Pushback

History Is Listening

History will not look kindly on any of the jokers in Trump's "administration", but especially so with Bondi, Miller, Noem, and Patel.

Today's Robert Arnold

A shield of liberty, not a weapon of enforcement.

Daddy State Awareness Guide, Rule 7 and 7a:

The law is my sword, but not your shield.

The law is my shield, but not your sword.

Judge Jeanine Fails

And the system holds - for now.

The Daddy State is always trying to flex on us, and we continue to flinch (understandably). but the bullshit approach of "zero tolerance" never stands up. Because they always take it immediately to the logical extreme, and they always look stupid doing it.

Like the man said:

Our salvation comes not from our heroism and brilliant execution, but from the crushing incompetence of the other side.

DC Grand Jury Declines to Indict Sandwich Thrower

No-Bill for Assault With a Deli Weapon

A D.C. grand jury declined to indict the fired DOJ paralegal Sean Dunn who hurled a sandwich at a federal officer during protests against President Trump’s hyper-federalization of the nation’s capital, the NYT reports.

The incident outside a Subway location (it was reportedly a salami sandwich) came to represent both the intense local opposition to being targeted by Trump on the bogus pretext of out-of-control crime and the overall absurdity of the situation.

Failing to secure an indictment is a relatively rare occurrence because prosecutors control the entire process in front of a grand jury. With few exceptions, prosecutors are not in the business of bringing loser cases to grand juries.

This is the second case in the last week arising out of the Trumpian occupation of the District of Columbia where grand juries have declined to indict felonies. Three different grand juries declined to return indictments against Sidney Lori Reid, accused by prosecutors of injuring an FBI agent near the D.C. jail during the transfer of alleged gang members. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office eventually dropped the charge to a misdemeanor, which doesn’t require an indictment.

Prosecutors were seeking to indict Dunn on a similar assault charge that they failed to secure against Reid.

Undocumented My Ass

DHS has an extra $150B for their budget, and they've been spending it lavishly on 50-thousand-dollar signing bonuses for new ICE agents, who'll start at $100K a year.

They're buying fleets of cars and vans, helicopters and airplanes and weapons and gear.

All for the purpose of rounding up brown people. And when I say "all", I mean it's a safe bet that some of it is coming off the top and going straight into the boss's pocket.

Anyway, we're spending way more than we should - way more than we need to be spending.

So let's do something radical and make the whole mess a lot more cost-effective.

Let's send those ICE guys out to find all those undocumented people and - uh - you know - document them.

Boston Legal

Another Step Down The Slope

What Trump is doing doesn't have to mean the dark and foreboding Nazi shit that it definitely looks to be.

But if it isn't that Nazi shit, it shouldn't look so much like that Nazi shit.

And all that really bad Nazi shit didn't start with gas chambers and crematoria - it started with "common sense" ideas like restoring law and order, and taking back the streets.

ACLU Condemns Trump Executive Order Targeting Disabled and Unhoused People

WASHINGTON – President Trump signed an executive order today directing states to criminalize unhoused people and institutionalize people with mental health disabilities and substance use disorder.

The order, titled “Ending Crime and Disorder on American Streets,” directs the Justice Department to expand indefinite forced treatment for people with mental health disabilities or substance use disorder, and those living on the street who “cannot care for themselves.” The order also purports to eliminate federal funding for evidence-based programs, like harm reduction and housing first, that save lives, and directs federal funds toward cities and states that criminalize substance use disorder, punish people for sleeping outdoors, or enforce other laws targeting unhoused people.

The order also calls for sweeping federal data collection on unhoused people and those with mental health disabilities, raising serious concerns about surveillance, privacy, and how such data could be used to justify further criminalization. Instead of funding services or support, the administration is prioritizing profiling and control.

Scout Katovich, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Trone Center for Justice and Equality, issued the following statement in response to the executive order:

“From the so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ that will strip health care from millions to this dangerous executive order, every action this administration takes displays remarkable disdain for the rights and dignity of vulnerable people.

“Pushing people into locked institutions and forcing treatment won’t solve homelessness or support people with disabilities. The exact opposite is true – institutions are dangerous and deadly, and forced treatment doesn’t work. We need safe, decent, and affordable housing as well as equal access to medical care and voluntary, community-based mental health and evidence-based substance use treatment from trusted providers. But instead of investing in these proven solutions, President Trump is blaming individuals for systemic failures and doubling down on policies that punish people with nowhere else to go – all after signing a law that decimates Medicaid, the number one payer for addiction and mental health services.

“Homelessness is a policy failure. Weaponizing federal funding to fuel cruel and ineffective approaches to homelessness won’t solve this crisis.”

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  Endemic vagrancy, disorderly behavior, sudden confrontations, and violent attacks have made our cities unsafe.  The number of individuals living on the streets in the United States on a single night during the last year of the previous administration — 274,224 — was the highest ever recorded.  The overwhelming majority of these individuals are addicted to drugs, have a mental health condition, or both.  Nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having regularly used hard drugs like methamphetamines, cocaine, or opioids in their lifetimes.  An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions.  The Federal Government and the States have spent tens of billions of dollars on failed programs that address homelessness but not its root causes, leaving other citizens vulnerable to public safety threats.

Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings for humane treatment through the appropriate use of civil commitment will restore public order.  Surrendering our cities and citizens to disorder and fear is neither compassionate to the homeless nor other citizens.  My Administration will take a new approach focused on protecting public safety.

Sec. 2.  Restoring Civil Commitment.  (a)  The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall take appropriate action to:

(i)   seek, in appropriate cases, the reversal of Federal or State judicial precedents and the termination of consent decrees that impede the United States’ policy of encouraging civil commitment of individuals with mental illness who pose risks to themselves or the public or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves in appropriate facilities for appropriate periods of time; and

(ii)  provide assistance to State and local governments, through technical guidance, grants, or other legally available means, for the identification, adoption, and implementation of maximally flexible civil commitment, institutional treatment, and “step-down” treatment standards that allow for the appropriate commitment and treatment of individuals with mental illness who pose a danger to others or are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves.

Sec. 3.  Fighting Vagrancy on America’s Streets.  (a)  The Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of Transportation shall take immediate steps to assess their discretionary grant programs and determine whether priority for those grants may be given to grantees in States and municipalities that actively meet the below criteria, to the maximum extent permitted by law:

(i)    enforce prohibitions on open illicit drug use;

(ii)   enforce prohibitions on urban camping and loitering;

(iii)  enforce prohibitions on urban squatting;

(iv)   enforce, and where necessary, adopt, standards that address individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and suffer from serious mental illness or substance use disorder, or who are living on the streets and cannot care for themselves, through assisted outpatient treatment or by moving them into treatment centers or other appropriate facilities via civil commitment or other available means, to the maximum extent permitted by law; or

(v)    substantially implement and comply with, to the extent required, the registration and notification obligations of the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act, particularly in the case of registered sex offenders with no fixed address, including by adequately mapping and checking the location of homeless sex offenders.

(b)  The Attorney General shall:

(i)    ensure that homeless individuals arrested for Federal crimes are evaluated, consistent with 18 U.S.C. 4248, to determine whether they are sexually dangerous persons and certified accordingly for civil commitment;

(ii)   take all necessary steps to ensure the availability of funds under the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance program to support, as consistent with 34 U.S.C. 50101 et seq., encampment removal efforts in areas for which public safety is at risk and State and local resources are inadequate;

(iii)  assess Federal resources to determine whether they may be directed toward ensuring, to the extent permitted by law, that detainees with serious mental illness are not released into the public because of a lack of forensic bed capacity at appropriate local, State, and Federal jails or hospitals; and

(iv)   enhance requirements that prisons and residential reentry centers that are under the authority of the Attorney General or receive funding from the Attorney General require in-custody housing release plans and, to the maximum extent practicable, require individuals to comply.

Sec. 4.  Redirecting Federal Resources Toward Effective Methods of Addressing Homelessness.  (a)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate action to:

(i)    ensure that discretionary grants issued by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for substance use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery fund evidence-based programs and do not fund programs that fail to achieve adequate outcomes, including so-called “harm reduction” or “safe consumption” efforts that only facilitate illegal drug use and its attendant harm;

(ii)   provide technical assistance to assisted outpatient treatment programs for individuals with serious mental illness or addiction during and after the civil commitment process focused on shifting such individuals off of the streets and public programs and into private housing and support networks; and

(iii)  ensure that Federal funds for Federally Qualified Health Centers and Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics reduce rather than promote homelessness by supporting, to the maximum extent permitted by law, comprehensive services for individuals with serious mental illness and substance use disorder, including crisis intervention services.

(b)  The Attorney General shall prioritize available funding to support the expansion of drug courts and mental health courts for individuals for which such diversion serves public safety.

Sec. 5.  Increasing Accountability and Safety in America’s Homelessness Programs.  (a)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate actions to increase accountability in their provision of, and grants awarded for, homelessness assistance and transitional living programs.  These actions shall include, to the extent permitted by law, ending support for “housing first” policies that deprioritize accountability and fail to promote treatment, recovery, and self-sufficiency; increasing competition among grantees through broadening the applicant pool; and holding grantees to higher standards of effectiveness in reducing homelessness and increasing public safety.  

(b)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, as appropriate, take steps to require recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance to increase requirements that persons participating in the recipients’ programs who suffer from substance use disorder or serious mental illness use substance abuse treatment or mental health services as a condition of participation.

(c)  With respect to recipients of Federal housing and homelessness assistance that operate drug injection sites or “safe consumption sites,” knowingly distribute drug paraphernalia, or permit the use or distribution of illicit drugs on property under their control:

(i)   the Attorney General shall review whether such recipients are in violation of Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 856, and bring civil or criminal actions in appropriate cases; and

(ii)  the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall review whether such recipients are in violation of the terms of the programs pursuant to which they receive Federal housing and homelessness assistance and freeze their assistance as appropriate.

(d)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take appropriate measures and revise regulations as necessary to allow, where permissible under applicable law, federally funded programs to exclusively house women and children and to stop sex offenders who receive homelessness assistance through such programs from being housed with unrelated children. 

(e)  The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law:

(i)   allow or require the recipients of Federal funding for homelessness assistance to collect health-related information that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development identifies as necessary to the effective and efficient operation of the funding program from all persons to whom such assistance is provided; and

(ii)  require those funding recipients to share such data with law enforcement authorities in circumstances permitted by law and to use the collected health data to provide appropriate medical care to individuals with mental health diagnoses or to connect individuals to public health resources.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 24, 2025.

Government vs Government

Ain't it funny how all that "states' rights" noise seems to have evaporated.

First they came for the immigrants.

Then they came for Judge Dugan.

Then they came for almost the entire government structure of a whole state.

I haven't been - and I hope to hell I will never be - quiet about it any of this.

Trump’s DOJ sues to block Colorado and Denver’s ‘sanctuary laws’

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on Friday against Denver and Colorado officials, alleging in federal court that they had passed “sanctuary laws” that violate the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit asks the U.S. District Court in Colorado to declare that several city and state policies are invalid, blocking the city and state from enforcing them. The laws and policies in question generally restrict the ability of state and local government employees to help with immigration enforcement.

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits Colorado and its officials from obstructing the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution,” the lawsuit argues. “The Supremacy Clause also prohibits Colorado from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment — as the challenged laws do — thereby discriminating against the Federal Government. The Sanctuary Laws are themselves unlawful and cannot stand.”

Mayor Mike Johnston’s office responded soon after the suit was filed.

“Denver will not be bullied or blackmailed, least of all by an administration that has little regard for the law and even less for the truth. We follow all laws local, state, and federal and stand ready to defend our values,” wrote Jon Ewing, a spokesperson for Johnston, who was named a defendant in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also names Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, the state legislature, the city and county of Denver and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins.

“Colorado is not a sanctuary state,” responded Eric Maruyama, a spokesperson for Polis, in a written statement.

“The State of Colorado works with local, state and federal law enforcement regularly and we value our partnerships with local, county and federal law enforcement agencies to make Colorado safer. If the courts say that any Colorado law is not valid, then we will follow the ruling. We are not going to comment on the merits of the lawsuit,” Maruyama continued.

The DOJ argued that because of a state law, it can no longer enter into agreements with local governments to detain immigrants in county jails, forcing it to transfer all its detainees to a facility in Aurora. The lawsuit claims that the state’s policies force it to release individuals into the public because it can’t afford to bring them to Aurora.

Immigrant advocates have argued that local governments should not — and don’t have to — work closely with immigration enforcement. They argue that when police partner with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, immigrants are afraid to report crimes and communities are less safe.

The federal lawsuit also argues that state and local laws make it harder for immigration agents to detain people who are set to be released from local jails. But city officials have pushed back on those claims, noting in one recent case that agents were notified more than an hour before a wanted person was released.

The lawsuit targets several state laws:

• HB19-1124: This law is one of those most often cited by Republicans unhappy with Colorado’s immigration policies. Nicknamed the Protecting Colorado Residents From Federal Government Overreach act, it prevents law enforcement officers from arresting or detaining an individual on the basis of their immigration status, or holding someone in jail past their release time just so immigration officials can come pick them up. It also prevents authorities from providing information about an individual’s immigration status to federal officials. Officers can continue to assist federal immigration enforcement officials with executing warrants issued by federal judges, and they can transfer people from jail or prison into the custody of immigration officers, if they have a court order.
• SB21-131: This law aims to further restrict cooperation between state employees and federal immigration agents by preventing the state from looking into people’s immigration status or disclosing anyone’s personal identifying information to ICE, except as required by law or courts.
• HB23-1100: This law prohibits the state and local governments from contracting with private companies to operate immigration detention facilities.

The lawsuit also targets policies in Denver:

• City Ordinance No. 94-17: This law was adopted in 2017 under Mayor Michael Hancock. It bars city employees from using “any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the lawsuit states. That includes helping with investigations, detention or arrest procedures, as well as requesting information about a person’s immigration status in most cases. It also bars federal immigration agents from “secure areas of any city or county jail or other city-owned law enforcement facility for the purpose of conducting investigative interviews or any other purpose related to the enforcement of federal immigration” unless they have a warrant from a federal judge or magistrate. And it says that officers will not detain people solely on the basis of administrative warrants from immigration agents.
• Executive Order No. 142: This order issued by Hancock declared Denver a "safe and welcoming city for all” and touched on numerous subjects. It called for city employees to be trained on “the limitations around collecting and sharing national origin, immigration and citizenship data, including sharing information pertaining to appointment times, dates or whereabouts of clients … with federal immigration enforcement officials.” It also called on city leaders to report on “any efforts” they were aware of by immigration agents to get city help enforcing immigration laws.

The Hunter Thing

I'm not crazy about the idea that Biden is "setting a precedent" by pardoning his son Hunter.

First:

I am, in fact, old enough to remember when Republicans cared about traditions and norms and precedents. But that's ancient history now. They don't, so it doesn't matter what Biden does or doesn't do in regard to following any institutional traditions. The other side doesn't give one empty fuck about any of that.

Second:

This is a brick fight, and you don't win a brick fight with a rule book.

You have to pick up a brick, and chuck it as hard as you can at any random MAGA fucker's head.

That's where we're at now.

I don't like getting down in the mud with the pigs - we all get filthy and they like it that way. But that's where the pigs are, so that's where the fight is. And if we're going to beat the pigs, we'll have to meet them where they are - at least most of the time, until or unless we can elevate the struggle back to a reasonable place.

The trick is to not lose track of our own humanity as we fight against an army of inhumane assholes.

Biden pardons his son Hunter despite previous pledges not to

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family.

The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence after convictions in the two cases in Delaware and California. The move on Sunday night comes weeks before Hunter Biden was set to receive his punishment after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges, and less than two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to return to the White House.

It caps a long-running legal saga for the younger Biden, who publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation in December 2020 — a month after his father’s 2020 victory — and casts a pall over the elder Biden’s legacy.

Biden, who time and again pledged to Americans that he would restore norms and respect for the rule of law after Trump’s first term in office, ultimately used his position to help his son, breaking his public pledge to Americans that he would do no such thing.

In a statement released Sunday evening, Biden said, “I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.”

The president’s sweeping pardon covers not just the gun and tax offenses against the younger Biden, but also any other “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.”

As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”

The elder Biden has publicly stood by his only living son as Hunter descended into serious drug addiction and threw his family life into turmoil before getting back on track in recent years. The president’s political rivals have long used Hunter Biden’s myriad mistakes as a political cudgel against his father: In one hearing, lawmakers displayed photos of the drug-addled president’s son half-naked in a seedy hotel.

House Republicans also sought to use the younger Biden’s years of questionable overseas business ventures in a since-abandoned attempt to impeach his father, who has long denied involvement in his son’s dealings or benefiting from them in any way.

“The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election,” Biden said in his statement. “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son.”

“I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision,” Biden added, claiming he made the decision this weekend.

The president had spent the Thanksgiving holiday in Nantucket, Massachusetts, with Hunter and his family, and departed for Angola later Sunday on what may be his last foreign trip as president before leaving office on Jan. 20, 2025.

Hunter Biden was convicted in June in Delaware federal court of three felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.

He had been set to stand trial in September in the California case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. But he agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges in a surprise move hours after jury selection was set to begin.

David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware who negotiated the plea deal, was subsequently named a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to have more autonomy over the prosecution of the president’s son.

Hunter Biden said he was pleading guilty in that case to spare his family more pain and embarrassment after the gun trial aired salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction.

The tax charges carry up to 17 years behind bars and the gun charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines were expected to call for far less time and it was possible he would have avoided prison time entirely.

Hunter Biden was supposed to be sentenced this month in the two federal cases, which the special counsel brought after a plea deal with prosecutors that likely would have spared him prison time fell apart under scrutiny by a judge. Under the original deal, Hunter was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and and would have avoided prosecution in the gun case as long as he stayed out of trouble for two years.

But the plea hearing quickly unraveled last year when the judge raised concerns about unusual aspects of the deal. The younger Biden was subsequently indicted in the two cases.

Hunter Biden’s legal team this weekend released a 52-page white paper titled “The political prosecutions of Hunter Biden,” describing the president’s son as a “surrogate to attack and injure his father, both as a candidate in 2020 and later as president.”

The younger Biden’s lawyers have long argued that prosecutors bowed to political pressure to indict the president’s son amid heavy criticism by Trump and other Republicans of what they called the “sweetheart” plea deal.

Rep. James Comer, one of the Republican chairmen leading congressional investigations into Biden’s family, blasted the president’s pardon, saying that the evidence against Hunter was “just the tip of the iceberg.”

“It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability,” Comer said on X, the website formerly known as Twitter.

Biden is hardly the first president to deploy his pardon powers to benefit those close to him.

In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in law, Jared Kushner, as well as multiple allies convicted in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Trump over the weekend announced plans to nominate the elder Kushner to be the U.S. envoy to France in his next administration.

Trump, who has pledged to dramatically overhaul and install loyalists across the Justice Department after he was prosecuted for his role in trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election, said in a social media post on Sunday that Hunter Biden’s pardon was “such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice.”

“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump asked, referring to those convicted in the violent Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

Hunter Biden said in an emailed statement that he will never take for granted the relief granted to him and vowed to devote the life he has rebuilt “to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction – mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” the younger Biden said.

Hunter Biden’s legal team filed Sunday night in both Los Angeles and Delaware asking the judges handling his gun and tax cases to immediately dismiss them, citing the pardon.

A spokesperson for Weiss did not respond to messages seeking comment Sunday night.

NBC News was first to report Biden was expected to pardon his son Sunday.

Uh Oh, Elmo

The law has to apply to everybody - more or less equally.

• There are things that shouldn't apply in some juvenile cases
• The are some laws that certain officers of the court should be granted some protection from

Not every rule is for everybody.

That said, I'm getting really sick of rich people fuckin' with the law all the fuckin' time.

Elon Musk’s X Is Reportedly Resisting a Subpoena in Jeffrey Epstein-Related Legal Case

X is allegedly fighting multiple subpoenas related to a case involving two Epstein accusers.

X (the website formerly known as Twitter) is reportedly stonewalling subpoena requests related to a legal case involving dead financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Why? Nobody knows, but it sure is weird.

According to Business Insider, the social media platform refuses to give up information about one of the accounts linked to an Epstein accuser, a woman named Rina Oh Amen. The legal case is otherwise unrelated to the platform itself, instead it involves a spat between Oh Amen and another Epstein accuser, the more well-known Virginia Giuffre.

While both women claim to have been victimized by Epstein, the dispute between them involves mutual accusations that they also participated in Epstein’s criminal activities.

Insider reports:

[Ghislaine] Maxwell recruited Giuffre at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida in 2000, bringing her to Epstein. Giuffre has blamed Oh Amen for participating in the abuse by sexually and physically abusing her in the early 2000s. In 2021, Oh Amen sued Giuffre, alleging Giuffre defamed her with those claims. Giuffre countersued, alleging Oh Amen was Epstein’s “girlfriend.” In court filings and public statements, each has accused the other of acting as one of Epstein’s recruiters rather than a true victim.

The process of legal discovery is currently transpiring to acquire evidence related to the case, and both women’s attorneys are reaching out to relevant third parties. As part of this process, Giuffre has attempted to get access to one of Oh Amen’s former accounts on X that involved correspondence with Giuffre. This account was previously suspended, locking Oh Amen out and cutting off access to the DMs.

While a simple request by Giuffre lawyers for access to the account would seem a no-brainer, Insider writes that attorneys representing X have “countered with baffling, lengthy legalese-filled responses saying they wouldn’t provide any records,” and that, in one case, a company lawyer wrote “that Oh Amen had access to the X records and they could ask her — even though the whole point of the subpoena was that Oh Amen couldn’t access her data from her account.”

Gizmodo reached out to X for comment but didn’t immediately receive a response.

What exactly X is playing at here is anybody’s guess. As of May, X’s founder and former CEO, Elon Musk, was tied up in another legal case linked to Epstein. The U.S. Virgin Islands, the territory where Epstein’s infamous “pedo island” was located, subpoenaed Musk earlier this year for any communications he might have had with Epstein and with JP Morgan Chase. The Virgin Islands is currently suing JP Morgan Chase and has accused the bank of enabling Epstein’s crimes. Musk isn’t accused of any wrongdoing in the case, though he is one of numerous Silicon Valley luminaries who have been subpoenaed in the case (including Google’s co-founders Sergei Brin and Larry Page).

Hangin' Out

Felons aren't allowed to hang out with other felons.

Republicans are hanging out with a felon, who's hanging out with his fellow felons.

1. GUILTY
2. GUILTY
3. GUILTY
4. GUILTY
5. GUILTY
6. GUILTY
7. GUILTY
8. GUILTY
9. GUILTY
10. GUILTY
11. GUILTY
12. GUILTY
13. GUILTY
14. GUILTY
15. GUILTY
16. GUILTY
17. GUILTY
18. GUILTY
19. GUILTY
20. GUILTY
21. GUILTY
22. GUILTY
23. GUILTY
24. GUILTY
25. GUILTY
26. GUILTY
27. GUILTY
28. GUILTY
29. GUILTY
30. GUILTY
31. GUILTY
32. GUILTY
33. GUILTY
34. GUILTY

Consequences Schmonsequences

I'm not predicting disaster - even if Trump wriggles out of this and scampers away Scot free - and I don't think I'm being all Pollyanna and shit either - I'm just keeping my fingers crossed while not holding my breath.

One thing I've learned in 50 years of watching and dabbling in politics is that even when it's over, it ain't over.

At least one of the myriad possible outcomes of all this Trump dictatorship / Plutocracy shit could in fact spell the "end" of our little experiment in self-governance. But even that won't mean it's all over. It just means that, as always, the evolution of the thing outlives us all.

This fight will outlive me, the same as it's outlived everybody before me. About all I can do is to go on trying to build a legacy of clear-thinking resistance to shitty authoritarian ideology, and in favor of good government that's appropriately regulated and balanced and flexible - that can be adjusted and improved as time and circumstance require. You know - that silly notion of a more perfect union.

No union was less perfect than the one we started with, but that union was a metric fuck-ton better than anything that had come before it.

I keep reminding myself that, in 235 years, this particular fight has already outlived hundreds of millions of us.

It'd be a little silly to stop fighting for something better now.

If convicted in his hush money trial, here’s what Trump could face next

A guilty verdict for Trump in the New York trial would mean a mix of routine court processing and extraordinary logistical considerations, legal experts say.

Donald Trump has complained of the indignities of a cold, uncomfortable Manhattan courtroom during his hush money trial, which began jury deliberations Wednesday morning.

If convicted, Trump could face other conditions he may consider insulting, including a required inmate review by New York City’s Department of Probation.

The probation office on the 10th floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse prepares presentencing reports for judges. There, Trump would be interviewed about his personal history, his mental health and the circumstances that led to his conviction.

Lawyers say the process is humbling.

“If you think the courtroom is dingy, just wait until you go to the probation office,” said Daniel Horwitz, a white-collar criminal defense attorney in New York and former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Former prosecutors sketched out a mix of likely experiences for Trump if he were found guilty of any charge in the case, which includes 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The case involves $130,000 in payments allegedly authorized by Trump to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election to keep her quiet about a sexual encounter she says they had.

The routine processing of convicted felons into the New York criminal justice system would include the timeline of a potential appeal. There would also be extraordinary considerations — such as how the Secret Service would protect him if he were sent to prison and whether he would be allowed to travel to campaign events if sentenced to home confinement — given Trump’s standing as a former president and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for the election in November.

Legal experts said incarceration appeared unlikely for Trump, 77, who has no criminal record.

The Class E felony charges are punishable by 16 months to four years in prison. Among the key issues to be determined if Trump were convicted would be whether he faces some form of incarceration, either in a government facility or a private location, or a less-restrictive experience through probation.

New York Mayor Eric Adams said this month that the city’s Rikers Island jail complex and Department of Corrections were prepared if Trump were ordered to serve time.

A conviction would not disqualify him from running for office or serving as president if elected, constitutional experts said.

During the trial, which began April 15, prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said Trump falsely recorded the payments involving Daniels as legal expenses and alleged they were improper campaign expenditures. Defense attorneys said Trump, who pleaded not guilty, made personal payments to protect his family from an embarrassing disclosure.

The jury, which heard closing arguments from defense lawyers and prosecutors Tuesday, must unanimously agree on a conviction or an acquittal, while a split among jurors could prompt New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to declare a mistrial. In that situation, Bragg could decide to retry Trump, who likely would paint the outcome as a victory in his efforts to discredit the prosecution as politically motivated.

Trump’s punishment if convicted would be up to Merchan, who would receive input from the prosecution and defense in the presentencing report. Though jail or prison are unlikely, the former prosecutors said, alternatives such as probation or home confinement would create logistical challenges and potential political concerns.

If he is sentenced to probation, for example, Trump would be required to clear any out-of-state travel — such as to campaign rallies and fundraisers — with a probation officer. If Trump were to serve home confinement at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., New York authorities would likely have to work with counterparts in Florida to accommodate him, the experts said.

Such arrangements are not uncommon for convicted felons, experts said, but the details must be approved by probation officers.

“If you have a probation officer, you are not supposed to travel without permission. Your home is subject to random search because you don’t have a Fourth Amendment right to your home being private. You can get drug-tested, potentially. Travel outside the country is difficult,” said Matthew Galluzzo, another former prosecutor in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

“That would be super awkward for someone on the campaign trail, but not impossible,” Galluzzo said. “If he had to go to a debate against Biden, he probably could go, but you’re supposed to make that request far in advance.”

Trump and Biden have agreed to two debates, the first scheduled for June 27 in Atlanta — which is likely to take place before any potential sentencing of Trump — and the second planned for Sept. 10 at a yet-undisclosed location.

Before a sentencing date were scheduled, Trump’s lawyers would likely ask Merchan to nullify the verdict, though the legal experts said the judge almost certainly would not do so.

Instead, the probation office would put together a presentencing report for Merchan. As part of that process, Trump would be required to participate in an interview with a probation officer who would produce a biography of him of about five or six pages, legal experts said. Such documents are confidential, intended only for the judge and the lawyers.

Trump has called his prosecution politically motivated and denigrated Merchan, Bragg and others, leading the judge to fine him 10 times for a total of $10,000 during the trial for violating a partial gag order. How Trump would react to questions from a probation officer about the case could get him into more hot water with the court. Legal experts said his lawyers likely would advise him not to discuss the case.

Convicts are “expected to tell the truth. If they are convicted and then say, ‘No, it’s a lie, it didn’t happen,’ that will go back to the judge. And that’s not good,” said defense attorney Jeremy Saland, who also served as a Manhattan prosecutor.

The prosecution and Trump’s defense team also are expected to submit recommendations about the sentencing.

Because he was charged with nonviolent crimes, Trump is an unlikely candidate to be detained in prison as he awaits sentencing, said the experts, who added that it is also unlikely that Merchan would impose bail as a condition for his release.

Trump’s team has 30 days to file notice of appeal and six months to file the full appeal if he is convicted.

A key question is whether the court would agree to stay Trump’s sentence pending an appeal, a process that is likely to last well beyond the Nov. 5 presidential election.

Former prosecutors suggested such a scenario is plausible given that any punishment of Trump could be short enough in duration that the sentence would be fully carried out before a legal appeal is litigated.

The legal experts said Merchan could grant Trump a conditional discharge tied to the requirement that he not commit another legal offense.

Merchan also could impose a financial penalty or require him to do community service or undergo counseling, some legal experts said.

If the judge were to impose a more onerous penalty, such as home confinement, Trump could still find ways to continue campaigning, even if he were not on the road.

“He could be confined but go to Mar-a-Lago and hold a news conference every day, be on TV, hold rallies remotely,” Horwitz said. “There’s a lot he can do as a candidate while under home confinement.”

The Party Of Law & Order

... is gone.

Hang On A Mo

It seems Trump's angel has a few problems.

The company Trump got to back his appellate bond isn't quite on the level. I know that has to come as quite a shock, but yeah - there are problems.

A Thought

There's a lot of talk (mostly from the wingnut right) about pardoning Trump, so we can "heal the nation's wounds and move on." 

Some things:

1. No POTUS can pardon him if he's convicted for state crimes
2. Republicans seem to be tacitly admitting he's guilty of the federal charges, and that they expect he'll be on his way to prison before the year is out, but they won't say so in public.
3. When Republicans are willing to look the other way, or rationalize Trump's criminal actions, doesn't that mean the GOP is soft on crime?

Dead To Rights

Paraphrasing:

Model the right behavior, and then tell the jury, "Let's be grownups about this."

Trials

Somewhere deep down in his brain - like at a sub-lizard level where not even the most adventurous of theoretical psychology nerds dare to go - Trump knows he can't win. He can't win at anything anywhere anytime again anyone.

He never has.

So that sub-lizard kernel of primordial brain-like substance sends a message up the chain, telling him he has to scheme and connive his way through life, doing whatever is necessary to avoid having to go head-to-head with any opponent - because he knows he's not going to win if he stands by the rules and behaves honorably.

He "beat" Hillary in 2016, by salting the earth (amping up the efforts of House Republicans), enlisting and taking full advantage of Russian dis-information techniques on social media, accepting (IMO) illegal contributions of foreign money laundered through the NRA, and by counting on enough people to be so sure Hillary would win that they threw their votes away in one way or another.

We got a little bit hip to the tricks, which meant he lost bigger than expected in 2018, got his ass kicked in 2020, lost pretty big again in 2022 as Republicans barely eked out a House Majority and lost a seat in the Senate.

He lost 62 of 63 court challenges filed regarding the 2020 election.

He lost to E Jean Carroll - twice - and he's about to lose another one to her.

His best good buddy CPA took the fall for him, and spent time in jail for business fraud.

and

and

and

For more than 70 years, he's done whatever he's wanted to do, and never once really faced the music - while learning the art of Life In Smarmspace®.

Opinion

Trump’s far-fetched defenses aren’t actually aimed at the courtroom

You do not need a law degree to understand that conspiring with someone to commit a crime isn’t protected by the First Amendment, despite thrice-indicted former president Donald Trump and his lawyer claiming the opposite. This is only one of their many half-baked defenses and extraneous excuses.

Trump’s defenses are far-fetched. So why make them?

Let’s start with the First Amendment. As former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted,

“Many crimes involve speaking to others. Fraud is one of them. It is well-settled in the law that freedom of speech does not give you the right to commit fraud or engage in criminal conspiracies.”

Two Sunday talk show hosts made the same point when interviewing Trump lawyer John Lauro. NBC’s Chuck Todd (“You’re not allowed to use speech, though, in order to get somebody to commit a crime”) and CNN’s Dana Bash (“But you can’t break the law … like approving fake electors”) didn’t need law degrees to puncture that Lauro canard.

Moving on to Lauro’s and Trump’s professed desire to move the trial in the election case from D.C. to West Virginia (because it’s more “diverse”?!), the relevant case in the circuit that has been followed in other cases related to Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. v. Haldeman, holds that only if an impartial jury cannot be found during voir dire is the defendant “entitled to any actions necessary to assure that he receives a fair trial,” which might include a change of venue. However, in cases of such national notoriety, there is no place unaffected by pretrial publicity (which Trump constantly drives). Trump does not have a right to find a more MAGA-friendly state for his trial.

Moreover, the alleged crimes occurred in D.C. — and D.C. residents have every right to have the case decided in their backyard with their fellow residents as jurors.

We’ve also heard Trump’s usual claptrap that the judge is biased. He has smeared and insulted every judge (and prosecutor) — except U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon (who has been roundly criticized by others and whose ruling on outside review of classified documents was harshly reversed by the 11th Circuit). Disqualification, as was discussed in connection with Cannon’s assignment to the Mar-a-Lago case, is governed by a statute. Under Section 455 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, a party must show the judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” for example with a showing of “personal bias or prejudice.” There is zero evidence of any such bias on the part of U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan; no reasonable person could question her impartiality. Whether Lauro thinks he can make a good-faith claim for recusal, without violating his ethical obligation to forgo frivolous arguments, remains an open question.

Other excuses do not seem to meet the straight-face test. It’s no defense to say that Trump did not “order” then-Vice President Mike Pence to overthrow the election. It will be enough to prove Trump attempted to engage him in an illegal plot to overthrow the election.

Lauro’s claim that Trump’s alleged arm-twisting of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,870 votes was merely “aspirational” is a real head-scratcher. Most conspiracies are aspirational (e.g., “I’d like to rob a bank”). But, of course, Trump allegedly implicitly threatened Raffensperger if he didn’t “find” the votes: (“It is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.”) Arguing that a “technical” constitutional violation is not necessarily a criminal violation, as Lauro did, is equally perplexing. Surely, he knows some actions — such as depriving others of the right to have their vote counted — can be both criminal and constitutional violations.

Somewhat more serious, we have heard many Trump apologists raise the defense that he was simply following advice of counsel. That dog won’t hunt, either.

As a factual matter, attorneys — his White House counsel, Justice Department officials, including then-Attorney General William P. Barr, and even those conspiring with Trump — told him the plan wouldn’t fly. Paragraph 11 of the indictment documents numerous instances in which attorneys told him no fraud was detected. Even “Co-Conspirator 2” (John Eastman) wouldn’t say the plan was legal, only that it had never been tested (Paragraph 93). Moreover, the indictment says, “After that conversation, the Senior Advisor notified the Defendant that Co-Conspirator 2 had conceded that his plan was ‘not going to work.’” Yes, even the author of the phony elector plan conceded it would lose overwhelmingly at the Supreme Court.

As a legal matter, an advice of counsel claim defense fails if the lawyers are part of the illegal scheme and/or if the advice is unreasonable. The so-far unindicted co-conspirators Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark and Kenneth Chesebro cannot shield Trump from the crime they allegedly were committing together. Given that Trump’s entire campaign staff, Justice Department and vice president knew the plan was bonkers, it’s fair to say reliance on the Eastman scheme could not have been reasonable. (Legal scholars and case law have clarified that you cannot shop around for legal advice to justify illegal conduct. If you do, you’re obviously looking to find a stooge, not independent legal advice.)

Likewise, the argument that Trump really thought he won is both wrong and irrelevant. Both the indictment and the Jan. 6 House select committee testimony underscored that at times Trump dropped the facade and acknowledged Joe Biden had won the presidency. Moreover, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth already rejected the “but he really believed it” defense in the case of another Jan. 6 defendant. He found that even if the Jan. 6 defendant “genuinely believed the election was stolen and that public officials had committed treason, that does not change the fact that he acted corruptly with consciousness of wrongdoing.” Lamberth added: “Belief that your actions are serving a greater good does not negate consciousness of wrongdoing.”

So, what is going on here? Norman L. Eisen, a co-author of a Just Security model prosecution memo, practiced at the same criminal defense firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, with Lauro. Eisen speaks highly of Lauro’s legal skills. Eisen told me, “He will have tricks up his sleeve by the time we get to trial, which I think will be as soon as the first quarter of ’24. Don’t expect to hear these cartoon versions of the defenses but something more sophisticated.”

Why, then, make these arguments? Trump’s legal strategy in all three criminal cases so far — the Mar-a-Lago documents case pending in Florida, the state-level business records case pending in Manhattan and the election case — has rested not on winning in court but on delaying and then winning the election. To do the latter, he feels compelled to give his supporters some rationale, however specious and silly, to excuse their voting for him.

Fortunately, if the election case moves briskly ahead and Trump is convicted, only the most bamboozled MAGA voters will be left to parrot his excuses.

Podcast

The indictment reads like a well-written novella, or a play in 4 acts. A crime story perfectly framed, telling the story of how a gang of criminal idiots tried to knock over a casino.

• First they try some straight-up cheating
• Then they dress up in phony uniforms and try to pass themselves off as having authorization to go in thru the back and steal the money
• Then they try to convince the door man that has the authority to walk into the vault, take the money, and hand it over to the gang members
• Then, once all their other plots didn't work, they decided to shoot their way in and blow the place up

What He Said

Today's Beau

Trump can rant and rave, and stomp and stumble around the jungle. And don't think some of those robotic meatbags won't come runnin' when he says go.

Fuck 'em. Let 'em bring it. There's more than enough honorable people here, waiting for the chance to kick his ass and his little minion gang's ass too.

Listen To The Indictment

Ali Velshi reads the Trump indictment. Very interesting, and easy to understand.