She proceeds with the fair, impartial neutrality of Switzerland in World War Two.
Blustering, bagpipe blowing, bullying buffoon Bill Barr barges belligerently between talking heads to blow some bad faith bad breath toward the viewers. Barr weighs in on the detailed claims of NY AG Latisha James’s civil fraud lawsuit against his corrupt benefactor, the CEO of the Trump Organization:
“What ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is, she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this. Yes, they had roles in the business, but this was his personal financial statement and the children aren’t going to know the details of that, and be able, nor are they expected, in the real world, to do their own due diligence and have it reviewed independently.”
A man who knows a thing or two about political hit jobs. And it’s not like his Special Prosecutor John Durham, hired to expose the corrupt motives of those rabid partisans who’d investigated and documented Trump’s many ties to his role model Vladimir Putin, and his obstruction of that investigation, came up with bupkis to document the Radical Left’s purely political hit job on the innocent Trump and associates, after a much longer investigation than Meuller’s.
Joyce Vance points out that one of those “children” (ages 44-38) was the senior advisor to the president of the United States, while the other two ran Trump Inc. while their father was busy making America Great Again.
I wish, and keep wishing, that people like Barr, Bolton, Mulvaney, Christie, et al would just keep their poisonous, Nazi adjacent opinions to themselves. Granted, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but these guys never wash their asses, ever. Sheesh.
I started to write that you can’t claim a search warrant was unfair after the search finds the evidence that the warrant enabled law enforcement to look for, but, of course you can. You simply lie. There’s no law against lying, as long as you don’t do it under oath.
That’s the reason no sworn statements were included in F POTUS’s belated emergency application to his handpicked judge Aileen Cannon, in Donald J. Trump b United States of America. Even though every such application must be supported by sworn statements, with the bullshit they had to work with it would have been perjury had Trump’s lawyers submitted a sworn statement. So Cannon spared them that risk by waving away their failure to plead anything under the penalties of perjury.
I’m thinking about judge-for-life Aileen Cannon, clearly abusing her discretion by taking jurisdiction over a case there was no legal grounds for her to hear and then acting as an attorney and advocate for F POTUS. Her baseless ruling temporarily blocked law enforcement from investigating F POTUS’s criminal retention of documents he illegally possessed.
Accessory to obstruction of justice? I think so.
Or perhaps it was Attorney General. At any rate, she’s now expected to testify before the Fulton County criminal grand jury investigating interference in the election in Georgia by F POTUS and Rudy, among others.
Whoopsie! She failed to appear today. Now she is subject to arrest, oh dear!
She may be crazy, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say she’s no more nuts than her good friend and comrade in arms Ginni Thomas, who has finally agreed to come in, informally, and stonewall the libtard cucks of the J6 committee.
In less than sixty seconds!
Every person with any legal training knew that Aileen Cannon’s staunchly loyal, batshit ruling the other day, enjoining the Department of Justice from conducting its criminal investigation into evidence seized during a legal search of Mar-a-Lago, was unsupported by any evidence, was literally arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.
A three-judge panel at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with all the other reasonable legal minds who have looked over this strictly MAGA decision. They wrote, unanimously:
The Justice Department “argues that the district court likely erred in exercising its jurisdiction to enjoin the United States’ use of the classified records in its criminal investigation and to require the United States to submit the marked classified documents to a special master for review,” a three-judge panel of the appeals court wrote. “We agree.”
The NY Times reported that F POTUS maintains his alternative view of the facts:
… in an interview that aired late Wednesday, Mr. Trump made the extraordinary claim — not advanced by his own lawyers or supported by prior practice or legal precedent — that he had the right as president to declassify documents by wordlessly willing it to be so.
“You can declassify just by saying ‘it’s declassified,’ even by thinking about it,” Mr. Trump told Sean Hannity on Fox News.
The three judge panel had that canard covered:
Mr. Trump “suggests that he may have declassified these documents when he was president,” the appeals court wrote. “But the record contains no evidence that any of these records were declassified.”
The court went on to say, “In any event, at least for these purposes, the declassification argument is a red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal.”
Lawrence O’Donnell provides an excellent overview of the decision and what it means.
Heather had too much news in her Letter from an American last night. Here’s another important story:
Today, three of the migrants Florida governor Ron DeSantis flew from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard filed a class action lawsuit against DeSantis, secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation Jared W. Purdue, the state of Florida, the Florida Department of Transportation, and others, for planning and executing “a premeditated, fraudulent, and illegal scheme” to exploit vulnerable migrants—in this country legally—“for the sole purpose of advancing their own personal, financial and political interests.”
The suit alleges that the defendants trolled the streets outside a migrant shelter in Texas offering humanitarian assistance, “then made false promises and false representations that if Plaintiffs and class members were willing to board airplanes to other states, they would receive employment, housing, educational opportunities, and other like assistance upon their arrival.” Once they agreed, the plaintiffs put them up in hotels away from the migrant center where someone might tell them they were being abused.
The defendants allegedly paid $615,000 to charter two private planes ($12,300 per passenger) and told the plaintiffs they were being sent to Washington, D.C., or to Boston. While on the plane, the defendants gave the migrants “a shiny, red folder that included other official-looking materials, including a brochure entitled ‘Massachusetts Refugee Benefits’” full of false information.
The migrants were dropped on Martha’s Vineyard in the evening without food, water, or shelter, and with no one aware they were coming. Then the defendants disappeared and refused to answer calls from the plaintiffs to learn what was going on. This, the plaintiffs say, was “cruelty akin to what they fled in their home country.” They allege the defendants violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The next day, DeSantis claimed responsibility. Since then he has claimed on Fox News Channel personality Sean Hannity’s show that the migrants traveled voluntarily and that they signed consent forms, although he could explain how he had authority to move migrants from Texas when he is the governor of Florida only by saying that migrants come to Florida, but “the problem is we’re not seeing mass movements of them…. It’s just coming in onesie-twosies.” So he had those likely to come to Florida rounded up in Texas.
Today he called the lawsuit “political theater.”
Another fake commie witch hunt by left wing fascist cucks! Radical Left, Christ hating, name calling drama queen fucks!
Me, as we teeter on the possible threshold of one-party rule, by an angry party that embraces an absurd lie about a stolen election and is hell-bent on revenge, I keep thinking of the Nazi knack for mocking and dismissing. Also, their unhesitating use of any lie that pops into their collective head. Jews on line for the gas chamber were told by their Nazi handlers at “Camp Auschwitz” that they were going to have a hot shower, men and women together, and then would be given a hot meal and allowed to rest. That false and misleading statement was quite a whopper, as it turned out. Or, as defenders of such things would say “political theatre” by partisans keen on making honest Nazis look “evil”.
Heather Cox Richardson explains:
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced yesterday that the Senate will vote later this week on the DISCLOSE Act, sponsored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which requires super PACs and other groups that do not have to disclose their donors—so-called dark money groups—to identify those who give $10,000 or more during an election season. It would also prohibit foreign entities from contributing at all. In a blow against those who have helped to pack our courts, it would require anyone spending money to advance the candidacies of judicial nominees to disclose their donors, too.
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, such advocacy groups can take unlimited money from individuals, corporations, or other entities so long as they don’t directly coordinate with a candidate, and they do not have to identify who the donors are. “Their ruling has paved the way for billions in unlimited campaign contributions by Super PACs and other dark money groups over the last decade,” Schumer said. “Ordinary citizens, meanwhile, have had their voices drowned out by elites who have millions to spare for political donations.”
Pointing to the recent $1.6 billion donation to a new right-wing political advocacy trust, President Joe Biden noted that the public found out about that donation only because someone tipped off a reporter.
Republicans are expected to oppose the bill.
Of course, what they will likely do in opposing the bill is filibuster it, on behalf of their dark money benefactors. Just the way anti-lynching laws were blocked from being publicly debated by the likes of Strom Thurmond, on his feet blustering for hours while peeing in a bag attached to his leg.