Oh, "just you wait", that's the despicable cry.
The deplorable cry is; Karma is a bitch.
But you are right; Biden and Trump are two different cases, two different accountabilities.
Shooter thinks where before deplorables and maybe despicables would cut each other some slack, no more.
The gloves are off and it's gonna be a street brawl.

 

I have been saying this from the beginning. Trump could be a white collar career criminal living in his ivory tower and nothing would have happened to him. Law enforcement almost never goes after a guy like that. But as soon as he came down the escalator and stepped into the public realm he invited scrutiny. And when it came Trump was easily exposed as a stupid ignorant and mentally ill career criminal.

And while the Trumptard supporters will never leave Trump fortunately they are a small and shrinking minority. What the treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans do best is just make lot's of noise. And they have a vert well organized and well funded right wing false propaganda noise machine to help them They can crank out hate fear anger and lies 24/7/365. Always being the poor poor pitiful eternally wounded little snowflake victims. So they sound a lot bigger than they actually are.

But the vast majority of Americans could not care less. They and especially suburban women care about the things that are effecting their lives. Like abortion, guns, and a stable life. And they are voting against the extremism. And no one can win elections in this country without them.

 

Yeah this needs to stay at the top of the page for a while. You just absolutely nailed it.

 

Maggie Haberman: Trump indictment is ‘most devastating…that I have ever read’

793
Julia Mueller
Sun, June 11, 2023 at 11:03 AM MDT




New York Times reporter and longtime Donald Trump chronicler Maggie Haberman said Sunday that the indictment against the former president was “one of the most devastating indictments that I have ever read.”

Haberman said the details included in the document spell out Trump’s personality “to a T.”

“It’s all aspects of his personality, thinking that he can talk his way out of everything, thinking that things are — and, again, these are allegations. He is entitled to a presumption of innocence. But these are based on insider accounts, his lawyer, an audio recording of him. And it’s him boasting; it is him having a disregard for certain rules,” Haberman said as part of a panel on ABC “This Week.”

“It is him believing he can talk his way out of almost anything. And I think that it is one of the most devastating indictments that I have ever read,” she said.


Haberman reported in the New York Times possible reasons why Trump may have kept the documents and refused to give them back, noting that his intentions were not detailed in the indictment but that it was not necessary in order to bring a case against him.

“And that’s not addressed and doesn’t have to be, legally, in the indictment. But it is going to be an enduring question. And it may be one that prosecutors try to deal with at trial. There’s obviously been a range of question about this. Trump used everything as leverage. Was he in some way trying to monetize it?” Haberman said Sunday.

“We know that prosecutors went down the road of was he trying to use this for business deals? None of that is there,” she added.

Trump was indicted last week on 37 counts as part of the probe, led by special counsel Jack Smith, into Trump’s document handling and whether the former president complied with government requests for records to be returned after the end of his presidency.

Haberman, the author of “Confidence Man” who has covered the former president extensively, had previously said that a reported audio recording of Trump discussing a classified document he took from the White House was “very meaningful” and “a big deal” amid signals that Smith’s probe was intensifying.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/maggie-haberman-trump-indictment-most-170338171.html

 

Trump supporters have gotten fat on a steady diet of lies about Hillary and Joe from the beginning. Now the walls are closing in on Trump and they turn to the liars who spoon fed them and say, "Aren't you going to do something?" All they get are retreads of the old lies and fresh ones, and they keep eating.

They're never going to figure it out.

 

BUT HER EMAILS BUT HER EMAILS BUT HER EMAILS LOCK HER UP LOCK HER UP LUCK HER UP sure rings hollow now doesn't it.


And they have always been able to try and bullshit their way through and out shout reality. But its reached critical mass now. The crimes are just too big obvious and serious. And we are talking putting our nation at risk. Kind of hard to try and excuse that. But I am sure some of the more dedicated will still try.

 

Trump supporters come in two varieties, with a very fuzzy dividing line, the stupid and the dishonest. There is an incredible amount of dishonesty stupidity and an equal amount of stupid dishonesty. One would think by this point they would give up trying to preach the Gospel of Trump, but anyone who still supports Trump at this point is not the kind who learns anything from a bad experience.

They are the dog who is wears shock collar to stop him from barking, but only barks louder because he's being shocked.

 

IMO the the majority of Trump supporters aren't dumb. They know very well Trump lied about the 2020. Trumptards don't care. So I agree that most of them are blatantly dishonest. Ask a trump supported what proof did the Trump administration provide that showed voter fraud. Yet they still insist the election was stolen. That's not just being naive, it's a blatant example of Trump supporters choosing loyalty in Trump and party, over the country.

And what's truly scary. Is that we have so many trumplican members of congress who have denied the truth and openly support Trump big lie.

Full List of 'Election Deniers in Gov

Jerry Carl, Barry Moore, Mike Rogers, Robert Aderholt, Dale Strong, Gary Palmer, Steve Marshall, Kay Ivey, Katie Britt, Debbie Lesko, Paul Gosar, Rick Crawford, Bruce Westerman, Leslie Rutledge, Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, Kevin McCarthy, Darrell Issa, Doug Lamborn, Matt Gaetz, Neal Dunn, Kaat Cammack, Michael Waltz, Cory Mills, Bill Posey, Daniel Webster, Gus M. Bilirakis, Greg Steube, Scott Franklin, Bryon Donalds, Brian Mast, Mario Diaz-Balart, Carlos Gimenez, Buddy Carter, Drew Ferguson, Rich McCormick, Austin Scott, Andrew Clyde, Mike Collins, Barry Loudermilk, Rick Allen, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Russ Fulcher, Mike Simpson, Brad Little, Mike Bost, Mary Miller, Darin LaHood, Jim Bank, Jim Bair, Greg Pence, Diego Morales, Kim Reynolds, Tracey Mann, Jake LaTurner, Ron Estes, Hal Rogers, Rand Paul, Andy Harris, Jack Bergman, John Moolenaar, Bill Huizenga, Tim Walberg, Lisa McClain, Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Pete Stauber, Trent Kelly, Michael Guest, Ann Wagner, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mark Alford, Sam Graves, Eric Burlison, Jason Smith, Eric Schmitt, Matt Rosendale, Adrian Smith, Jeff Van Drew, Elise Stefanik, Claudia Tenney, Gregory Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Daivd Rouzer, Dan Bishop, Richard Hudson, Brad Wenstrup, Jim Jordan, Bob Latta, Bill Johnson, Max Miller, Warren Davidson, Kevin Hern, Frank Lucas, Tom Cole, Stephanie Bic, Markwayne Mullin, Cliff Bentz, Dan Meuser, Scott Perry, Lloyd Smucker, John Joyce, Guy Reschenthaler, Glenn Thompson, Mike Kelly, Joe Wilson, Jeff Duncan, William Timmons, Ralph Norman, Russell Fry, Alan Wilson, Kristi Noem, Diana Harshbanger, Tim Burchett, Chuck Fleischmann, Scott DesJarlais, John Rose, Mark Green, David Kustoff, Dan Crenshaw, Keith Self, Pat Fallon, Lauce Gooden, Jake Ellzey, Morgan Luttrell, August Pfuger, Ronny Jackson, Randy Weber, Pete Sessions, Jodey Arrington, Troy Nehls, Beth Van Duyne, Roger Williams, Michael C. Burgess, Michael Cloud, John Carter, Brian Babin, Chris Stewart, Burgess Owens, Rob Wittman, Bob Good, Ben Cline, Morgan Griffith, Dan Newhouse, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Carol Miller, Alexander Mooney, Scott Fitzgerald, Tom Tiffany, Harriet Hageman, Chuck Gray, Anna Paulina Luna, Ashley Moody, Ron DeSantis, Nicole Malliotakis, Dave Yost, Andy Ogles, Monica de la Cruz, Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, Dan Patrick, Derrick Van Orden, Maria Elvira Salazar, Burt Jones, Tedd Budd, J.D. Vance, and Jen Kiggans.

 

We will need to disagree on this, especially at this point in time. We need to remember, the liars are the most vocal and this makes them more prominent than the majority of stupid Trump supporters.

The problem with stupidity is it might not be a permanent condition. It's entirely possible for a person to learn from a bad experience. A person in a moment of reflection might say, Maybe I shouldn't attack a policeman with bear spray, and co on to conclude those who led him to do so, might not be sources of reliable information.

The liars have to keep feeding the stupid new lies as the old lies crumble under the weight of reality. Fortunately for the liars, the Trumpiverse keeps expanding. Now, instead of repeating lies about Biden and Hunter's laptop, they can lie about what the Presidential Records Act says.

 

I see another group. The cowards. There was only one acceptable response when Trump attempted a coup and incited an armed violent deadly insurrection. Any true American with even an ounce of patriotism, needed to jump to the defense of the Constitution they swore to uphold denounce Trump and defend our democracy. But only a handful did. The rest just cowered before Trump. And that is when they changed from conservative/Republicans to treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans.

 

Oh my, a street brawl? Is it going to be wild? Are you bringing the bear spray?

That didn't work out well the last time, but if you want to give it another shot, go for it.

 

'If you want to die in jail, keep talking' – two national security law experts discuss the special treatment for Trump and offer him some advice

784
Thomas A. Durkin, Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Loyola University Chicago and Joseph Ferguson, Co-Director, National Security and Civil Rights Program, Loyola University Chicago
Mon, June 12, 2023 at 5:49 AM MDT



Lawyer Thomas A. Durkin has spent much of his career working in national security law, representing clients in a variety of national security and domestic terrorism matters. Joseph Ferguson was a national security prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, where Durkin was also a prosecutor. Both teach national security law at Loyola University, Chicago. The Conversation U.S.‘s democracy editor, Naomi Schalit, spoke with the two attorneys about the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on Espionage Act and other charges related to his retention of national security-related classified documents.

The word “weaponized” has been used by Trump, his supporters and even his GOP rivals to describe the Department of Justice. Do you see the Trump prosecution as different in any notable way from other Espionage Act prosecutions that you’ve worked on or observed?

Durkin: Obviously, it’s different because of who the defendant is. But I see it in kind of an opposite way: If Trump were anyone other than a former president, he would not have been given the luxury of a summons to appear in court. There would be a team of armed FBI agents outside his door at 6:30 in the morning, he would have been arrested and the government would be immediately moving to detain. So the idea that he’s being treated differently is true – but not from the way his supporters seem to be arguing.


Ferguson: What you have is a method, manner and means of pursuing this matter and bringing it forward to indictment that actually completely comports with the deepest traditions and standards of the Department of Justice, which would normally consider all contexts and the best interests of society.

If Trump were your client, what would you advise him to do?

Durkin: The first thing I would do is show him a guidelines memo, which we typically create for every client to help them understand the potential consequences of the charges. Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the consequences for Trump under this indictment are serious. My quick calculations indicate that you’re talking about 51 to 63 months in the best case and in the worst case, which I’m not sure would apply, 210 to 262 months.

Whether he wants to roll heavy dice, that’s up to him. But those are very heavy dice.

Ferguson: I might pull media statements that he has made in the last couple years and explain to him how they have complicated the ability to defend him. I’d put on the table to him that I need to see every statement that he is going to make in the political realm about this before he makes it. I’d tell him he’s otherwise basically hanging himself.

I’d tell him: If you want to die in jail, keep talking. But if you want to try to figure out a way that brings about an acceptable resolution - a plea deal that opens the door to a lighter jail sentence than what the guidelines threaten and, possibly, even no jail time – you need to turn it down or at least have it screened by your lawyers.

Are there specific things he might say between now and a trial that could deepen his trouble?

Ferguson: No question about that. And people should understand that the things that he said already are being used as evidence of intent. From now on, the repetition of them constitutes new admissible evidence. It’s not like, “Oh, I’ve already said it, so I might as well keep saying it.”

That does not mean that he cannot offer the broad brush characterization, “I’m being wronged. This is the weaponization of law enforcement and the justice system against me, and I will be vindicated,” however imprudent I might think that was. But anything that goes beyond that, and into the actual particulars, referencing the documents themselves, will just make it worse.


Pages from the unsealed federal indictment of former President Donald Trump on 37 felony counts in the classified documents probe. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The Trump indictment provides extensive details of what was said and done. Do you take those as true, or as allegations that need to be proved?

Ferguson: Both. They are technically the allegations that need to be proven, but when you’re speaking at that level of granularity, these are things that actually exist in proof, the proof that is to come.

The government basically raises the bar when it provides this form of granularity. The federal government is a risk-averse enterprise when it comes to these matters, so nothing is put in the indictment unless it exists in actual fact.

Durkin: If you’re defending someone, you treat the allegations as true.

Can you imagine a situation with all of the facts laid out in this indictment but where they would not indict?

Durkin: No.

Ferguson: That’s why we both say that in fundamental respects, this isn’t different from other national security cases. These cases work from the premise that this is a fundamental compromising of the interests of the United States. And those are the cases that the government pursues tooth and nail. With so much in the public domain, and with so much of the defendant himself speaking to all of this, it almost puts the government in a position of saying, “Well, OK, if we have to, here we go.”

Durkin: There’s only one reason the government could not bring this case, and that’s fear of violence or an attack on the republic. Once you do that, then you might as well close the Department of Justice and forget about any rule of law.

Trump knows a lot of state secrets. An angry Trump in prison has risks. If he were found guilty, what does incarceration look like for him?

Durkin: I can tell you what it would mean to anyone else. They’d be put in a hole in the wall in maximum security at Florence, Colorado, and they would apply what’s called “Special Administrative Measures.” Several of my terrorism clients have had those imposed on them. There’s a microphone outside their solitary confinement to monitor anything that they say, even between prisoners. Their mail is extremely limited. Their telephone contact is extremely limited. And that’s what would happen to anyone else similarly situated.

Ferguson: Trump’s insistence on keeping talking about this creates a record that would justify isolation in maximum security on the basis that “We can’t trust this man not to continue to talk. We can’t trust him not to further share these secrets with people who may wish to do harm with them. The only way to avoid that is to put him in isolation in supermax where he doesn’t get to talk with people, except under these extremely closely monitored circumstances, certainly isn’t in a general population situation, gets to take a walk in a courtyard for one hour out of the 24 hours of the day, and the other 23 hours, leaving him mostly without human contact.”

Is there a specific line he could cross that would force the government to seek to detain him prior to trial?

Durkin: I predict that if he keeps it up, and especially if he keeps suggesting or threatening violence, that the government will be put in a position where they don’t have a choice but to try to move to detain him. In the real world, that’s what would happen if it was anybody but him. Normally, you can’t be threatening this type of stuff without being put in detention.

Ferguson: The smart play here would be for a judge to put him under a gag order that instructs him on what he may and may not say publicly. That’s already been done by a New York judge in the other pending criminal case against Trump. This would be a complicated exercise in balancing First Amendment rights with national security interests.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/want-die-jail-keep-talking-114948115.html

 

Now they have find a jury that going to be difficult for the following reason's

1. Find 12 people who are not Trump supporters

2. Find 12 people who hate Trump.

3. Find 12 people who have very little knowledge of the case

4.Find 12 people who are willing to put themselves and there families at risk from assault or worse by some of Trump supporters.

5.live for a long time with Federal protection officers and possible have to move out of state to stay alive

 

I was just watching Neil Katyal who is a former Solicitor General and has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court who said neither the jury or the judge is going to be a problem. First because all of them are bound by the law. Second once seated juries almost always take their duty seriously. And most important they are not going to have much choice but to return a guilty verdict because the evidence is so overwhelming.

And we have actually seen this a couple times before where there were solid Trump supporters on the jury, like one who admitted she left her MAGA hat in the car before she walked into the court house, that returned guilty verdicts on some of Trump's associates.

Courtrooms and the law are very powerful things.

 

Already laying out excuses in case, you know, Trump manages to weasel out, eh?

No matter.

Despicables never have faith in our legal system or American institutions.

 

INTENT.

Trump 'oversaw' the packing of classified documents when he moved from White House: legal expert

Matthew Chapman
June 12, 2023, 5:15 PM ET



Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Prescott Valley Event Center. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig outlined the new details revealed in the indictment against former President Donald Trump, who according to prosecutors oversaw every step of the removal of the classified documents from the White House, in a Monday segment on CNN's "The Lead."

"We're learning more about the locations of the boxes that contain classified materials inside Mar-a-Lago and just how close they were to the public," said anchor Jake Tapper. "It provides a disturbing timeline of the movement of the documents throughout Mar-a-Lago."

"Jake, these documents went on quite a journey which actually begins in Washington, D.C.," said Honig. "One important mystery that the indictment addresses is when these boxes were getting packed up in the final days of the White House, the indictment alleges, Donald Trump knew about that and oversaw it.

"There was some question before by some of his supporters, why would he be involved in the packing, the indictment alleges he was involved in that. Documents get shipped down to Florida, to Mar-a-Lago. And the first place they are stored is in this room, in the white and gold ballroom and, yes, that is a stage, that is where they are. And the indictment is, again, a little bit ambiguous. It says there were regularly events, weddings, fundraisers—"

"We see TikToks and stuff held in this," cut in Tapper. "Donald Trump shows up and gives a speech."

"Exactly," said Honig. "What the indictment says, this room was in use at the time that they stored those documents there. Next, they get moved temporarily to a business center and then they land in, yes, that is a bathroom and, yes, that right there is a toilet, that is a shower, that was their next destination in a place in Mar-a-Lago called the lake room. And then finally, and this is really the most important place where they land, these documents are moved to a storage room.

"There's one incident in the indictment where one of the attendants goes in and finds classified documents. They're blurred out. But highly classified documents spilled on the ground, and the indictment says this is the storage room right here and it says it was accessible by a hallway which you could get to by the pool patio. This is the pool right here and it was often kept unlocked."

"This becomes a focus for the obstruction charges," Honig added. "They get a subpoena, they move the boxes inside the storage room. But in the day before the lawyer appears, Trump has 64 boxes pulled out and only 30 returned. When the lawyer did that review, 34 boxes of documents were missing."

"Just a reminder, this is a hotel and resort," said Tapper. "This is not a presidential enclave. It's a hotel and resort."

Watch below:



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-documents-2661216999/

 

Where in the LAW does it talk about intent?

 

Trump's former chief of staff says chances that ex-president goes to prison are 'pretty high'

Sky Palma
June 12, 2023, 4:49 PM ET



Mick Mulvaney (MSNBC)


In an interview with a British news network Monday, Donald Trump's former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said that the recent federal indictment of Donald Trump makes his chances of serving prison time "pretty high," Newsweek reported.

Newsweek reported that 31 of the 37 counts brought against Trump allege he willfully retained national defense information, which is a violation of the Espionage Act. The other six counts claim he caused false statements to be made and conspired to conceal documents from investigators and obstruct justice.

Speaking to GB News, Mulvaney said that the indictment does not bode well for Trump.

"I think the chances of a guilty verdict are fairly high, and the chances of real jail time are pretty high," he said.

When asked how much prison time he thinks Trump will get, Mulvaney said that it doesn't really matter since Trump is already 76 years old.

Trump is due to be arraigned this Tuesday at a federal courthouse in Miami.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-prison-2661217701/

 

'Do they really have that?' Former Trump documents case attorney astonished at Mar-a-Lago evidence

Matthew Chapman
June 12, 2023, 9:14 PM ET



Photos: FBI


Special counsel Jack Smith has an enormous amount of damning evidence in the indictment against former President Donald Trump and his top aide at Mar-a-Lago, Walt Nauta, with respect to moving around boxes of highly classified information to conceal them from not just federal authorities but from Trump's own then-attorney Evan Corcoran.

At least, that's the assessment of Tim Parlatore, another former attorney for the president, who appeared on CNN's "OutFront" alongside former White House counsel Ty Cobb, to discuss the details of the indictment with anchor Erin Burnett. Parlatore previously had defended the former president as Smith's investigation entered its final stages and charges appeared likely, but in recent days acknowledged the indictment detailed far more severe behavior than he knew was going on.

"Can I first just ask you, because you're as close to this as anyone other than Evan Corcoran," said Burnett. "When you read this part that says that Walt Nauta was moving documents and moving boxes so that Evan Corcoran, the lawyer, attorney number one, would not know it and would therefore say you have everything. Did your jaw sort of drop for a second?"

Parlatore replied that, "It was definitely different from how I understood the theory of these boxes moving to be ... something I looked at and I thought, wow, 'do they really have that?' And, full candor, I read that and I was wondering. Because if that's what they actually had, it's something that I would have expected us to know about earlier. It's something I would have expected them to use in more of the preliminary proceedings."

Burnett interjected, "They didn't?"

"No, they didn't. It's one of those things that they would've used to try and flip Walt Nauta to become a witness, but they didn't."

Watch the segment below or at this link.




https://www.rawstory.com/tim-parlatore-2661224602/

 

Just more proof that the Republicans are all for the Weaponization of the federal government. If Trump were innocent, they'd be able to prove it in a court of law, and not in a statement of "yeah, just you wait! Karma's a bitch!"