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.

May 3, 2023

Dick Durbin letter to the editor: "Senate Judiciary Committee is quickly advancing nominees"

___In her April 20 Opinion column, “Senate Democrats need to play hardball,” Jennifer Rubin argued that my “appeals to shameless Republicans have accomplished nothing” when it comes to confirming federal judges.

The facts speak otherwise.

During the 117th Congress (2021 to 2022), the Senate Judiciary Committee accomplished a record-breaking rate of judicial confirmations during the longest evenly divided Senate and committee in history. In total, we advanced 126 judicial nominees from committee, and the Senate confirmed 97. Importantly, these were historically diverse nominees, in both their professional and demographic backgrounds, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman and first former public defender to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Since January, the Senate has confirmed an additional 22 federal judges — 19 with bipartisan support — bringing the total under the Biden administration to 119. There are 26 more nominees out of committee and ready for floor votes.

It also is important to note that the blue-slip process — which allows a senator to place a hold on a judge nominated in his or her state — allowed Democrats to play a role in the selection of nearly half of the district court judges confirmed during the Trump administration. Now, some Senate Republicans have also displayed a willingness to work with the Biden White House on judicial nominations. Already this year, the committee has held hearings for nominees to the Southern District of Indiana, the District of Idaho and the Eastern District of Louisiana, all of whom have support from their Republican home-state senators. More are to come.

The effort to bring balance to the courts has been one of this Senate’s great successes.


Richard J. Durbin, Washington

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/durbin-senate-judiciary-committee-nominees/

April 29, 2023

Who are the prosecutors working with special counsel Jack Smith?

Here is a roster of the prosecutors known to be working with Smith:

JAN. 6-RELATED PROBE


TOM WINDOM

Tom Windom has been a federal prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in Maryland for much of the past decade, working on an array of cases -- from financial fraud and domestic terrorism to public corruption and drug trafficking. Last year, as the Justice Department expanded its probes stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, siege on the U.S. Capitol, Windom took on a temporary role in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., overseeing key parts of the department's investigative efforts. Earlier in his career, before joining the Justice Department, he once donated $750 in 2011 to the first congressional campaign of now-Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, and clerked for a Republican-nominated U.S. appeals court judge after graduating law school in 2005. In a profile last year, The New York Times called Windom "a little-known but aggressive federal prosecutor." Smith has described Windom as his "senior assistant special counsel."


JOSEPH "J.P." COONEY

Joseph Cooney is a long-time prosecutor from the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., where he took over as chief of the office's fraud and public corruption section. Cooney has been involved in many high-profile and controversial cases, including the doomed conspiracy case against Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., in 2015, and the obstruction-related cases against former Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, who was later pardoned by Trump. In mid-November 2020, when then-attorney general William Barr issued a memo that seemingly encouraged prosecutors to investigate allegations of election fraud, Cooney urged Barr to rescind the memo, telling the attorney general it promoted "conspiracy theories" about election fraud and "eradicate[d] the Department's guardrails against improper political influence." In a private email at the time, a senior Trump-appointed Justice Department official described Cooney as a "nonpartisan career prosecutor" who is "focused on integrity."


MARY DOHRMANN

Mary Dorhmann serves in the U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia, prosecuting federal cases involving drugs, guns, bank robberies, and other crimes in the nation's capital. She took on Jan. 6-related cases and helped the Justice Department investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 election. She is one of the younger known members of Smith's team, having graduated from Columbia University's law school in 2015. After graduating law school, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Judge Beryl Howell, who, as the chief federal judge in the District of Columbia until March, supervised the grand juries being used by Smith and decided legal matters stemming from his investigations.


DAVID RODY

David Rody was a long-time Justice Department prosecutor and the head of the Violent Crimes unit in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York when he left the Justice Department in 2011 for private practice. Before Smith was announced as special counsel, Rody left his high-paid private job to rejoin the Justice Department, reportedly as an adviser on the widening Trump-related probes. According to a biography posted online, Rody's previous tenure with the Justice Department gave him "extensive trial and investigative experience" with matters such as insider trading, drugs, terrorism and murder. He also directed investigations of fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, and many other federal crimes.


TIMOTHY "TAD" DUREE

Timothy Duree has been with the Justice Department for more than a decade, first prosecuting federal cases in the Western District of Texas and then joining the department's fraud section in Washington, where he's worked since 2016.


MATTHEW BURKE

Matthew Burke is a federal prosecutor based in the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of Virginia. He has often prosecuted fraud-related crimes, including pandemic-related fraud and the 2020 case against a former spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration who pleaded guilty to defrauding companies out of $4.4 million by pretending to be a covert CIA officer.


RAYMOND "RAY" HULSER

Raymond Hulser has been a prosecutor with the Justice Department for more than two decades, starting in the Public Integrity Section of the department's Criminal Division, which investigates public corruption and other misconduct by government officials. In 2015, he became chief of the section, with Cooney as his deputy. At the time, NPR described Hulser as a "Mr. Fix It" within the Justice Department. "This section is not going to be shy about bringing important and tough cases, and we're going to try those cases," Hulser told NPR.


DAVID HARBACH

David Harbach has a diverse career background. Early in his career, he was a private attorney and then an assistant district attorney in Houston. He eventually joined the Justice Department and between 2005 and 2019 he prosecuted public corruption and other federal crimes in New York, Washington, and Richmond, Virginia – with a short stint at the FBI working for then-FBI director James Comey. Reuters previously described him as a "veteran prosecutor of high-profile corruption cases," including the failed campaign finance case against former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and the bribery case against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican. In 2019, Harbach joined the Kosovo Specialist Prosecutor's Office at The Hague, working under now-special counsel Smith to prosecute war crimes. He then returned to private practice in late 2021, before joining Smith again.


JOHN PELLETTIERI

John Pellettieri has been with the Justice Department since 2009, serving as an attorney in the Criminal Division's appellate section. As part of Smith's team, Pellettieri has helped persuade federal judges to let investigators question Trump's attorney Evan Corcoran about his communications with Trump and to access a cellphone seized from Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a pro-Trump lawmaker who was communicating with Trump administration officials in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021.


JAMES PEARCE

James Pearce has been with the Justice Department for several years, prosecuting bribery and corruption cases as part of the department's Public Integrity Section and then working as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division's Appellate Section. Even before Smith's appointment, he was involved in some of the cases stemming from the Jan. 6 attack, which he described in court as "an act of domestic terrorism." Before joining the Justice Department, he worked with refugees in Turkey, Egypt and Sudan, and then earned a master's degree in human rights law from the American University in Cairo, according to Duke University's Law School, where he later graduated.


GREGORY BERNSTEIN

Gregory Bernstein has been with the Justice Department for several years, including time prosecuting fraud cases in Maryland. More recently, he became a member of the Major Frauds Section in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles.


CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS-RELATED PROBE

JAY BRATT

Jay Bratt has led the counterintelligence section in the Justice Department's National Security Division since 2018. He is a veteran Justice Department prosecutor. Axios wrote last year that he "has built his career going after convicted spies, Blackwater guards, Chinese companies and some of Trump's close associates," capitalizing on a "rare combination of litigation and leadership expertise." When the Justice Department first launched its investigation into hundreds of classified documents kept at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate, Bratt not only oversaw the investigation as head of the counterintelligence section but also traveled to Florida to personally take part in elements of the case.


JULIE EDELSTEIN

Julie Edelstein has served as a federal prosecutor for the past 13 years and in 2018 she became Bratt's deputy in the Justice Department's counterintelligence section. She became involved in the Trump-related documents case even before Smith was appointed special counsel. As Bratt's deputy for the past five years, she has supervised cases across the country involving espionage, mishandling of classified information, unauthorized disclosures and other counterintelligence matters. She has also made "charging recommendations with respect to all counterintelligence cases, ensuring a consistent national approach to counterintelligence prosecutions," according to her LinkedIn page. While still in law school in 2005 and 2006, she interned for the House Homeland Security Committee, working with the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi.


BRETT REYNOLDS

Brett Reynolds has been a trial attorney in the Justice Department's National Security Division for less than two years. Before that he served in the department's Criminal Division and in 2018 was tapped by then-attorney general Jeff Sessions to lead a team targeting certain drug cartels. "I investigated, indicted and obtained convictions against some of the most notorious international drug kingpins," including Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, Reynolds wrote on LinkedIn. Even before Smith was appointed special counsel, Reynolds was part of the Justice Department team investigating classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-are-the-lawyers-working-with-special-counsel-jack-smith/ar-AA1atnlb

April 21, 2023

It's untrue that Sen. Feinstein's temporary absence is blocking a 'Clarence Thomas' subpoena

..besides the fact that the Senate is in recess:

from New Republic:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse didn’t rule out a subpoena but told The New Republic the question was premature.

“I think that if you’re doing an investigation or making an inquiry, you build the case first. You don’t just grab your big witness and not have prepared. That’s just like, super bad trial practice,” laughed the Rhode Island Democrat. “First, you build your case.”

“I would leave it to the chairman to announce our course of action,” said Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat on the committee. Coons was upstaged moments later in the Senate tunnels by Mazie Hirono, who was more committal. “We are going to have a hearing on the Supreme Court not having a code of ethics,” the Hawaii Democrat revealed to The New Republic. Hirono wouldn’t say if Thomas would be subpoenaed to testify. “I am not sure whether that is in the offing,” she said.
https://newrepublic.com/article/172068/senate-judiciary-committee-clarence-thomas-subpoena

...why in hell is this being held against the ailing senator when a committee hearing hasn't even begun, much less issued a subpoena of Thomas?

April 18, 2023

When have Senate Democrats EVER sacrificed an ailing party member to republican obstinacy?

...tell me when the party has forced out a member just because republicans played hardball?

I want to know if this has ever happened because, I believe we're on the verge of an historic appeasement by a Senate Democratic majority to a republican minority in demanding Sen. Feinstein resign because republicans won't budge.

I've never seen anything like this, and it will be a permanent stain on the party if she's ultimately forced out because, republicans. It's the future of fascism, minority rule because the majority party won't stand up to them.

Who's next? What other republican obstruction will the party roll over for? What Democrat is next in line to be retired in reaction to republican obstruction? Once republicans see the Democratic party is willing to sacrifice one of their own in response to their petty politics, they won't stop there.

April 17, 2023

How likely is it that Senate republicans would allow a retired Feinstein replacement to be seated?

...they've just decided to take advantage of an ailing member's absence.

Why would they then allow any new Senator to sit on the committee in her place, even if Gavin Newsome appointed a replacement?

I don't see any reason to expect they would allow the makeup of the committee to change, for any reason (even the precedent of replacing late members).

It's part of the organizing resolution the full Senate voted on, including each committee member. They will still need to hold a vote on any new Senator seeking a committee position.

What reason is there to believe, or what indication has there been, if any, from republicans that they would allow a successor to be seated on the committee?

I think at that point Leader Schumer could organize a simple majority for a rules change based on a break in precedent, but why not just do that now? Why not just change the super-majority rules for this situation, since republicans are already acting in bad faith?

What really stinks is it's now republicans who are forcing Sen. Feinstein to resign, along with Senate Democrats and others associating themselves with the party calling on her to resign BECAUSE OF republican obstinacy.

It's no longer just Democrats calling for her to leave town. Now they have republicans gloming onto those sentiments, expecting Democrats to follow suit to avoid republicans hurting them in committee.

This isn't Sen. Feinstein's disgrace, as so many are saying, it's the Senate Democrats' disgrace if they don't pull themselves together and change the rules to oppose this open obstruction, this open abuse of an ailing Democratic stalwart.

Everyone else acquiescing to this thuggery needs to ask themselves who they're really accommodating demanding Dianne Feinstein resign to appease republicans.

Even more of a question if republicans will even be satisfied with her retirement and just try and maintain the even split that advantages them anyway? Even so, in the end, this is about sacrificing a Democratic Senator to republican political hardball.

Not a bill, not an initiative, but a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. That's what's being offered up to republicans here. I don't know how anyone can stand themselves appeasing them.