John Bolton Next To Face Trumped-Up Charges?:
The acting U.S. Attorney in Maryland is moving forward quickly to seek criminal charges against President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, according to two people familiar with the case.
A complaint or an indictment could come as early as next week, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters without authorization.
A grand jury in Maryland has been hearing evidence for several weeks related to claims that Bolton improperly kept classified national security information in his Maryland home. But the pace of the case has recently sped up, the two people said.
If Bolton is criminally charged as attorneys in the Maryland office expect, he would be the third of Trump’s perceived enemies to face federal prosecution under Trump’s Department of Justice in a matter of a few weeks.
ICE Pepper-Sprays Terrorist Frog In Portland. Need I say more? Except that the ICE guy went right for the butt. Wonder if he’s on the sex offender registry…:
First they came for the frog…then they came for the entire Portland Amphibian Community.
Judges Aren’t Fools. Judges Aren’t Fooled. Supreme Court Justices Excepted:
Donald Trump and his flunkies usually tell us exactly what he is up to. Judges considering the risk and result of his handiwork should take note.
FBI Director Kash Patel went to the trouble of publishing an enemies list, filled with people he refers to as “government gangsters.” Trump has never allowed doubt about his determination to seek revenge against his foes. Ever since James Comey refused to bend the knee to Trump, or New York Attorney General Tish James went after Trump’s phony real estate evaluations, or then-congressman and now Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) managed the first impeachment trial, or Jack Smith prosecuted him for Jan. 6 and other alleged crimes, Trump has vilified his enemies and vowed to pursue “retribution” through the justice system. So when—no surprise!—Comey is indicted (and others investigated) and Trump celebrates it with the vigor of a playground bully, no reasonable person can doubt this is a vindictive prosecution.
Likewise, after Trump has demonized blue cities for years, propounded a false and dystopian vision of war zones, and sent in ICE forces (who inevitably provoke violence) to brutalize and terrorize nonwhites, no honest observer could accept as valid the pretext he advances (rebellion, invasion, or inability to enforce federal laws) for deployment of our National Guard.
When Trump publicly admits his nefarious motives (e.g., using the shutdown to fire Democrats, labeling his political opponents “terrorists”), judges should not ignore his explicit animus nor accept at face value the benign explanations that government lawyers concoct in court. Judges have a choice: Allow Trump to take them as fools, or look at the facts including his own admissions when assessing his power grabs?
Lower courts are increasingly determining that accepting Trump’s disingenuous rationalization amounts to dereliction of their judicial duties. In the Alien Enemies Act cases, courts repeatedly rejected his preposterous assertion that we are engaged in a war with or facing invasion from another country, as the statute requires.
Likewise, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw indicated he had reason to doubt that the Trump regime has a legitimate criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. In allowing Abrego Garcia’s attorneys discovery to make out a case of vindictive prosecution, he effectively demanded to look under the hood to see if the government was on the up-and-up.
(Spoiler: It’s not.)
In a similar vein, U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut in Oregon rejected Trump’s preposterous claim that Portland was “war ravaged.” She acknowledged that while the president is entitled to “a great level of deference… [that] is not equivalent to ignoring the facts on the ground.” Instead, judges must review whether the president’s factual determination is within the “range of honest judgment,” she explained. But when his determination lacks any “colorable basis,” courts must act. That’s why Trump could not prevail on assertions “simply untethered to the facts.”
What do you want to talk about?