January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[old salt]

Biden should bring back Jeh Johnson as DHS & enforce the immigration laws as Obama did when Biden was his VP.

[old salt]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/ ... p-lawfare/
Cutting through the Fog of Anti-Trump Lawfare

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, March 11, 2024

We are committed to sorting out for our readers this unprecedented gauntlet of prosecutorial action.
What’s real, and what’s hyperbole? It is not always easy to tell in the unprecedented lawfare campaign being pursued against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by Democratic prosecutors — including the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department of the incumbent president, who just happens to be the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The lawfare campaign I just mentioned has been humming for a couple of years. Much of that has been preliminary scutwork, preparing to make civil suits and criminal indictments a daily fact of life in the 2024 campaign.

A pernicious development in American politics and governance? Absolutely. Still, that doesn’t mean former president Trump’s opposition has manufactured the cases against him — at least not all of them. As always, he is part victim and part his own worst enemy.

The Supreme Court cases are a prime example. It’s only March, yet the justices have already had to intervene twice in 2024 electoral politics. The last thing they want is entanglement in this web, just like every sensible American should want no part of a system in which incumbent partisans exploit legal processes to force the courts into the posture of deciding elections.

It’s the dream of progressives: If they win the cases, the public is denied the right to elect leaders the Left opposes; if they lose the cases, they agitate to pack the Supreme Court and turn it into a super-legislature that imposes the progressive policy wish list — an objective, by the way, that they are closer to achieving than FDR ever was.

Former president Trump would have you think everything is rigged against him. His opponents would have you think Trump’s appointed judges have rigged everything in his favor. They are both wrong, of course, as self-interested spin on complex legal issues is wont to be.

A few days back, the justices turned aside a scheme to remove the former president from the ballot under the 14th Amendment by branding him as an “insurrectionist” — despite the small inconvenience that neither Trump nor any of the over 1,200 people prosecuted over the events of January 6, 2021, has even been charged with, let alone convicted of, the insurrection crime that’s been on the books for nearly 150 years. Trump supporters swooned about the majesty of American justice, and the commentariat seethed.

A few weeks from now, though, when the Court tackles Trump’s claim to be immune from criminal prosecution, expect the roles to be reversed. The thing is, the Court won’t have changed. How to go about sorting right from wrong won’t have changed.

...the 14th Amendment ...was a pernicious gambit and ...the justices, though philosophically diverse, would lopsidedly reject it.

...with presidential immunity: ...the principle of placing no one above the law has lived harmoniously for over two centuries with a norm against subjecting presidents to prosecution; ...politicized prosecutions challenge that harmony just as abuse of executive power does; why the justices were right to take the immunity case, despite howling from Trump’s opponents, and why they would be right to reject sweeping immunity claims, despite howling from Trump’s supporters.

And understand: It’s going to be every day.
The former president and his company have been under prosecution and lawsuits by elected progressive Democrats in New York for three years. Now, with the 2024 campaign in full swing, the presumptive GOP nominee faces the possibility of nine months tethered to courtrooms — in late March, a six-week state criminal trial in Manhattan; after that, the Biden Justice Department’s special counsel is pushing to try him in Florida in July and, astonishingly, in Washington, D.C., from around Labor Day through Election Day in November.

It’s an unprecedented gauntlet. And it’s a mixed bag: a crusade to use courts as a proxy for failed impeachment, to transmogrify morally and politically appalling conduct into imprisonable crime by tenuous prosecutorial theories, and — through selective prosecution and the sheer number of cases — to beat an opponent into submission, heedless of what the demolition of due process portends for the rule of law.

[Kismet]

Saltine's latest propaganda from McCarthy at PRAVDA.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Andy forgot to mention the documents case, right??

Not a witch hunt:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics ... index.html

"Brian Butler, a former Mar-a-Lago worker referenced as “Trump Employee Number 5” in the classified documents indictment of Donald Trump, spoke exclusively with CNN on Monday about what he saw at the former president’s private club and the subsequent fallout after a search there by federal investigators.

Butler’s interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins provides new details on how he unwittingly helped move classified documents onto Trump’s private plane – and on the pressure campaign that followed as he and others were offered Trump-aligned lawyers.

Butler said he was helping to move the boxes to the airport at the same time Trump was greeting federal investigators at his property in June 2022, two months before the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and a year before Trump was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Butler told CNN that he hasn’t spoken to his onetime best friend – Carlos De Oliveira, who is one of Trump’s co-defendants – since the indictment, and he explained why he does not think Trump, his boss of 20 years, should be elected president again.

Here are the takeaways from CNN’s interview with Butler:

The boxes were going out as the FBI was coming in

Butler described how in June 2022 he helped Walt Nauta, Trump’s body man and another co-defendant in the case, move boxes from Mar-a-Lago to the airport as Trump prepared to depart for his resort in New Jersey for the summer.

That was happening at the same time, Butler says, that federal investigators were visiting Trump to discuss returning the classified material in the former president’s possession.

“I come to realize now at the same time he’s going in there, the boxes are going from somewhere into a vehicle, which are eventually going to the plane, which I load with Walt,” Butler said, noting that he had no idea at the time what was in the boxes.

Butler says he saw Trump as he was going in to meet his attorney, Evan Corcoran, and a group of people he would later realize were FBI agents.

“I was on the cloister outside over by the bar, and the former president was walking towards the living room, like he was gonna enter the living room,” Butler said. “He was with Secret Service. I remember he said hi to me. ‘Hi, Brian.’ ‘Hi Mr. Trump,’ or ‘President Trump.’ And then he went in and talked to them, but I had no clue who those people were.”

‘We’re all dirty. We all moved boxes.’

De Oliveira was added as a co-defendant in the classified documents case in July 2023 when he was charged with trying to cover up efforts to move the boxes at Trump’s resort.

Prosecutors allege in an updated indictment that Nauta and De Oliveira attempted to delete security camera footage at the former president’s resort after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for it.

Butler’s interview offered new insight into De Oliveira’s mindset when he spoke to investigators before he was indicted. Prosecutors allege that De Oliveira lied to the FBI about whether he knew of the boxes of documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Butler recalled a conversation where De Oliveira tried to include him among those who were moving the boxes with classified documents, even though Butler says he didn’t have any clue what the boxes that he helped take to the airport held.

“There was one time, he said, ‘You know, we’re all dirty. We all moved boxes.’ And I said, ‘Well, look, I didn’t even know what I was moving until I was at the plane, and that’s when I remember moving boxes.’”

“I think he just wanted to – I don’t know, you know?” Butler continued. “Maybe he thought if it was Walt, him, and I all together, maybe things would be better if we all … I don’t know.”

Butler was asked about De Oliveira’s loyalty

Butler recalled a night in August 2022 when he was out with De Oliveira for his 40th birthday at the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Florida. He received a call from Nauta, he said, with a question about his friend’s loyalty to Trump. He told Nauta he had no doubt that De Oliveira would be loyal.

Nauta then asked Butler to confirm that in an encrypted text message over Signal with Susie Wiles, a Trump aide who is now running his 2024 campaign.

“I get to the Hard Rock, or right around the same timeframe, and Walt says – they add me to a Signal chat group with Susie Wiles, and he says something to the effect like, ‘Brian, just – can you put in this chat what you just told me?’” Butler said.

“So I type it up. I say, ‘Hey, you know, little weird to me, but listen, Carlos is very loyal. He would not do anything to affect his relationship with the boss. He loves what he does, you know. And you don’t have to worry about Carlos,’” Butler continued.

Less than 30 minutes later, Butler recalled, De Oliveira received a call from Trump, who told him he would get an attorney.

Asked if it he thought it was unusual, Butler said, “Oh absolutely. But, you know, I obliged. Carlos is one of my best friends. I don’t wanna see him get hurt, or I want them to know that they can trust him.”

Wiles declined to comment.

Carlos pressured Butler to get a Trump-aligned attorney

Butler described how he received implicit pressure from De Oliveira to hire a Trump-aligned attorney instead of an independent attorney – a refrain that’s similar to other former Trump aides, like former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson.

Butler, instead, had already been in touch with a lawyer he knew separately before the FBI reached out to him. And he was prepared to hire that attorney instead of one paid for by Trump’s political action committee, like De Oliveira.

“You know, I had specifically told Carlos not to reach out to anybody on my behalf,” Butler said. “Under the circumstances, I guess I could see why he’d think I would need an attorney.”

Butler recalled that he received a voicemail from a Trump-aligned attorney, but by that point he already had hired his own.

“I think it’s better to look after yourself and take care of it yourself,” he said. “You know, even the voicemail by the attorney that called me, you know, he says, “I’m representing former President Trump.’ Well, that does me no good. You’re representing him, not me. I mean, I wouldn’t even consider that.”

But De Oliveira continued to raise the subject, Butler said.

“I think there was a lot of pressure there, I feel,” Butler said. “It got brought up multiple times. You know, he mentioned to me, ‘Why didn’t you call him back? It’s gonna cost you a lot of money. I mean, you should see my attorney bills that I get. It’s thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars.’ I said, ‘I’m okay. I’m good.’”

De Oliveira offered Butler, who had left his job at Mar-a-Lago in late 2022, potential face time with Trump for a golf tournament.

Butler recalled De Oliveira telling him: “‘Oh, let me get you tickets,’ or, ‘I’m sure the boss would love to see you.’”

‘This is not a witch hunt’

While he worked for Trump for two decades, Butler said he would now view him “unfavorably” and did not think he should be running for president again.

“I personally would just say I just don’t believe that he should be a presidential candidate at this time. I think it’s time to move on,” he said.

Butler explained that he chose to speak about what he saw at Mar-a-Lago because he thinks voters should know what happened before the election, and that Trump’s claims he did nothing wrong were “all bogus.”

“I think the American people have the right to know the facts, that this is not a witch hunt,” Butler said.

“I don’t want to live in fear. I mean, we’re only here for a finite time. To me, I refuse to live in fear like that. I mean, yes, cautious. But, you know, I’m gonna tell the truth,” he added. “I mean, this is so much bigger than me. It’s bigger than Carlos. You know, this is a nation that needs to decide who’s gonna be the next president.”

[Seacoaster(1)]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

[runrussellrun]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

dude....we get it, you won't be voting for the guy. Same turd ..... for almost ten years.

you need to hate......kinda sad.

[njbill]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

I’m still choking over the Supreme Court’s use of the word “enjoy” in the question presented. Enjoy? How about “have”?

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

Are you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.

Or others as well?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

Are you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.

Or others as well?

Are you asking me? Or the crazy person?

[MDlaxfan76]

Here is Trump's immunity brief to the SCOTUS, if any of you are interested. The lies start in the very first sentence of the introduction. Very much on brand.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... tioner.pdf

Are you referring to Nixon "facing" criminal charges? That's certainly correct, if by "facing" it implies charges were likely to be brought.

Or others as well?

Are you asking me? Or the crazy person?

I was wondering what you meant by lying in the first sentence.
I’m aware that Nixon was facing charges before he cut a deal to resign and accepted a pardon. Which would belie the claim of that first sentence. Was that what you meant?

I was also wondering whether any other Presidents or ex presidents were facing charges at some point, whether brought or not. I took a lot of history but didn’t major in it, so I recall quite a few scandals,

This article uses “facing criminal charges” in much the same way as that first sentence.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/1 ... l-scandals

It reminded me that Clinton lied under oath, which would mean perjury, but he accepted a deal that included giving up is ability to practice law.

This article IMO more appropriately refers to Trump as first to be indicted.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indict ... cb4dd83704

BTW, none of the others claimed immunity from crimes.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Attorney Nutso's bar hearing, revelations:

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/2 ... 0-00149195

"It was Philbin’s first public testimony about the chaotic final days of the Trump presidency since he left the White House. Though Philbin has spoken to both the Jan. 6 select committee and the federal grand jury that indicted Trump for his effort to seize a second term, no transcript or recording of his remarks has even been released.

Philbin’s description of his interactions with Clark shed new light on the frenzied effort by Trump to remake the Justice Department into a tool of his bid to cling to power despite losing the election — a remarkable new account more than three years after a mob of pro-Trump rioters stormed the Capitol in his name. His testimony followed Richard Donoghue, a former acting deputy attorney general.

Together, the two men described a White House that had let down all guardrails, with conspiracy theories about election fraud reaching Trump, who was an eager recipient of even implausible claims of fraud. Clark, too, embraced some of those claims, they said.

Philbin, who testified for about two hours on Tuesday, described Clark as wildly misinformed about claims of election fraud — countenancing a theory about “smart thermostats” being used to manipulate voting machines — and not sufficiently cognizant of the havoc it would wreak on the country if his plan succeeded. But he said Clark seemed “100 percent sincere” in his beliefs.

“I believe that he felt that he essentially had a duty,” Philbin said. “I think Jeff’s view was that there was a real crisis in the country and that he was being given an opportunity to do something about it.”

When Philbin warned Clark that there would be riots in every major American city if Trump reversed the outcome of the election, Clark responded, “Well, Pat, that’s what the Insurrection Act is for,” Philbin recalled.

Clark, in Philbin’s telling, was referring to a 19th-century federal law that permits the president to use the military to quell civil unrest, an indication that he recognized the grave implications of his efforts. Though it was Philbin’s first time publicly discussing the exchange, the conversation was captured in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump — without naming either Philbin or Clark, though the identities of both speakers were easily discerned. On Tuesday, Philbin was asked to elaborate on this discussion.

“I don’t think I said anything on the phone. I just thought that that showed a lack of judgment,” he said. “Triggering riots in every major city in America, you’ve got to be really sure about what you’re doing and have no alternatives … In my estimation, that was not the sort of situation we were talking about.”

[Seacoaster(1)]

Good news; now do Jeff Clark:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... sion-trial

"“Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman’s unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system."

[Seacoaster(1)]

Worth a read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

[dislaxxic]

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the Republican Party and, evidently, millions of Americans, are ready to return this criminal insurrectionist to the White House.

It can't happen. These people need to wake the fork up.

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

It is absolutely unconscionable that the Republican Party and, evidently, millions of Americans, are ready to return this criminal insurrectionist to the White House.

It can't happen. These people need to wake the fork up.

..

Yup. Pretty depressing when you think about it.

[njbill]

Worth a read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

Thanks for posting this. It is indeed worth a read. Extraordinarily well written, and in layman’s terms, so anybody can understand it. That is, if they choose to do so.

[youthathletics]

Worth a read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

Appreciate that, thanks.

I only wish this judges logic was equally applied to all those felons running around with plea deals for violent crimes.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Worth a read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

Appreciate that, thanks.

I only wish this judges logic was equally applied to all those felons running around with plea deals for violent crimes.

I doubt you could find a person who doesn't, in concept and insofar as intentions, agrees with you on that. But the criminal justice system -- particularly in the States' Courts -- is astoundingly underfunded...and thus relies on plea deals to grease an old and dilapidated engine.

[MDlaxfan76]

Worth a read:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .272.0.pdf

And then consider that Trump is calling them "hostages" and promising to pardon 500 of them.

Appreciate that, thanks.

I only wish this judges logic was equally applied to all those felons running around with plea deals for violent crimes.

I doubt you could find a person who doesn't, in concept and insofar as intentions, agrees with you on that. But the criminal justice system -- particularly in the States' Courts -- is astoundingly underfunded...and thus relies on plea deals to grease an old and dilapidated engine.

Yes, and youth, it should be noted that Johnatakis did Not seek a plea, rather he claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" beyond the reach of the US justice system. He preplanned his violence, led others in violence, and in so doing committed numerous violent felonies as well as various misdemeanors. Found guilty of such by a jury based on a wealth of clear evidence. He represented himself in court, and showed little to no convincing remorse. The judge indicates that he believes that Johnatakis would repeat the violence if given the opportunity. The judge indicates that many of the letters in support of the defendant claim he didn't do anything wrong...

Note that many other criminal defendants in Jan 6 have chosen to plea out, admitted their crimes, and showed remorse and, thus, have received lesser sentences. Likewise those who did not pre-plan their violence received lesser sentences. Only those who pre-planned and showed little convincing remorse have been sentenced longer.

So, apples and oranges between defendants who plea out and those who don't...if that's who you are comparing to it misses the mark on this criminal.

[dislaxxic]

Given the unprecedented levels of skullduggery being perpetrated on the country by the 4-time indicted, twice impeached, disgraced former president in courts across the land, it is obvious that the DoJ MUST take equally unprecedented steps to assure a just outcome in the matter of January 6th...

The One Story About Trump That Jack Smith Needs to Tell at the Supreme Court

Given the lengthy delays in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial for federal election subversion, it’s time for the Department of Justice to face facts: Special counsel Jack Smith will likely have only one chance before the November election to tell the public the story of Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s role in it. That opportunity will occur not in front of a jury of ordinary citizens, but before the nine justices of the Supreme Court on April 25, when they consider whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for his efforts to remain in the office American voters had decided he must surrender.

Smith is in possession of the fullest story of the events culminating in Jan. 6: a rich and vivid catalog of witness testimony, documents, texts, and emails that even the House committee that investigated the insurrection has never seen or heard. He is ready to display that material before a federal jury in a public trial. But through a series of procedural filings, Trump has managed to move the locus of the case from a trial judge’s courtroom in the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The court now stands as the sole arbiter of the calendar in the case of United States v. Trump. That’s not because a majority of the justices are likely to rule that Trump is immune from prosecution—that outcome is too far-fetched for even the most cynical observers. It’s because the court, with its gradual process of briefing, argument, deliberation and ruling, even on an expedited basis, completely controls whether a trial and verdict can happen before the inauguration of whoever stands on the Capitol steps in January 2025.

Smith, of course, has a duty to prevail in the Supreme Court on his plainly correct legal argument that Trump is not immune. But as a special prosecutor in one of the most consequential criminal matters in American history, Smith also has a duty to inform the public—especially if the immunity appeal becomes his sole chance to do so in a court of law before voters cast their ballots in November.

..