Charges

[jfish26]

Evidence there is a God, and s/he's a Democrat?

Don Lewis
@DonLew87
Judge Merchan is assigned to Steve Bannon's criminal case in New York.

Robert Costello - who Judge Merchan lambasted in Trump's criminal trial - is Bannon's lawyer.

Costello stepped in after another lawyer quit when Bannon suggested Dr. Fauci be beheaded.

Interesting.

I’m depressed in advance over the Rs declaring this to be a conflict, but Thomas/Alito cool.

[Shirley]

Evidence there is a God, and s/he's a Democrat?

Don Lewis
@DonLew87
Judge Merchan is assigned to Steve Bannon's criminal case in New York.

Robert Costello - who Judge Merchan lambasted in Trump's criminal trial - is Bannon's lawyer.

Costello stepped in after another lawyer quit when Bannon suggested Dr. Fauci be beheaded.

Interesting.

I’m depressed in advance over the Rs declaring this to be a conflict, but Thomas/Alito cool.

Prophylactic melancholy? Prescient!

Fish playing 4-dimensional chess?


“He who suffers before it is necessary suffers more than is necessary.”
Seneca

[Sparko]

Hoping Bannon finally pays for his Bolshevik cosplay

[Shirley]

Hoping Bannon finally pays for his Bolshevik cosplay

He'll likely only serve long enough to cement his status as a martyr, but yeah. Couldn't happen to a more scummy, vile person.

[jfish26]

I think there's an undercurrent of far right sickness that is being overlooked in this buffoonery:

Trump Claims the FBI Wanted to Kill Him. Fox News Ran Wild With It.

After Donald Trump accused President Joe Biden of ordering federal law enforcement to use “deadly force” on him during 2022’s Mar-a-Lago raid, right-wing provocateurs and MAGA lawmakers have quickly seized on the opportunity to cook up a wild assassination plot.

And though Fox News didn’t sink nearly to the depths of the Trumpiest edges of the conservative media universe, the network still wondered whether a standard FBI policy document meant Biden was saying it “would be okay to kill Donald Trump.”

Trump set MAGA world ablaze on Tuesday afternoon when he took to his failing Truth Social platform to blare in all-caps that Biden’s Department of Justice had “AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE. NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY.”

The ex-president’s over-the-top claim came after a judge unsealed two motions in the criminal classified documents case on Tuesday. While the filing shows prosecutors waving off the Trump legal team’s claims that the case should be dismissed and even suggesting additional evidence of the former president’s alleged obstruction, the documents also included a generic “policy statement” laying out the rules that apply to officers regarding when they can use lethal force on a subject.

Even before Trump’s social media post, the ex-president’s most strident allies pounced on the document’s inclusion in the filing as “mind-blowing” proof that the FBI was looking to “exact their political revenge” on Trump with a possible assassination attempt,” calling the bureau “a domestic terrorist organization.”

Eventually, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) chimed in, straight up alleging that the “Biden DOJ and FBI were planning to assassinate Pres Trump and gave the green light,” wondering what “are Republicans going to do about it.” Other Republicans soon followed suit, conflating the basic FBI policies to a scheme to kill the ex-president.

Trump only poured more gasoline on the fire by sending out a campaign fundraising email that claimed Biden was “locked & loaded ready to take me out” during the classified documents raid. Issuing a rare statement, the FBI pushed back and said it was merely following normal procedure during the search and seizure of Trump’s property.

[...]

“Biden unleashed armed agents into Trump’s house, authorizing them to use deadly force,” primetime host Jesse Watters exclaimed. Watters also featured fellow MAGA sycophant Jeanine Pirro, who said there was “absolutely” no justification for the order before theorizing why the FBI agents wore unmarked polo shirts rather than tactical gear.

“My mind as a prosecutor goes to maybe they wanted the engagement of physical force. Maybe they wanted to come in without FBI, without DOJ, without all of that identifying so that they could engage in deadly physical force,” she continued, while Watters wondered: “Maybe they were looking for a little action.”

Calling it a “shocking new revelation,” Fox News star and Trump confidant Sean Hannity fumed that “Biden’s politicized Attorney General Merrick Garland” at “Joe Biden’s weaponized DOJ” had “authorized, get this, the use of deadly force” during the raid. Though he acknowledged the language in the policy statement was “boilerplate,” Hannity still wondered why was Garland “prepping for a possible shootout.”

The outrage merely ramped up on Wednesday morning, especially on MAGA-boosting host Maria Bartiromo’s Fox Business Network show.

Throughout her three-hour program, even as she read off the FBI’s statement on the matter, Bartiromo repeatedly and dramatically suggested that the Biden administration attempted to have the presumptive GOP presidential nominee killed.

Bartiromo: Deadly force, does that mean that Biden was authorizing the FBI -- if it came to that and he resisted arrest -- it would be OK to kill Donald Trump?

Guest: That's what it seems pic.twitter.com/zINigNDlOB

— Lis Power (@LisPower1) May 22, 2024

“This is so extraordinary. Over and over again, we see that the Democrats charge the Republicans with things that they are actually doing, and they have, this happens over and over again,” she noted at one point. “Now the FBI and the Democrats keep saying things like Trump is a threat to democracy, but Biden is authorizing deadly force against his political opponent?”

The conspiratorial Fox host also continually asked her guests, including Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), whether the policy statement meant that Biden was letting the FBi know “it would be OK to kill Donald Trump” if he offered any resistance during the raid. (A raid that took place when the ex-president was not on the premises.)

Fellow Fox Business anchor Stuart Varney also covered the story multiple times on his show, noting that “new court documents show the administration authorized the use of deadly force during the FBI's raid.” For the most part, Varney’s segments were centered around GOP lawmakers and former Trump administration officials asserting that the instructions were “completely unnecessary” and “potentially endangered” Trump.

Back on the Fox News mothership, the hosts and commentators of Fox & Friends and its AM predecessor Fox & Friends First also gave ample coverage to the “deadly force” claims, describing the details as “shocking” while wondering aloud if “this is normal.” Fox News contributor Joe Concha, grousing about former FBI Director James Comey’s warning that Trump is a threat to elected officials, called the policy statement “third-world stuff.”

Of course all of this is nonsense.

But I also think it's all, yes, projection.

These charlatans, and the lunatics and idiots they exploit for money, are confessing: they see use-of-force rules of engagement as permission structures.

"When do I get to shoot somebody?" is the question motivating the movement in gun laws in right-leaning states. And so naturally, people who are predisposed to thinking of things like stand-your-ground laws and castle doctrine as permission structures for shooting people see the FBI's own standard rules of engagement as a permission structure for shooting Trump.

And the irony, of course, drips off the page: the FBI's own standard rules of engagement are protections of citizens from the power of the government.

That used to be something conservatives cared about!

[jfish26]

And I'm not done with what else this nonsense means.

Guys, if you think the FBI's standard rules of engagement applied as a means of opening the door to a weaponized government assassination of Trump...then would you have preferred those rules NOT applied to the execution of the search warrant?

Of course, the answer to that question would be that the search warrant shouldn't have been issued in the first place.

In other words, the law does not apply to Trump.

And we know that is a bedrock belief on the right.

[Sparko]

He could shoot a guy in a MAGA hat on 5th Avenue and get away with it. Rich guy loves them and stuff.

[Shirley]

If Cannon refuses Smith's request to modify Trump's conditions of relief, will that be his opportunity to appeal the ruling to the 11th Circuit and request the case be moved there too?

...concerned that Trump’s escalating rhetoric about the standard instructions attached to the MAL search warrant will result in violence against law enforcement, the Special Counsel’s office is asking not for a gag order, but to modify Trump’s conditions of release.

That matters because when Trump was first indicted, his bond — which he signed — made clear that his continued release was conditioned on his compliance with certain terms.

But in asking to modify Trump’s conditions of release to prohibit his making statements that pose a “significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger” to law enforcement involved in the investigation and prosecution of the MAL case, the Special Counsel is upping the ante.

[...]

[jfish26]

If Cannon refuses Smith's request to modify Trump's conditions of relief, will that be his opportunity to appeal the ruling to the 11th Circuit and request the case be moved there too?

...concerned that Trump’s escalating rhetoric about the standard instructions attached to the MAL search warrant will result in violence against law enforcement, the Special Counsel’s office is asking not for a gag order, but to modify Trump’s conditions of release.

That matters because when Trump was first indicted, his bond — which he signed — made clear that his continued release was conditioned on his compliance with certain terms.

But in asking to modify Trump’s conditions of release to prohibit his making statements that pose a “significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger” to law enforcement involved in the investigation and prosecution of the MAL case, the Special Counsel is upping the ante.

[...]

Back the blue, indeed.

And of course Trump's counsel's response is, ultimately, a diaper-filling exercise over Trump not having enough warning of the motion so that he could get his incitement in before the deadline.

[jfish26]

Closing arguments are well-underway.

MSNBC has lawyers on set.

CNN has political commentators.

Fox News is talking about a Trump supporter wearing a red MAGA cowboy hat that is "3-4 times the size of his head."

[jhawks99]

Closing arguments are well-underway.

MSNBC has lawyers on set.

CNN has political commentators.

Fox News is talking about a Trump supporter wearing a red MAGA cowboy hat that is "3-4 times the size of his head."

Shiny things are cool.

[ousdahl]

[Overlander]

That looks like poop face.

[jfish26]

Trump declines to take the stand. Trump essentially puts forward *no* evidence against the charges. His entire defense is hoping at least one juror is a true believer.

Have to admit I feel a little like we’re standing at the edge of a cliff here.

This is not close, legally. A whole lot of hope in Trump ever being held accountable, for anything, will vanish if he skates on the strength of his bona fides as the personality at the center of a cult.

This is where we are after closing arguments, too.

Trump offered essentially no defense to the charges, which were (in my opinion) proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

It feels to me like if deliberations go past Friday, there is at least one true believer holdout and we’re pointed toward mistrial.

[DeletedUser]

That looks like poop face.

All 3 of them. Different struggles, same task.

[jfish26]

That looks like poop face.

All 3 of them. Different struggles, same task.

As you know, everybody poops.

[KUTradition]

i’m gonna laugh if it’s a quick deliberation…

[jfish26]

i’m gonna laugh if it’s a quick deliberation…

It would be, if you or me was the defendant. And we had not bothered to even try to mount a defense against even the circumstantial evidence (to say nothing of the documentary evidence).

[Shirley]

Talk about "shiny things", I'm so fucking sick of Trump in general and his trial dominating the news cycle 24/7, I could puke. And as sad as it is to see CNN and MSNBC go all-in for it, it says more about the American mind set and attention span than it does about our "news" sources.

BTW, does anyone know if the Russians have completed their invasion and takeover of Ukraine? Because I haven't heard much about it lately.

[jfish26]

Talk about "shiny things", I'm so fucking sick of Trump in general and his trial dominating the news cycle 24/7, I could puke. And as sad as it is to see CNN and MSNBC go all-in for it, it says more about the American mind set and attention span than it does about our "news" sources.

BTW, does anyone know if the Russians have completed their invasion and takeover of Ukraine? Because I haven't heard much about it lately.

I guess I feel differently - I think this verdict is a signal event.

Can ANY institution hold up against the Trump/MAGA sickness?

If he is found guilty, I think the wall falls and some of DC’s predictions might bear out.

If not, I think November becomes for all of the marbles (for most of our lifetimes, anyway).