and witnesses to force either truthful testimony or measure their lies against other witness statements.

Indeed, it was that accumulation of evidence which led earlier observers of the investigation to conclude Jack Smith was able to hit the ground running in a 'fast-moving investigation', despite all of the whinging at the time of his appointment that he would slow the probe to a halt.

It was also that evidence Garland had accumulated which helped them achieve court rulings breaking down privileged conversations between attorneys and Trump.

WHEN Trump indictments for Jan. 6 come down, all of those challenges become real, and will cease to be seen as just excuses for not jumping into court right away. As we've seen in the wake of the Maralago indictments, second-guessing is an irresistible game in either mass media, or on discussion boards with people unaccustomed to giving authority credit for anything.

What we'll find after Jan. 6 indictments come and settle in our public consciousness is that none of this is assured, not the political or the legal accountability we want for Trump to experience. It makes so much sense that DOJ doesn't just rush this into court hoping (as many in the public are) to influence the next election. That's not their job. Getting it right is what we ultimately expect from them.

The word from cynics is that Garland is too afraid of political consequences of any indictment of Trump or higher-ups. That admonition swirls around in the same cynical air as the one about 2024. They're both based on the idea that an indictment or even a conviction makes the political problems recede or vanish. It's like opening flood gates in a deluge and expecting that action alone will make a garden prosper just because there's water involved.

The political problem is still ours (voters) to remedy with our participation in elections. No shortcuts.

"A case of this magnitude, it does take some time," former acting assistant AG, Mary McCord, explained in March to a whinging pundit. She began explaining that investigations begin by looking at the easiest and lowest level offenders that can be convicted. Then they climb up the ladder from there.

"All indications are that that is what is happening," McCord promised. "That's the investigation that Jack Smith has taken over. We certainly know from reporting that there have been a number of people very close to the former president who have been subpoenaed in recent weeks and months it appears that some of those people are not cooperating. It's also been reported that Jack Smith sought the assistance — or sought an appeal to the chief judge in D.C. for her help."

She went on to say that she thinks that the Justice Department will be pressured to act before the 2024 election ramp-up. She agreed that she too shares frustration with the time it has taken.

"But I will say, it's not unusual in a case of this nature," said McCord. "I say this nature. There's nothing of this nature that I experienced in my more than 23 years in the department. But a case of this magnitude, it does take some time. The records are voluminous. And getting the right evidence — if the department is going to indict a former president, they want it to be locked up solid."

Last thing... I kept the memory fresh of the number of folks who insisted in no uncertain terms that Trump would never get indicted. One notable one saying, "there will be those that defend Garland up to and after it is announced that there will be no criminal charges against Trump. Unlike criminal charges against Trump, that much you can bank on."

I'm not going to spend any of my time wondering what this person is 'banking on' today.

June 14, 2023

It's his party, and he can cry...

...there was no shortage of news reporters yesterday working as hard as they were able to steal the joy out of the Trump arrest and arraignment for viewers.

Instead of a celebration of the resolve of our democratic institutions of justice to hold the former president to the same standards of accountability to laws as other Americans, many media sources were busy stirring up waves of fear and uncertainty about venue, the judge, and the election... talking about everything but the stunning reality of the enormity of Trump's deliberate negligence with our nation's most sensitive secrets.

Like a fast-moving popup storm, reporters filled their clouds with hot air about the rally and party Trump had planned to hold after the arraignment which was meant to signal defiance, and some burgeoning political challenge would glitteringly overshadow and neuter the devastation of the DOJ indictment.

But that's not how Trump actually rolls when he's arrested. He's a seriously mentally ill man who's outrageous behavior flows from deep insecurities - and less delusions of grandeur than a profound, deliberate detachment from his own sad reality. Despite all of the lashing out, and the bravado from the campaign stage, Trump is deeply afraid of his future.

As mentally disheveled as Trump is regularly (despite his outward bravado), he was certain to be even more disoriented and depressed without having the ability to remove himself from uncomfortable or challenging situations, this time without his bag man, Nauta, or any Adderal to crush up on the table and snort his small feelings away.

In the hours before his arraignment Trump was likely restricted to a small bare room between processing; not a jail cell, but the feel of one to a man who knows he's ultimately facing prison time and who very rarely has long periods where he's not in control of his movements.

It was bound to be like the last arrest where Trump had such a disorienting day that all he could manage was to hold a sad private gathering that looked like a wedding party held anyway after the bride ran away at the altar. There is no strong or capable side of Trump. He's a man tripping over himself to keep from falling down.

There would be no 'rally' after his second indictment disgrace. Just a sad room of regretful losers looking for the bad actor to do a few lines from his president act on stage - and it's all tragedy and woe from Trump at the podium these days.

NYT this morning:

Donald J. Trump went to bed Tuesday night, on the eve of his 77th birthday, as a now twice-indicted former president and current front-runner for the Republican nomination for the White House in 2024.

“Some birthday,” Mr. Trump grumbled on Tuesday as he visited Versailles, a popular Cuban coffee shop in Miami. “Some birthday.”

The surreal scene that awaited him at his private club in Bedminster, N.J., was a blend somewhere between a summer garden wedding and a political victory party. There was an air of an almost post-arraignment celebration as women arrived in their finery: fuchsia and canary yellow dresses, embroidered Trump wares and heels. Men sported suits and red MAGA hats.

Then Mr. Trump arrived. Visibly deflated after pleading not guilty for the second time in three months, his dry and low-energy resuscitation of his legal defense — even inflected with the usual references to Marxists, Communists and fascists — pleased his advisers but drew a relatively muted response from a crowd that had minutes earlier craned their phones for a shot of his motorcade.

“I did everything right,” Mr. Trump declared in his 30-minute speech, “and they indicted me.”

When he finished, he barely lingered to take in the applause. He gave an obligatory fist pump and mouthed thanks to the crowd. Then he turned and went inside...

This is classic Trump in situations he can't orchestrate, like the meeting with Putin where he becomes stiff, uncommunicative, and almost animatronic. You can see the faltering of his degenerative brain, struggling between the sad truth inside and his feeble attempt to project a facade of normalcy.

But to be fair, he had quite a day.

A federal judge ruled that afternoon in favor of E. Jean Carroll and allowed her to amend her defamation complaint to include comments made by Trump at his CNN town hall.

...but, back to Bedminster:

Ryan Goodman @rgoodlaw 4h
Keep your eye on this ball: Bedminster.
@AWeissmann_ and I analyze "intriguing possibility of another indictment to come" charging former President Trump for dissemination of classified information at his New Jersey golf club.

Jack Smith’s Backup Option
Donald Trump was indicted in Florida. Could he also face charges in New Jersey? By Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/trump-indictment-florida-new-jersey-classified/674393/

June 13, 2023

Nauta's squeeze play

...Nauta stood on the sidewalk holding his boss' kit bag as he watched the former president stoop to enter the limo which would take him to the federal courthouse to be arrested and arraigned.

Suddenly, Trump turned and motioned him over with a wave.

"Me? the obsequious aide and partner-in-crime gestured questionly, tapping his own chest exaggeratedly, then tripping over his feet toward the car.

Trump had already turned away and pushed inside when Nauta got there, and beckoned the diminutive aide inside impatiently with another wave of his hand. He took a middle seat opposite and the assembled team rolled away from the resort into infamy.

Nauta felt, at once, gratified and proud. He'd convinced himself that he'd have to bear the his own part of this conspiracy alone. He'd taken all of the assurances his boss had made to him to 'not worry' with the same sanguine belief he'd maintained all throughout everything he'd already experienced with his megalomaniac employer.

Indeed, it was that prevaricating eccentricity which he believed enabled someone like himself to be chosen for such a privileged position. Rationalization of deviancy had essentially, long ago been revealed as an essential requirement of his employment. All above his head, and far out of his control.

"Just a simple process,' is how the lawyer Trump's people had provided for him had explained. "Everything will be fine," had been the closing refrain in every conversation with counsel, his own arraignment scheduled for the very next day.

Nauta was reflecting on all of that as he realized he had been staring at hs feet the entire time as Trump chattered incessantly to the other handpicked traveling companions. "What a road trip," he thought to himself... and just then he caught Trump's attention, beaming with a gratifying gleam in his eye.

Trump stopped mid-rant, stared right at him and exclaimed excitedly, "Thank god I didn't leave my little buddy behind!"

Nauta was swelling with pride at this point, and started to tell the former president just how grateful and honored he'd been to work with him... when Trump cut in again:

"Where's my little buddy? Get it out for me!" he cried, gesturing frantically toward Nauta's kit bag full of Trump necessities.

Now crestfallen, Nauta reached into a pocket in the bag and pulled out a small squeaky toy that looked suspiciously like Trump which he would squeeze repeatedly to alleviate stress and annoy everyone else.

'Squeak, Squeak! Squeeeeak!' was the only sound heard in the limo all the rest of the way to the courthouse.

June 12, 2023

Trump will be convicted and sentenced to a prison cell with SS agents outside the door

...he'll spend the rest of his life there alone, separated from the general population.

The agents will operate out of their own on-site office with every amenity and resource.

Supermax in Colorado would be a good choice. Build Trump his own tower there...

June 12, 2023

Cannon's 'sideshow' tried to "radically reorder caselaw, violating separation-of-powers limits"

...that's what the three-judge, appeals court panel found when they rejected her interference in the government search and gave the DOJ back control over what they'd seized in the raid - documents and material Cannon threatened to tie-up in potentially months of review by the 'special master' Trump had petitioned for, and who she allowed to take charge of even the secret and classified items pictured in the newly released photos in the indictment.


excerpt from Appeal decision from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znvnbeggmvl/trump-ca11-2022-12-01.pdf

...as we have said, the status of a document as personal or presidential does not alter the authority of the government to seize it under a
warrant supported by probable cause; search warrants authorize
the seizure of personal records as a matter of course. The
Department of Justice has the documents because they were seized
with a search warrant, not because of their status under the
Presidential Records Act. So Plaintiff’s suggestion that “whether
the Government is entitled to retain some or all the seized
documents has not been determined by any court” is incorrect.
The magistrate judge decided that issue when approving the
warrant. To the extent that the categorization of these documents
has legal relevance in future proceedings, the issue can be raised at
that time.

All these arguments are a sideshow. The real question that
guides our analysis is this—adequate remedy
for what? The answer is the same as it was in Chapman: “No weight can be
assigned to this factor because [Plaintiff] did not assert that any
rights had been violated, i.e., that there has been a callous disregard
for his constitutional rights or that a substantial interest in property
is jeopardized.” 559 F.2d at 407. If there has been no constitutional
violation—much less a serious one—then there is no harm to be
remediated in the first place. This factor also weighs against
exercising equitable jurisdiction.

None of the Richey factors favor exercising equitable
jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff, however, asks us to refashion
our analysis in a way that, if consistently applied, would make
equitable jurisdiction available for every subject of every search
warrant. He asks us to ignore our precedents finding that a callous
disregard for constitutional rights is indispensable. He asks us to
conclude that a property interest in a seized item is a sufficient
“need” for its immediate return. He asks us to treat any stigma
arising from the government’s access to sensitive personal
information or the threat of potential prosecution as irreparable
injuries. And he asks us to find that he has no other remedy apart
from equitable jurisdiction, even though he faces no remediable
harm. Anyone could make these arguments. And accepting them
would upend Richey, requiring federal courts to oversee routine
criminal investigations beyond their constitutionally ascribed role
of approving a search warrant based on a showing of probable
cause. Our precedents do not allow this, and neither does our
constitutional structure.

Only one possible justification for equitable jurisdiction
remains: that Plaintiff is a former President of the United States. It
is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of
a former president—but not in a way that affects our legal analysis
or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing
investigation. The Richey test has been in place for nearly fifty
years; its limits apply no matter who the government is
investigating. To create a special exception here would defy our
Nation’s foundational principle that our law applies “to all, without
regard to numbers, wealth, or rank.”

The law is clear. We cannot write a rule that allows any
subject of a search warrant to block government investigations
after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that
allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be
a radical reordering of our caselaw limiting the federal courts’
involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate
bedrock separation-of-powers limitations. Accordingly, we agree
with the government that the district court improperly exercised
equitable jurisdiction, and that dismissal of the entire proceeding is
required.

...Cannon agreeing to interfere in the DOJ search wasn't just a sideshow, it was a shitshow. At the very least, her competence should be a consideration in allowing her to sit in judgment of this most momentous case.

But, it's not just about her ruling, it's the extreme bias demonstrated in placing herself in the way of the Justice Dept. investigation. There's the glaring question of why she went to such extra-legal lengths to try and block the DOJ from moving ahead with their prosecution. She dodged a bullet when her outrageous and unlawful interference slipped under the media radar. Now she's back for more.

You have to ask just how willing she is to have more of her personal bias exposed, likely behind the appeals from DOJ prosecutors. And again, why?

June 9, 2023

After all of the gaslighting about Merrick Garland

...what a trip.

What a time to be alive.

June 3, 2023

I think Jared took the missing Iran document to Saudi Arabia

emptywheel @emptywheel Jun 2
In March, DOJ Asked Trump for the Iran Document; In April, DOJ Asked for His Saudi Business Records

(Saudis would be highly interested in a document which outlines a plan for a U.S. military attack on Iran.)

November 30, 2020— President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner will travel to Saudi Arabia and Qatar this week... This may be Kushner's last trip to the region as President Donald Trump has only a few more weeks in office.
https://news.yahoo.com/jared-kushner-travel-saudi-arabia-142017970.html

House Oversight investigating $2B Saudi investment in Jared Kushner's firm
Kushner formed an investment firm right after Trump left office, and six months later, the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, controlled by the crown prince, invested $2 billion.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-oversight-investigating-2b-saudi-investment-jared-kushners-firm-rcna31805

Further Evidence Emerges the Saudis Did Not Pay Jared Kushner Billions Because They Thought He Was an Investing Genius
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/jared-kushner-affinity-partners-saudi-arabia-pitch-deck

May 11, 2023

Is it really so hard to support and respect an aged, ailing octogenarian wanting to finish her job

...even taking a moment to admire this woman for her determination?


twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1656374278915346458

She's "dealing with vision and balance impairments, and will be using a wheelchair (shingles can cause face paralysis and other visible impairments)."

Still, she made her first vote this afternoon since returning, confirming Glenna Wright-Gallo to serve as Asst. Education Sec. for Special Education & Rehabilitative Services. The post has been without a Senate-confirmed official since 2019.

Sen. Feinstein has said she will not run for reelection next year but plans to fulfill her obligation, which ends in early 2025, then retire. We'll see how it goes, but I'm really glad she hasn't let anyone force her out before she was done serving. It's her responsibility, as so many reminded us in the past weeks, but it's also her right as an elected senator from California to finish out her term.

I don't really expect the internet to be kind to the jarring images of the still-ailing senator, but I do expect decent people to stand up and defend our own Democratic legislator against the despicable remarks about her appearance, especially since many of the same very likely participated in the haranguing that demanded she return before she was fully healed.

The dragging of Sen. Feinstein took off here after a bogus 'PoliticalWire' post about a bogus Politico article claiming she wasn't going to return. This return makes ALL of that clickbait reporting a dirty lie.

I don't know, as Rep. Pelosi remarked, "what political agendas are at work that are going after Sen. Feinstein in that way," but I agree with the former Speaker that, "Sen, Feinstein has been a champion for California for 20 years... and I have seen up close and first-hand her great leadership for the country, but most importantly for the state of California.

No one should get away with continuing to drag this courageous woman now that she's wheeled her way back to stand up for our party and the people and issues our Senate majority represent. This is the ultimate dedication to duty, as others perfectly able and present refuse to do the same.

You don't need to bother anymore with measuring the amount of time lost to her illness. Now people who are sincere in their concern for her work undone can begin anew, counting the continuing contributions of her long and consequential career.