The Case

We've seen the Daddy State formula playing out almost perfectly with Trump's protestations about 'the documents'.

He throws it out that Biden has 1800 boxes that are just kinda scattered here and there, and even in Chinatown!

So what are we to expect? Well ...

Burn Him Down

🤞🏼

It should seem weird that no lawyers ever stick with Trump for more than a few months - or maybe a year, but certainly not once the inevitable new problems inevitably blow up in their faces. Trump is everybody's worst nightmare, but that has to go triple or fourple for his lawyers.

And yet, he keeps getting them to sign on.

A few have hung in there, but they're just window dressing, or more aptly, set dressing - the guy has a freakish penchant to follow the basic WWE / Reality TV formula. ie: "I'm the good guy, beset on all sides by evil-doers who wanna take my championship belt from me. And you, my noble fans, my loyal friends, you identify with me so closely that every attack on me is an attack on you, and blah blah blah - Je suis l'état, l'état c'est moi.

I get the feeling that most of these people sign on with him for no better reason than to bolster their resumé.

But the one I'm really curious about continues to be Boris Epshteyn. That guy is always there, and always fucking with everything. So maybe some day, we could start to acknowledge that the guy is most probably on Putin's payroll, and he's here there and everywhere trying to throw sand in the gears(?) Just a thought.

Trump lawyers quit in wake of indictment

Former president Donald Trump said Friday he would be bringing on new lawyers and suggested that two of his top attorneys may be departing the case, as he prepares to fight seven charges for allegedly mishandling classified documents at his Florida home.

The two attorneys quickly issued a statement saying they have quit.

“For purposes of fighting the Greatest Witch Hunt of all time, now moving to the Florida Courts, I will be represented by Todd Blanche, Esq., and a firm to be named later,” Trump said on social media, indicating that two of his other key lawyers may be leaving the legal team.

“I want to thank Jim Trusty and John Rowley for their work, but they were up against a very dishonest, corrupt, evil, and “sick” group of people, the likes of which has not been seen before. We will be announcing additional lawyers in the coming days,” Trump wrote.

In a joint statement, Rowley and Trusty said they have “tendered our resignations as counsel to President Trump, and we will no longer represent him on either the indicted case or the January 6 investigation.” They said that since the Trump indictment has been filed in Miami, “this is a logical moment for us to step aside and let others carry the cases through to completion.”

The pair called it “an honor to have spent the last year defending him, and we know he will be vindicated in his battle against the Biden Administration’s partisan weaponization of the American justice system.”

About That Report

The much ballyhooed and itch-ily anticipated report from Mr Durham has finally landed.

Trump claimed the Durham probe would uncover the ‘crime of the century.’ Here’s what it really found

WASHINGTON (AP) — An investigation into the origins of the FBI’s probe into ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign has finally been concluded, with the prosecutor leading the inquiry submitting a much-awaited report that found major flaws.

The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by U.S. government officials, contained withering criticism for the FBI but few significant revelations. Nonetheless, it will give fodder to Trump supporters who have long denounced the Russia investigation, as well as Trump opponents who say the Durham team’s meager court record shows their probe was a politically motivated farce.

WHO IS JOHN DURHAM?

Durham has spent decades as a Justice Department prosecutor, with past assignments including investigations into the FBI’s cozy relationship with mobsters in Boston and the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of its harsh interrogations of terrorism subjects.

He was appointed in 2019 to investigate potential misconduct by U.S. government officials as they examined Russian election interference in 2016 and whether there was any illegal coordination between the Kremlin and Trump’s presidential campaign.

Despite skimpy results — one guilty plea and two acquittals — that failed to live up to Trump’s expectations, Durham was able to continue his work well into the Biden administration, thanks in part to William Barr appointing Durham as a Justice Department special counsel shortly before Barr’s 2020 resignation as attorney general.

WHY DID THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THINK SUCH AN APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY?

The appointment came weeks after a different special counsel, Robert Mueller, wrapped up his investigation of possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. That probe produced more than two dozen criminal cases, including against a half-dozen Trump associates.

Though it did not charge any Trump aide with working with Russia to tip the election, it did find that Russia interfered on Trump’s behalf and that the campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

From the start, Barr was deeply skeptical of the investigation’s foundation, telling Congress that “spying did occur” on the campaign.

He enlisted an outside prosecutor to hunt for potential misconduct at the government agencies who were involved in collecting intelligence and conducting the investigation, even flying with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the probe.

WERE THERE PROBLEMS WITH THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION?

Yes, and a Justice Department inspector general inquiry already identified many.

The watchdog report found that FBI applications for warrants to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained significant errors and omitted information that would likely have weakened or undermined the premise of the application.

The cumulative effect of those errors, the report said, was to make it “appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.”

Still, the inspector general did not find evidence that investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis to open a full investigation into potential collusion, though Durham has disagreed.

WHAT CRIMINAL CASES DID HE BRING AND WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME?

Durham brought three prosecution during his tenure, but only one resulted in a conviction — and that was for a case referred to him by the Justice Department inspector general. None of the three undid core findings by Mueller that Russia had interfered with the 2016 election in sweeping fashion and that the Trump campaign had welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

A former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email related to the surveillance of ex-Trump campaign aide. He was given probation.

But two other cases, both involving alleged false statements to the FBI, resulted in acquittals by jury.

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he presented computer data information that he wanted the FBI to investigate. A different jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, a Russian-American analyst, of charges that he lied to the FBI about his role in the creation of a discredited dossier about Trump.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID DURHAM FIND?

Durham found that the FBI acted too hastily and relied on raw and unconfirmed intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation.

He said at the time the probe was opened, the FBI had no information about any actual contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.

He also claimed that FBI investigators fell prone to “confirmation bias,” repeatedly ignoring or rationalizing away information that could have undercut the premise of their investigation, and he noted that the FBI failed to corroborate a single substantive allegation from a dossier of research that it relied on during the course of the probe.

“An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes,” the report said, using the FBI’s code name for the Trump-Russia probe. “Unfortunately, it did not.”

HOW DID THE FBI RESPOND?

The FBI pointed out that it had long ago made dozens of corrective actions. Had those measures been in place in 2016, it says, the errors at the center of the report could have been prevented.

It also took pains to note that the conduct in the report took place before the current director, Christopher Wray, took the job in fall 2017.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

It didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to react. Rep. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he had invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump, too, sought to seize on the report, saying it showed how the American public had been “scammed.”

Though the FBI says it’s already taken some steps, Durham did say it’s possible more reform could be needed. One idea, he said, would be to provide additional scrutiny of politically sensitive investigations by identifying an official who would be responsible for challenging the steps taken in a probe.

He said his team had considered but did not ultimately recommend steps that would curtail the FBI’s investigative authorities, including its use of tools under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspected spies or terrorists.

Dangling

I guess we just have to keep fighting this fight.

Abortion Showdown in North Carolina May Hinge on a Single Vote

After the G.O.P.-led legislature passed a 12-week ban, the Democratic governor vetoed the bill. The Republicans could override it, if all their members stay unified.

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, now in the waning years of his second term, has suddenly found himself back on a campaign trail.

On Wednesday, flanked by supporters in a fifth-floor classroom at Cape Fear Community College in Wilmington, Mr. Cooper made a direct appeal to residents. But he was not looking for thousands of votes. Just one.

North Carolina’s Republican-dominated legislature has passed a bill banning most abortions after 12 weeks. Mr. Cooper, a Democrat, vetoed the bill. But to prevent the legislature from using its razor-thin supermajority to override his veto, Mr. Cooper is asking voters to pressure Republican lawmakers. Convincing just one legislator will keep the state’s current abortion law — allowing it up to 20 weeks — in place.

In Wilmington, he urged voters to send a message to their representatives in the legislature — “ask them to keep their promise” to preserve existing abortion laws, he said, referring to Republican lawmakers he said had previously signaled some support for abortion access.

Let them know, he said, “whether it’s a phone call, or it’s an email, or it’s a text.”

Mr. Cooper’s plea, and the showdown between the governor’s office and the legislature, represents an extraordinary moment in North Carolina politics, as well as in the nation’s volatile abortion fight.

Since the Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v. Wade, states have been free to severely restrict or ban the procedure, and many across the South have done exactly that. As a result, North Carolina has become an outlet for women in the region who could not get abortions in their home states.

For North Carolina, the override vote would be a consequential early test of the Republicans’ new, slim supermajority, since Tricia Cotham, a former Democrat, switched parties in April and voted in favor of the ban.

Override votes in the two chambers, each of which require a three-fifths vote of those present to succeed, have not yet been scheduled. But state lawmakers and lobbyists said over the weekend that they expected to see a vote as early as this week.

Republicans say the bill represents a compromise and is less restrictive than other bans that outlaw the procedure at conception or before most women even realize they are pregnant. Democrats say the bill is a disaster for women’s health, and erects all kinds of financial and logistical obstacles that would cut off abortion access for many women. They complained that Republicans rammed the initial votes through their chambers in two marathon sessions over 48 hours.

A Meredith poll in February showed that 57 percent of respondents supported the state’s current 20-week ban, or would expand it. Another 35 percent wanted the procedure restricted to 15 weeks or less.

Mallory Finch, who came to Raleigh on Saturday to protest the governor’s veto, said, “North Carolina is a state for life, and there are people who want the act to go through.”

Democratic officials in districts across the state are trying to mobilize voters to oppose the bill. In New Hanover County, where Wilmington is located, party leaders organized a caller chain that contacted Republicans, including Ted Davis Jr., a Republican House member considered a swing vote, and Michael V. Lee, a Wilmington Republican state senator, every three minutes one day last week. Mr. Cooper believes both men might be movable on the issue.

Mr. Lee, however, said a 12-week restriction is in line with his thinking on abortion. In a text message, he said that Mr. Cooper has mischaracterized his position on the issue.

“I believe a woman should have the right to choose an abortion in the first trimester (3 months) with exceptions,” Mr. Lee wrote.

Mr. Davis has said in the past that he supported North Carolina’s current law. Mr. Cooper is also targeting the district of a fourth Republican, John Bradford, a House member who said shortly before his election last year that he had “no intention” of rolling back the 20-week law. Mr. Bradford did not respond to a request for comment.

The defection of Ms. Cotham, a former Charlotte-area educator who had served in the state legislature and made an unsuccessful run for Congress before returning to the North Carolina General Assembly this year, stunned Democrats.

In announcing her decision, she said she had been bullied by the party and was no longer aligned with them on some issues, including school choice.

“The modern-day Democratic Party has become unrecognizable to me and to so many others throughout this state and this country,” she said when she announced. “They have pushed me out.”

Ms. Cotham has historically been an outspoken supporter of abortion rights. When she was a Democrat, she accused Republicans of playing doctor. She also spoke publicly about her own harrowing experience with a lost pregnancy that required medical intervention. “This decision was up to me, my husband, my doctor and my God. It was not up to any of you in this chamber,” Ms. Cotham said in 2015. Still, she voted in favor of the 12-week ban after she switched parties.

Ms. Cotham did not respond to a request for comment.

On Thursday at the Modish Nail Spa in Mint Hill — the Charlotte suburb where Ms. Cotham lives — May Lopez said she was upset by the new abortion restriction.

“I feel terrible about it, because I think they’re just stripping the rights away from women. And I remember. I grew up in the days where my girlfriend died because of the hanger abortion and all that kind of stuff,” said Ms. Lopez, who votes largely for Democrats.

Frank McCullough, a Charlotte pastor, and his wife, Barbara McCullough, a retired schoolteacher, both voted for Ms. Cotham when she ran as a Democrat last year. Both said they felt betrayed by her decisions to switch parties and help Republicans pass more restrictions on abortion.

“I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe in the rights of a lady to make that choice between her and God,” Mr. McCullough said. “We voted for you and here you go turning your back on us.”

People who live in Ms. Cotham’s district said that while it leans Democratic, it also features a healthy presence of conservatives who back abortion restrictions.

On Wednesday afternoon in Wilmington, part of Mr. Davis’s district, swimmers at the Y.W.C.A. aquatic center were divided.

“I’m a Christian, and I believe that life begins at conception, and I’m against abortion altogether,” said Joyce Woodard, a retiree.

Emma Evans, a college student who was watching a swim lesson of the 4-year-old she was babysitting, said she was baffled by the passage of the abortion ban.

“I don’t know much about it at all, but I do know I’m for abortion” rights, she said. “A bunch of men are just making rules for these women’s bodies? It makes no sense to me.”

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Cooper appeared troubled by the political state of play. During more than six years in office, he had successfully vetoed more than 50 bills. The November midterms, which left Republicans just one vote shy of a supermajority in North Carolina, had threatened his control over the legislative process, which can be upended by a single lawmaker’s absence. Ms. Cotham’s party exodus last month deprived him of any remaining comfort.

“I knew things were precarious,” he said. “But then when Representative Cotham switched, and made it a supermajority by one vote in each chamber, we knew that it was going to be a much tougher fight.”

“I’m worried that women will die,” he said.

Motivating voters is no easy task: A number of people over the past week said they were only dimly aware of the fight, even if they felt strongly for or against abortion access.

Nick Decker was waiting for friends Thursday at the Crazy Pig, a barbecue joint in Mr. Bradford’s district. He said he was aware the governor had been in town that week “to try to sway some state legislators.”

“Charlotte and the metro area is very much a blue area,” he said. And he counted himself as a supporter of the governor and state Democrats.

He said he was not aware of the position of his Republican representative, Mr. Bradford. But, he added, “I’m very pro-choice.”

A Nest Of Snakes

Merrick Garland and his DOJ get slammed pretty hard for not moving quickly enough against Trump and his fellow plotters and insurrectionist assholes.

What I'm trying to keep in mind is the fact that Garland has to make his moves knowing there are still plenty of assholes in his department who want to cover for their asshole co-conspirators, and keep the Plutocracy Project alive.

So he can't just steam ahead - not when he knows there are still rats and moles and saboteurs who want nothing less than the destruction of American democracy.

Former F.B.I. Agent Charged in Jan. 6 Riot

Prosecutors say the former agent, who worked counterterrorism in the New York field office before leaving the bureau in 2017, called police officers Nazis and illegally entered the Capitol.

WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors have charged a former F.B.I. agent with illegally entering the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot and said he had called police officers Nazis as he encouraged a mob of Trump loyalists to kill them.

The former agent, Jared L. Wise, was arrested on Monday and faces four misdemeanor counts, including disrupting the orderly conduct of government and trespassing, after agents received a tip in January last year that he had been inside the Capitol, according to a criminal complaint.

Mr. Wise, 50, told the police they were like the Gestapo, Nazi Germany’s feared secret police, the complaint said. When violence erupted, he shouted in the direction of rioters attacking the law enforcement officers, “Kill ’em! Kill ’em! Kill ’em!”

Mr. Wise raised his arms in celebration after breaching the Capitol in a face mask, and he escaped through a window, the complaint added.

Over the past two years, scores of rioters with military experience have been arrested in connection with the Capitol attack. But Mr. Wise is the rare former federal agent to have been charged. The F.B.I. said agents first found Mr. Wise living in New Braunfels, Texas, before he moved to Bend, Ore., in June.

Thomas E. Caldwell, a member of the Oath Keepers who was convicted in November of felony charges stemming from the Jan. 6 riot, had once worked with the F.B.I. And Mark S. Ibrahim, an active-duty agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration, was charged in July 2021 in connection with the riot. His case has not yet gone to trial.

The Justice Department’s investigation of the Capitol attack, already the largest it has ever conducted, has resulted in more than 1,000 arrests, with the possibility of many more to come.

From 2004 to 2017, Mr. Wise worked on public corruption and counterterrorism matters at the F.B.I. field offices in Washington, D.C., and New York. He was briefly detailed to Libya to help agents investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, that killed four Americans. Mr. Wise left the bureau after his supervisors in New York became unhappy with his work, and his career had stalled, a former senior F.B.I. official said.

Mr. Wise later joined the conservative group Project Veritas under the supervision of a former British spy, Richard Seddon, who had been recruited by the security contractor Erik Prince to train operatives to infiltrate trade unions, Democratic congressional campaigns and other targets.

At Project Veritas, according to a former employee with direct knowledge of his employment, Mr. Wise used the code name Bendghazi and trained at the Prince family ranch in Wyoming with other recruits. Mr. Wise was among a group of Project Veritas operatives who were assigned to infiltrate teacher unions in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Kentucky, according to the former employee. Mr. Seddon oversaw the operation.

Mr. Wise apparently left Project Veritas in mid-2018, the former employee said.

Disparities

"In America, we value each and every individual."

The NYT piece is an example of how racism manifests itself at the level of 'systemic', without much conscious effort to be racist.

There was undoubtedly some racial consideration on the part of some of the decision-makers, but even without it, this shit would still have just grown naturally out of the policies that put major traffic carriers thru poorer (ie: brown) neighborhoods because the richer (ie: white) neighborhoods had the political power to influence the decisions.

American Road Deaths Show an Alarming Racial Gap
Why dangerous streets are concentrated in minority neighborhoods, and what to do about it.

An estimated 19 pedestrians a day, on average, were struck and killed by automobiles in this country in 2022. The year before, pedestrian deaths reached a 40-year high.

While these deaths spiked across the board during the pandemic, the fatalities follow a clear and consistent pattern: Across the country, Black and Hispanic pedestrians are killed at significantly higher rates than white pedestrians.

A study published last year by Harvard and Boston University deepened our understanding of this phenomenon by controlling for the distance traveled by different racial groups when driving, walking or riding a bicycle. It found that Black people were more than twice as likely, for each mile walked, to be struck and killed by a vehicle as white pedestrians. For Black cyclists, the fatality risk per mile was 4.5 times as high as that for white cyclists. For Hispanic walkers and bikers, the death rates were 1.5 and 1.7 times as high as those for white Americans using the same modes of transportation.

The design of our cities is partly to blame for these troubling disparities. Pedestrian and cyclist injuries tend to be concentrated in poorer neighborhoods that have a larger share of Black and Hispanic residents. These neighborhoods share a history of under-investment in basic traffic safety measures such as streetlights, crosswalks and sidewalks, and an over-investment in automobile infrastructure meant to speed through people who do not live there. Recent research from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, found that formerly redlined neighborhoods — often the targets of mid-century “slum clearance” projects that destroyed residences and businesses to allow for new arterial roads and highways — had a strong statistical association with increased pedestrian deaths. The neighborhoods graded D for lending risk by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation had more than double the pedestrian fatality rate than neighborhoods graded A.

Decades of civic neglect, collapsing property values and white flight took a further toll on pedestrian safety. Sidewalks — which many cities rely on property owners to maintain — were left to crumble along with vacant buildings, turning a simple walk down the street to a bus stop or store into a perilous journey. One study of Florida roads found that the likelihood of a crash involving a pedestrian was three times as great per mile on roadways with no sidewalks.

The broken streetscape is only part of the problem. These neighborhoods are “much more likely to contain major arterial roads built for high speeds and higher traffic volumes at intersections, exacerbating dangerous conditions for people walking,” according to a recent report from Smart Growth America, a nonprofit focusing on urban planning and sustainability. These roads and highways, designed in the middle of the last century to provide convenient access to the city from the ever-sprawling suburbs, often brought misery to the minority communities they hurtled through.

In Los Angeles, for instance, a 2020 analysis by U.C.L.A. researchers found that although Black residents made up 8.6 percent of the city’s population, they represented more than 18 percent of all pedestrians killed and around 15 percent of all cyclists. From 2016 to 2020, the Los Angeles metropolitan area had more pedestrian deaths than any other metro area in the United States and a pedestrian death rate higher than the metropolitan areas around New York, Philadelphia or Washington.

As a society, we have been laying the blame for pedestrian traffic injuries on the victims ever since the 1920s, when pro-car groups backed by the automobile industry coined the term “jaywalking” to suggest that pedestrians were at fault when hit by drivers. But an emphasis on individual responsibility for road safety doesn’t seem to help, even when it’s shifted back to drivers. In its most recent report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave driver training an effectiveness rating of one star out of five as a strategy to increase pedestrian safety, noting, “There is no evidence indicating that this countermeasure is effective.”

Engineering solutions like speed humps, lane narrowing, better lighting, the installation of sidewalks and “complete street” designs are far more effective at reducing pedestrian deaths. The ubiquity of speeding is not necessarily because people are bad drivers, but because the design of our roads — wide, straight stretches of asphalt meant for high speeds above all else — encourages them to do so.

Many American cities have already introduced what are known as “Vision Zero” campaigns based on the idea that even a single pedestrian death is one too many.

Vision Zero can be remarkably effective. Death rates have dropped in many cities properly carrying out the program. Oslo and Helsinki, which adopted Vision Zero in the 1990s, recorded zero traffic deaths in 2019, and Helsinki had just two pedestrian deaths in 2021. But it requires a committed redesign of city streets and bikeways, not just rhetoric and ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

In the United States, minimal funding, political inertia and a lack of state and federal participation have limited the effectiveness of these programs. In Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Washington, pedestrian deaths have actually risen since the adoption of Vision Zero. “All these safety efforts come to die in the United States,” said Beth Osborne, the director of the transportation arm for Smart Growth America. “All of these could be incredibly effective, but we have to be willing to change our approach, not just make plans and talk about changing our approach.”

Last year, 312 people died in traffic accidents in Los Angeles, the majority of them pedestrians and cyclists. “If 300 people died of something in the city, whether it was something violent or whether it was something else like Covid, the resources were put behind it to try to prevent those things, to respond to those things,” said Eunisses Hernandez, a member of the Los Angeles City Council. “We have not seen that same urgency with people dying in traffic accidents as pedestrians and as cyclists.”

The United States can reverse the trend of rising traffic deaths, a trend that disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic communities, by investing in safer road design: narrowing streets, reducing the amount of space devoted to cars, enforcing speed limits and adding trees to provide visual cues for drivers to slow down. While these interventions may seem simplistic compared to the scale of the problem, other countries have proved that they can work. City planners must recognize that we all should be able to walk or ride a bicycle through our own neighborhood without fearing for our life.

For Councilmember Hernandez, it is a matter of justice. “I have pictures of bike racks that are full inside of these high schools, yet there are no bike lanes around the high schools,” she said. More than one high school in her district is bordered by busy four-lane streets. And at least two pedestrians in the district have already been killed by vehicles this year.

Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg recently said that “every infrastructure choice is a safety choice,” and in 2022 launched a $1 billion pilot program to redesign roads with a focus on racial equity. Whether this federal action will be able to bend the statistics remains to be seen. For decades, the United States has prioritized the needs of people driving through cities over the well-being of the people living in them, and largely at the expense of communities with the least political clout. Adopting the framing of Vision Zero without finding sufficient funding and political will for road redesign is simply not good enough. Our elected officials must be willing to face an unpleasant set of facts: that the appalling racial disparity in road deaths continues on their watch, and that nearly every killing of a cyclist or pedestrian by a car is preventable.

C'mon Guys

But it's not a cult, right?

Oy

I hate giving Trump any oxygen, but he's like a disease - if you don't keep an eye on it, it's more likely to get worse.

Anyway, here he is with his post-arraignment remarks, playing all the hits - because the prick never has any new material.

Some "highlights"

• "They can't beat us at the ballot box ...", says the guy who got beat by 7 million votes at the ballot box
• Classified documents are automatically declassified when the president takes them home with him
• Alvin Bragg is the criminal
• "Perfect phone call" - a good example of a untrue truth. It was "perfect" because he didn't really say anything out in the open that was patently incriminating

KUSI - Sand Diego

Paraphrasing:

• I'm going to throw all the shit at you all at once, so there's no way for you to unpack and rebut
• Everything I don't like - anyone who disagrees with me, even if they were once my bestest good buddy - it's all part of the Radical Leftist Conspiracy that's out to get me
• Without me, you're all fucked

I Have A Question

Boris Epstheyn could be considered knowledgable in matters of finance law, so it's reasonable to think he's an asset for Trump's defense on charges of finance-type crimes.

But it's not unreasonable to think Boris Epshteyn could be on Vlad Putin's payroll - in some way or another - so it's also not unreasonable to think he's an asset to the Russians.

Maybe we should be asking why that guy's on Trump's team - a guy who was the top legal beagle at a boutique investment bank (West America Securities Corporation) that was expelled by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in 2013 - a guy who strikes me as being more than a little sketchy, and keeps popping up in roles that seem to be not fully in favor of truth, justice, and the American way.

Cheering

Stay tuned

More cheering to follow

Waiting

Kathleen Parker is one of the pimpiest of the ideology pimps, so every now and then, she inadvertently gets one right. Which is how she stays in business. As deliberately wrong as she can be, sometimes she stumbles and tells the truth. AKA: The Classic Beltway Gaffe.

So we can file this one under "Even A Blind Hog Roots Up An Acorn Once In A While".

Opinion

Waiting for a Trump indictment has become an arresting comedy

With apologies to Samuel Beckett, waiting for Donald Trump to be arrested is a bit like waiting for Godot to show up. Only in today’s comedy, Trump never shows up for an event that never happens.

Which allows ample time to consider whether this is good, or bad, for Trump.

Keep in mind it was Trump and not Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg who announced that he’d be arrested Tuesday. Then Wednesday came and then Thursday, and the would-be defendant was still on the campaign trail.

The specificity of his doomsday prophesy should have been a hint that he was fundraising rather than girding for a confrontation with a new archenemy. Within short order of posting about his dreamed-for arrest, Trump’s campaign raised $1.5 million. Not a bad take for an election-denying, rabble-rousing loser. Not to put too fine a point on the matter.

No one expects Trump to be handcuffed or perp-walked, though he doubtless would prefer such a show. He would be fingerprinted, however, photographed for a mug shot and swabbed for New York’s state DNA database.

And to think it all began with an adult-film star and hush money.

To refresh your memory, Stormy Daniels allegedly had a fling with The Don long before he was The Prez. Concerned that she might spoil everything if Americans found out, especially in the wake of his infamous boasts about assaulting women, Trump allegedly directed his sidekick attorney Michael Cohen to pay her off. More shocking than the deed itself was the cheap thrill he took Daniels for. Only $130,000 in exchange for the presidency? She should sue for something, though I can’t think what.

According to Cohen, who testified before the grand jury, he paid Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, with his own money, and Trump reimbursed him for legal fees. (Trump denies everything, including the alleged tryst.) Because the payment was aimed at helping Trump win the 2016 election, Bragg might contend, as prosecutors in the Cohen case did, that the money should have been declared a campaign contribution. Trump did not report the payment, needless to say.

For his part, Bragg may be out of his league. Given Trump’s record of deceptions and antagonisms, not the least of which was his role in inspiring the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, one would think it not much of a challenge. But Trump’s record also includes countless lawsuits, which he files with the gleeful frequency of a parking-ticket scribbler in the District of Columbia. He loves lawsuits and must be pretty good at the racket — or at least at hiring lawyers who are.

When Trump essentially bragged that he’d be arrested Tuesday, it seems he was merely staging a puppet show. He wouldn’t be arrested unless he wanted to be. Once an indictment is issued, all he has to do is quietly turn himself in. But where’s the fun in that? The puppets were the however-many who crowdfunded his next foray on the hustings.

And the arrest? We wait.

Bragg’s case centers on the idea that the Daniels payoff was far above the $2,700 allowed for individual campaign contributions. By not disclosing it, Trump may have violated federal tax rules that apply to political campaigns.

Of course, some might think, So the man had a night out and wanted the broad to keep her trap shut. (Speaking gangster here.) Nobody’s knees got busted. What’s the big deal?

Well, the United States of America got a little bruised. Never mind the utter seediness of Trump — election laws exist to protect us from thugs and criminals, some of whom wear nice suits and, apparently, own tanning booths. But it seems questionable whether Bragg has a solid indictment — and more’s the pity. It’s worth noting that Cohen, who pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court to eight counts, including criminal tax evasion and campaign finance violations, received a three-year prison sentence.

Democrats and other anti-Trumpers have long hoped a criminal conviction would preclude the former president from ever holding public office again. Would that it were so. No law says someone can’t run if indicted. Trump could even serve as president, assuming he’s not in prison.

In 2016, Trump famously told the audience at a Christian college: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” Whether this remains true isn’t clear. As of Wednesday, his “favorable” rating was at 41 percent, unfavorable at 54.8 percent. These numbers have been relatively constant the past two years.

I suppose it’s possible Trump could enjoy some time in penitential seclusion, depending on sentencing if convicted, but I wouldn’t bet the family goat on it. More likely, if he’s indicted at all, Trump will glory in the injustice of Bragg’s folly, raising millions more for another run at the presidency and emboldening his base to save America from traitors.

His arrest could happen any day now. . . . Or, like Beckett’s Didi and Gogo, we could wait forever for Trump to have his day in court.

A Score Card Fer Ya

Perp Walk Watch

Donald Trump: His four biggest legal problems

Donald Trump is under investigation for everything from his handling of top secret documents to alleged payments made to a former adult film star - and he is facing numerous lawsuits as well.

It can be difficult to keep track of the investigations, so here's four that could have the biggest impact on him both personally and politically.

Stormy Daniels

What's being investigated?

Prosecutors in New York are investigating alleged hush-money payments made on Mr Trump's behalf to Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star who went public with claims the pair had an affair.

Mr Trump denies they had sexual relations.

Meanwhile, the business practices of his family company, the Trump Organization, are being examined by prosecutors.

Letitia James, the New York attorney general, is leading a civil investigation (which cannot result in criminal charges) and has spent years looking at whether the company committed various acts of fraud over several decades.

A criminal investigation is being led by the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and is looking at similar issues.

What has Trump said?

A member of his legal team told the Associated Press that there was no legal basis for the Stormy Daniels case and he did not believe prosecutors had made a decision on charges.

Separately, the former president and his lawyers have insisted the allegations against the Trump Organization are politically motivated.

Mr Trump has repeatedly criticised both Ms James and Mr Bragg.

So how serious is it?

In the Stormy Daniels case, Mr Trump has been invited to testify to a grand jury. Experts suggest this indicates he could soon face criminal charges, but it is not clear what these could be.

If prosecutors proceed, it would be the first criminal case ever brought against a former US president.

The criminal investigation into the Trump Organization has already yielded convictions. The company was found guilty in December of fraud and falsifying business records and fined $1.6m (£1.31m). Allen Weisselberg, the organisation's chief financial officer, was sentenced to five months in jail in January.

In the civil case, Ms James has filed a lawsuit against Mr Trump and three of his children accusing them of "astounding" fraud and deception.

The lawsuit alleges that the family inflated their net worth by billions, and is seeking $250m (£226m) that was allegedly obtained through fraudulent means. It's also seeking bans on Mr Trump and his children from serving in a leadership role in any New York business.

A Manhattan judge has denied Mr Trump's bid to delay the trial, saying the scheduled date of 2 October is "written in stone".

Mar-a-Lago

What's being investigated?

The Department of Justice is looking into the removal of government documents from the White House, which were then taken to Mr Trump's Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, after he left office. Investigators are assessing how these documents were stored and who may have had access to them.

The former president's sprawling beachside property was searched in August and 11,000 documents were seized, including around 100 marked as classified. Some of these were labelled top secret.

Unsurprisingly, we know very little about what's in the documents at this stage. But classified material usually contains information that officials feel could damage national security if made public.

What has Trump said?

He's denied wrongdoing and criticised the justice department's investigation, branding it "politically motivated" and a "witch-hunt".

He has offered shifting defences which have mostly hinged on the argument that he declassified the material. No evidence has yet been provided that this is true.

The former president has also argued that some of the documents are protected by "privilege" - a legal concept that would prevent them from being used in future proceedings. An independent lawyer is reviewing the seized material to determine if this is the case and that process continues.

But Mr Trump has not directly addressed the key question of why the documents were at Mar-a-Lago in the first place.

So how serious is it?

This is an active criminal investigation and could result in charges being filed.

Among other statutes, the justice department believes Mr Trump may have violated the Espionage Act by keeping national security information that "could be used to the injury of the United States".

In addition to charges relating to the classified documents themselves, prosecutors are also looking at obstruction of justice as another potential crime.

Mr Trump's team are now locked in a legal battle with the justice department over the investigation.

The department has appointed an independent lawyer, or special counsel, to oversee all of its criminal investigations into Mr Trump. Jack Smith will lead its various inquiries and will ultimately decide whether to bring charges.

The Capitol Riot

What's being investigated?

Mr Trump's alleged role in the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the building in an effort to stop the confirmation of President Joe Biden's election victory, is under scrutiny from several federal government bodies.

The most visible has been a congressional committee that spent 18 months looking into Mr Trump's actions. They held a series of televised hearings laying out their case that his election fraud claims led directly to the riot.

Following these hearings, the committee accused Mr Trump of inciting insurrection and other crimes.

The justice department is running a separate criminal probe into 6 January and broader efforts to overturn the election - but this has largely been shrouded in secrecy. It's the largest police investigation in US history, but the extent to which Mr Trump is a target is unclear.

What has Trump said?

He's denied responsibility for the riot and criticised the congressional committee, which he described as a "kangaroo court" and "unselect pseudo-committee".

He has continued to repeat his unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud.

So how serious is it?

The congressional committee - made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans - concluded its hearings by recommending four criminal charges against Mr Trump which it then referred to the justice department.

The move was largely symbolic as it is up to the department to decide whether to file criminal charges. There is no indication this is imminent.

The justice department's criminal probe, however, has already led to hundreds of people who stormed the Capitol being charged.

The former president has not been called for questioning in that inquiry, but it remains a possibility. He could also - in theory - be charged if investigators believe there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

Georgia

What's being investigated?

Prosecutors spent eight months looking into alleged attempts to overturn Mr Trump's narrow loss in the state in the 2020 presidential election.

The criminal investigation was opened after the disclosure of an hour-long phone call between the former president and the state's top election official on 2 January 2021.

"I just want to find 11,780 votes," Mr Trump said during the call to Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger - a reference to the number of ballots needed to give him victory in the swing state.

A grand jury investigating the case was dissolved earlier this year after filing a final report, which remains sealed.

What has Trump said?

He's described the investigation - as he has many others - as a "witch hunt".

Mr Trump has also attacked the legal official leading the inquiry - the chief prosecutor of Fulton County, Fani Willis - as a "young, ambitious, Radical Left Democrat... who is presiding over one of the most Crime Ridden and Corrupt places".

So how serious is it?

"The allegations are very serious. If indicted and convicted, people are facing prison sentences," Ms Willis told the Washington Post last month.

The 26-member grand jury did not have indictment powers but may have recommended charges. Among the potential crimes it looked into were the solicitation of election fraud, making false statements to government officials, and racketeering.

It is not known whether the former president is being directly investigated, but some of his allies are known to be part of the inquiry.

For a criminal conviction, however, prosecutors would ultimately need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that those involved knew their actions were fraudulent.

In January, a prosecutor working on behalf of Fulton County said the district attorney's office believes the report should only be released after prosecutors determine whether or not to bring charges.

This Time For Sure

... maybe

Donald Trump Indictment Odds: Trump Given 92% Chance to be Indicted in Manhattan

Late last week, former United States President Donald Trump announced that he believes he will be arrested on Tuesday, March 21. According to his post on the social media platform Truth Social, Trump expects to be charged in relation to hush-money payments made to the adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

But, will Donald Trump actually be indicted? According to the latest odds it appears as though he will be. The question now is just...when?

With the popularity of betting on politics skyrocketing across the globe, there is no shortage of odds on different political outcomes. Unfortunately, you can't bet on politics in the United States, but that hasn't prevented UK sportsbooks from pricing up odds.

And, with everyone waiting to see if Donald Trump will indeed be indicted, some sportsbooks have begun to provide us with Donald Trump indictment odds. According to the sportsbooks, it's not looking good for the former President of the United States.

Taking a look at the latest Donald Trump indictment odds, the sportsbooks have basically said it's a foregone conclusion he will be indicted in Manhattan at some point as his present odds give him an implied probability closer to 100% than 50%.

Trump campaign prepares for ‘new normal’: Running under indictment

The former president’s team is pressuring other Republicans to show support, basking in favorable coverage from right-wing media and collecting checks. But advisers privately acknowledge many potential risks.

The escalating criminal jeopardy confronting Donald Trump has restored him to his political comfort zone, according to advisers and allies: counterattacking, with prominent Republicans largely behind him.

The former president’s campaign isn’t waiting for an official indictment or arrest to deploy an aggressive political response — already criticizing New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg and key witness Michael Cohen, as Trump aides plot further attacks. Advisers are moving to capitalize on coverage in conservative media outlets, raising over $1.5 million since Saturday, a person familiar with the matter said.

And the campaign is working to turn the case into pressure on Trump’s primary rivals, forcing them to take questions about Trump and risk the blowback of offering anything less than full-throated support. In particular, the campaign has ramped up attacks on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), Trump’s top competitor in early 2024 primary polls. He took his biggest swipe at Trump so far on Monday by distancing himself from the New York case’s lewd circumstances, even as he attacked it as politically motivated.

As the investigation into Trump’s role in hush-money payments made to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels nears an apparent conclusion, Trump campaign advisers and others familiar with the effort, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss internal strategy, are relishing expressions of support from Republicans all across the party. The overall result is a familiar and, in his advisers’ assessment, favorable terrain for Trump: the center of attention, the dominant figure in his party and on offense.

But advisers privately acknowledged many potential pitfalls. The campaign has not worked out the logistics of simultaneously mounting a presidential run and facing a criminal trial — possibly more than one, with ongoing probes in Fulton County in Georgia and under Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith. It has never been attempted by a candidate from a major party.

Whatever plans the campaign does make could be swiftly upended by the candidate himself, as on Saturday when he surprised his own groggy advisers by announcing on social media that he could be arrested as soon as Tuesday. The campaign is separate from Trump’s legal team, and the two are not always acting in concert, advisers said. And the candidate is not always taking advice from either team.

The Trump campaign is aiming to position the potential prosecution as the latest politicized “witch hunt” targeting the former president. This will amount to an attack on all Republicans that forces everyone to pick a side, unifying them around him as the leader before they have the chance to review the allegations in the prosecutors’ case.

“This is the new normal. The president has been battle-tested,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said. “This operation has been fine-tuned since 2016. Dealing with these types of news cycles, you learn to get good at it. We have a full-spectrum response operation on the campaign that can deal with anything that comes our way.”

While Trump’s team expects a continued boost in fundraising, polling and conservative media coverage surrounding a potential indictment — similar to the reaction to the FBI’s search of the former president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., last August in the classified documents case now under Smith’s purview — Trump’s unprecedented legal turmoil could be a drag on him and other Republicans in the general election.

One person familiar with the matter said there have been many discussions in Trump’s orbit on whether the indictment from Bragg makes it more likely that others follow. Several advisers see some of the other cases as more legally perilous for Trump.

In the face of attacks from Republicans, Bragg’s office has defended its work. “We will not be intimidated by attempts to undermine the justice process,” a spokesperson for Bragg said Monday.

Criminal charges could add to concerns about Trump’s electability that have developed even among his loyal fans, and they could hinder his efforts to secure major donors and endorsements. And as much as Trump likes playing the victim and has privately vowed to look tough and fight the charges, some advisers said he does not actually want to be seen in handcuffs or in a mug shot.

“Being indicted I don’t think ever helps anybody,” former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, an ex-Trump adviser turned potential 2024 rival, said on ABC’s “This Week.” “You can look at Alvin Bragg as the Manhattan D.A., see that he’s a partisan … but you can also think that Donald Trump is not someone who could be a winning general election candidate for the Republican Party because of all these things.”

It didn’t take much prodding from the campaign to trigger many Republicans’ reflex to line up in support of Trump under siege. The response wasn’t confined to the friendliest voices and outlets, such as the podcast hosted by the former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon; the Wall Street Journal editorial board, former National Review writer Jonah Goldberg and Fox News anchor Dana Perino have also criticized Bragg’s case.

“It does make the conversation of the primary all about Trump, which is a good dynamic he had going for him in 2016, everyone being asked to react to Trump,” a Republican operative familiar with Trump’s campaign effort said. “We’re right now fighting a primary so all that matters is the party, and we can deal with the general after.”

The notable exception has been DeSantis, who took the opportunity at a Monday news conference to brush back at Trump: “Look, I don’t know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence over some type of alleged affair,” he said. “I can’t speak to that.” The former president has denied having an affair with Daniels.

The dig irked Trump and his advisers, with one calling it “trying to be too cute by half.” The former president drafted a social media post that made baseless insinuations about DeSantis, and he circulated it for approval, people briefed on what happened said.

DeSantis allies argued that Trump was the one damaging himself with brazen attacks on the governor he once endorsed.

“The Trump people expect [DeSantis] to throw himself into the service of Donald Trump at all times, because guess what? That’s what Republicans have done since 2016,” said David Reaboi, a media consultant and former Trump supporter who now prefers DeSantis as a presidential candidate. “If somebody was going to challenge Donald Trump, they have to put an end to that.”

A representative for DeSantis declined to comment on the criticisms of the governor’s reaction to the indictment.

After months of brushing off Trump’s barbs, DeSantis further sharpened a more combative posture toward him in an interview with conservative commentator Piers Morgan, excerpts of which were published Tuesday by the New York Post. Asked about leaders’ personal conduct, DeSantis contrasted Trump with others, according to the article, and said, “You really want to look to people like our Founding Fathers, like what type of character — it’s not saying that you don’t ever make a mistake in your personal life, but I think what type of character are you bringing?”

Trump allies immediately responded. “While the entire conservative movement is united against the unjust indictment of President Donald Trump, Governor DeSantis is choosing to go off half-cocked and take shots on some low-rent vlog,” said Taylor Budowich, who runs Trump’s main super PAC, MAGA Inc.

The Trump campaign also has been relentlessly attacking Bragg. On Monday, it blasted out a long list of critical articles about Bragg, styling him a “woke tyrant,” “rogue prosecutor” and “progressive activist.” Trump has gone after Bragg for investigating him instead of prioritizing street crime in New York, often by exaggerating statistics.

Without explanation, Trump also has painted Bragg as racist, using the same term to describe New York attorney general Letitia James, who is suing his company for allegedly fraudulent business practices, and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is considering charges related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia. Bragg, James and Willis are all Black.

The campaign also plans to relentlessly attack Cohen, the former attorney for Trump who pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations in the hush money payments and has been cooperating with Bragg’s investigation. Cohen also pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about Trump’s pursuit of a real estate project in Moscow during the 2016 campaign. The campaign has compiled a list of Cohen’s record of lying, advisers said. En route to a stop in Iowa last week, Trump called Cohen a “sick person.”

Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, has said, “The facts and documents speak for themselves.”

The campaign also has been peppering supporters with fundraising appeals. Some are purporting to be collecting signatures for a “NO ARREST” petition or a “1,500 percent” match for contributions, common and often misleading tactics aimed at encouraging people to give immediately.

Trump’s Saturday morning post to his Truth Social website predicting that he would be arrested Tuesday and calling for supporters to protest, woke up many of his advisers, who were staying around Palm Beach and were suddenly flooded with calls from reporters and others. But it accomplished one thing Trump cared about: pushing Republicans to defend him. Trump had complained in recent days that no one was going on TV to defend him.

“It will backfire spectacularly,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said to reporters on Tuesday of a potential indictment.

At least one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), predicted a similar political outcome, suggesting that the case could have a “reverse effect.”

Other Democrats have largely avoided discussing Trump’s legal situation, and the White House is not expected to weigh in, even though the Bragg investigation is not a federal case. But Democrats have seized on the response of House Republicans as further evidence that the congressional investigations of the Biden administration and his family are largely political exercises.

“The hypocrisy of House Republicans rushing to Trump’s defense for possible crimes his own former attorney went to jail for while they investigate every QAnon conspiracy theory about Joe Biden is gobsmacking. These folks have no credibility and apparently no shame,” said Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic strategist and senior adviser to the Congressional Integrity Project. “But the reality is that the indictment of a former president is a story that will tell itself.”

Storm Clouds

I really like it when "we're living a truly historic moment" is:

"Apollo 11 has landed safely on the moon"

- or -

"Nixon resigns"

- or -

"Obama is elected POTUS".

But I guess it has to be tempered with:

"American GIs murder civilians at My Lai"

- and -

"Almost 3,000 dead at WTC"

- and -

"COVID deaths top 1 million"

I wonder where this one's gonna end up.

The guy's a fraud and a slicker and a liar and a thief.

And he knows what rouses the rabble.

The question now is whether or not he's still got the chops to call people to commit violent seditious acts in numbers large enough to be any kind of existential threat to us.

I'm betting he doesn't. And I'm betting the good government people are ready for whatever his little flock of shitbirds try to pull.

Trump Claims His Arrest Is Imminent and Calls for Protests, Echoing Jan6

His indictment by a Manhattan grand jury is expected, but its timing is unclear.

With former President Donald J. Trump facing indictment by a Manhattan grand jury but the timing of the charges uncertain, he declared on his social media site that he would be arrested on Tuesday and demanded that his supporters protest on his behalf.

Mr. Trump made the declaration on his site, Truth Social, at 7:26 a.m. on Saturday in a post that ended with, “THE FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

Two hours later, a spokesman issued a statement clarifying that Mr. Trump had not written his post with direct knowledge of the timing of any arrest.

“President Trump is rightfully highlighting his innocence and the weaponization of our injustice system,” the statement said.

A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Susan R. Necheles, said that his post had been based on news reports, and accused the Manhattan district attorney’s office of conducting a “political prosecution.”

A spokeswoman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to comment.

Prosecutors working for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, have signaled that an indictment of Mr. Trump could be imminent. But they have not told Mr. Trump’s lawyers when the charges — expected to stem from a 2016 hush money payment to a porn star — would be sought or when an arrest would be made, people with knowledge of the matter said. At least one more witness is expected to testify in front of the grand jury, which could delay an indictment, the people said.

One of the people said that even if the grand jury were to vote to indict the former president on Monday, a Tuesday surrender was unlikely given the need to arrange timing, travel and other logistics.

The statement from Mr. Trump’s spokesman did not explain how he landed on Tuesday as an arrest date. One person with knowledge of the matter said that Mr. Trump’s advisers had guessed that it could happen around then, and that someone might have relayed that to the former president.

Mr. Trump, who declared his third presidential campaign in November and is leading his Republican opponents in most polls, faced his first criminal investigation in the late 1970s. He has been deeply anxious about the prospect of arrest, which is expected to include being fingerprinted, one of the people said.

When the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, was arrested in 2021, Mr. Trump watched in horror as television news showed Mr. Weisselberg flanked by officers in the courthouse and the former president said he couldn’t believe what was happening.

Mr. Trump’s post urging his supporters to protest and reclaim the nation carried unmistakable echoes of the incendiary messages he posted online in the weeks before the attack on the U.S. Capitol. In the most notorious of those messages, he announced on Twitter that he would hold a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. “Be there,” he told his millions of followers. “Will be wild.”

At that rally, on the Ellipse near the White House, Mr. Trump told supporters to march to the Capitol, where the certification of the 2020 presidential election was taking place. He is under investigation by federal prosecutors for his activities before the attack.

Investigators later determined that far-right extremist groups as well as ordinary Trump supporters had read that tweet — posted on Dec. 19, 2020 — as a clear-cut invitation. They almost immediately sprang into action, acquiring protective gear, setting up encrypted communications channels and, in one case, preparing heavily armed “quick reaction forces” to be staged outside Washington for the event.

Leaders of groups like the Proud Boys and the Three Percenter militia movement also started to whip up members with bellicose language as their private messaging channels were increasingly filled with plans to rush to Mr. Trump’s aid.

On Friday evening, Mr. Trump’s campaign announced what could be his first rally after an indictment: an event in Waco, Texas, where deadly clashes between federal officials and an extremist religious sect occurred 30 years ago around this time.

New York officials have been discussing security arrangements at the Manhattan Criminal Court in case of an indictment, according to people with knowledge of the planning, which was first reported by NBC News. Mr. Trump is expected to be charged in connection with the hush money payment his former fixer and lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, made to the porn star Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had an affair with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels to bury her story of the affair.

The payment came in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, and Mr. Trump subsequently reimbursed Mr. Cohen. Prosecutors are expected to accuse Mr. Trump of overseeing the false recording of the reimbursements in his company’s internal records. The records falsely stated that the payments to Mr. Cohen were for “legal expenses.”

There have been several signals that charges may be imminent: The prosecutors gave Mr. Trump an opportunity to testify, a right afforded to people who will soon face indictment, and have questioned nearly every major player in the hush money saga in front of the grand jury.

Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing, as well as having had an affair with Ms. Daniels.

Any arrest and processing of Mr. Trump would probably combine the routine steps that every defendant experiences — fingerprinting, photographing — with the pomp accorded to a former president, whose every move is attended by the U.S. Secret Service.

It is unclear what kinds of accommodations Mr. Trump would receive. It is standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed, but an exception could be made. As he awaits his court appearance, it is possible that for security reasons, he will be detained in an interview room or another confined area, rather than in a holding cell. And after Mr. Trump is arraigned, he will almost certainly be released without spending any time behind bars, because the indictment is likely to contain only nonviolent felony charges.

Early Saturday morning, there was little evidence that Mr. Trump’s new demand for protests had been embraced by extremist groups.

But Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of the “Stop the Steal” rallies following the 2020 election, reposted a message on his Telegram channel on Saturday suggesting that he supported a mass demonstration to protect Mr. Trump.

“Previously, I had said if Trump was arrested or under the threat of a perp walk, 100,000 patriots should shut down all routes to Mar-a-Lago,” Mr. Alexander wrote. “Now I’m retired. I’ll pray for him though!”

Without the platform provided by the White House or the machinery of a large political campaign, it is unclear how many people Mr. Trump is able to reach, let alone mobilize, via Truth Social.

And it remained unclear whether he would repeat his call for action or increase the stakes with more aggressive language. But his political allies made plain this week that they were preparing for a political war on Mr. Bragg.

For months Mr. Trump has been attacking Mr. Bragg, who is Black, as “racist.” Mr. Bragg won a conviction for tax fraud against the Trump Organization last year, though he did not charge Mr. Trump personally.

Some of Mr. Trump’s supporters responded of their own accord with violence after F.B.I. agents, acting on a search warrant, descended on Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, in August and carted away boxes of documents in an investigation into the former president’s handling of classified material.

Days after the search, an armed Ohio man who had posted online about his outrage over what happened at Mar-a-Lago tried to breach the F.B.I.’s field office outside Cincinnati. He was later killed in a standoff with local officers.

The unexpected Saturday morning salvo from the former president provided a preview of the kind of chaos that Mr. Bragg is likely to face if he proceeds with an indictment.

Mr. Bragg, a former federal prosecutor and deputy New York attorney general, has some history of prosecuting public officials. But he is unaccustomed to dealing with a figure as high-profile, erratic and pugilistic as the former president, and it is unclear how his office will deal with future outbursts from Mr. Trump.