John Roberts’ Sordid Legacy: 14 Pages of Mean Tweets
“One of the ways Trump” disseminated false claims of election fraud, Jack Smith’s immunity briefing describes, “was by Tweet, day in and day out.”
I’m still wading through Jack Smith’s immunity briefing. Later today, I plan to explain how we got here and how Trump’s lawyers will try to bury it. Then I’ll show the substance of their argument, how prosecutors plan to convict Donald Trump for attempting to steal an election without using any evidence that Chief Justice John Roberts has deemed official and therefore immune.
But first I want to talk about an utterly remarkable passage in the filing: 14 pages examining Trump’s mean tweets.
As I’ll explain in more detail later, the filing first lays out, in Part I, what evidence prosecutors plan to rely on, then sets up a legal framework to conduct this analysis, and then explains, in Part III, why the evidence laid out in the first part is not immune.
In Part III, prosecutors go both by type of evidence (for example, conversations with Republican state officials and politicians) to explain why such conduct is not immune. The section looks like this:
- Trump’s interactions with Pence
- Trump’s interactions with Pence were official, but presumption of immunity is overcome
- Trump’s interactions with Pence as a running mate were unofficial
- Trump’s interactions with officials from swing states
- The interactions were unofficial (followed by five instances)
- Even if they were official, the government can rebut the presumption of immunity
- Trump’s efforts to organize fake electors
- The effort was unofficial
- Even if it was official, the government can rebut the presumption of immunity
- Trump’s public speeches and tweets as a candidate
- The statements were unofficial
- Speeches (with analysis of the two prosecutors want to use, one in Georgia and the January 6 one)
- Tweets
- Other public statements
- Parts of Trump’s statements that are official can be excised
- The statements were unofficial
- Trump’s interactions with White House staff (including Eric Herschmann, Dan Scavino, Molly Michaels, and two others)
- The interactions were unofficial
- The government could rebut any presumption of immunity
- Other evidence of knowledge and intent
- The evidence was unofficial
- Federal officials (including Bill Barr and Chris Krebs)
- Evidence about Trump’s use of Twitter
- Trump’s post-Administration statements
- Even if it were official, the government could rebut any presumption of immunity
- The evidence was unofficial
This section takes up 75 pages of the brief.
Of that, 18 pages are dedicated to analysis about Trump’s Tweets (not including the additional pages describing how they plan to explain Trump’s Twitter habits). Fourteen of those pages go through Trump’s manic Tweets from the period, each time explaining why such Tweets should not be viewed as the official acts of the President of the United States.
The section describes six ways Trump’s Twitter habit served his coup attempt:
- Casting doubt on election integrity
- Making false claims of election fraud
- Attacking Republicans who speak the truth about the election
- Al Schmidt
- Chris Krebs
- Rusty Bowers and four Pennsylvania State GOP legislators
- Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn
- Chris Carr
- Governor Doug Ducey, Governor Brian Kemp, and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
- Exhorting people to come to January 6
- Pressuring Mike Pence
- Almost getting Mike Pence killed
Prosecutors don’t include all the attacks Trump made on Twitter — for example, while Section I describes his attacks on Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, prosecutors don’t include them in the immunity analysis. The immunity analysis instead focuses only on the people with whom, Trump might argue, he was engaged in official business by ginning up death threats against them.
John Roberts not only rewrote the Constitution to protect Donald Trump. He forced prosecutors to spend 14 pages arguing that it is not among the job duties of the President of the United States to attack Republicans who’ve crossed him on Twitter.
This is what the Chief Justice wants to protect. This is the all-powerful President John Roberts wants to have. Someone who can sit in his dining room siccing mobs on fellow Republicans.
Who knows whether it will work? Who knows whether these right wing Justices will go that far — to argue that even the President’s mean Tweets targeting members of his own party must be protected from any accountability?
But prosecutors personalized it.
As noted above, the 14 pages analyzing mean Tweets follows the analysis of two rally speeches, in which prosecutors first show the January 4 Georgia speech was a campaign event, and then (among other things) lay out the similarity between that speech and Trump’s January 6 one.
Among the things Trump included in both speeches was an attack on the Supreme Court:
The defendant, who in his capacity as a candidate had suffered personal legal defeats in his private, election-related litigation at the Supreme Court, attacked it (Dalton at GA 1095; “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They are not stepping up to the plate. They’re not stepping up.” Ellipse at GA 1125: “I’m not happy with the Supreme Court. They love to rule against me.”).
Of course, the Justices can’t view that as an official act. It would be anathema to the very principles of separation of powers the Justices claim to be guarding. Plus (as noted here and elsewhere), Trump had specifically labeled his intervention in Ken Paxton’s lawsuit as done in his personal capacity. But building off how obviously unofficial this attack on John Roberts and his buddies is, it makes it all the more obvious that Donald Trump’s mean Tweets aren’t official acts either.
Though the inclusion of Trump’s attacks on them also might get these partisan hacks to think more seriously about the nearly identical exhortations Trump made on Truth Social before they decided to rewrite the Constitution in his favor.
Update: Fixed where I said that Trump intervened in Ken Paxton’s lawsuit in his official capacity–he specifically said he did so in his personal capacity as a candidate.
Jesus god, how are you not nominated for a Pulitzer yet? Your body of work puts every journalist I can think of, including ones we LIKE, in the shade. (typo in 2nd para: ‘using without using’?) but wow, I am so grateful for you. THIS blog is the touchstone I hit every morning. I can’t thank you enough.
Pulitzer Prizes are applied for, not nominated by nebulous persons. The applications come at expense of time and resources a small team like this one doesn’t have. Should we spend the time on the application or on the reporting and site operations?
But it’s always nice to know Marcy’s hard work and native brains are appreciated.
Oh lord no, I had no idea it took so much promotion to get a Pulitzer. And not to slight your work here either, Rayne. I’m very grateful for you, for Marcy, for the blog, all of it.
Some time when you have the bandwidth you should check out the application process at the Pulitzer site. Educational stuff, eye opening.
Many other prizes for journalism have very similar requirements and many also require a fee with completed application.
Me too.
In that case, here’s hoping Dr. Wheeler is instead nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The NYT deserves a collective Putzer Prize.
Alas that there isn’t a Pisher Prize.
Amen dimmsdale, many thanks Dr. Wheeler.
Ditto. I very much appreciate Dr. Wheeler’s meticulous attention to detail and clarity. The above bullet list is gold.
This blog is amazing! Marcy Wheeler is an amazing talent. This blog and all the wonderful information it provides really makes a difference. Gives me a much better view of American politics.
Rayne, your work is very helpful, not only your comments, posts, but your ability to keep everyone on track.
Don’t know if any organization will ever provide either of you with an award, but i appreciate your work and you both make a difference in this world.
Likely typo; official statements that are official.
Also, anyone have a link to Chutkan’s order unsealing the filing? I’ve yet to find that – the filing is linked all over, but not the order.
It’s here.
And yes, thanks for catching that typo.
Thanks for the link, and you’re welcome!
For next time, you can usually find filings in this case on this courtlistener page. (The order is 251 and the redacted immunity brief is 252)
Did Roberts and the rest of the GOP on the SCOTUS actually consider what Trump did in an unofficial capacity when they gave him extended Immunity?
The January 6 Committee hearings and Report were completed well before Trump’s bid for Immunity made it to the SCOTUS in Spring 2024. Other investigations and News Media had also come up with information about the various Non Government actors that were used by Trump.
Even though the above information wasn’t formally presented to the SCOTUS last Spring, they could have spent a few days walking through what would still be available to be used against Trump once things like
* Jeff Clark
* DOJ interactions
* Discussions with White House Advisors
* Etc
were removed from the facts about the January 6th case.
Maybe the SCOTUS underestimated Jack Smith.
Maybe the SCOTUS didn’t do a Deep Dive on the information available about January 6.
Maybe the SCOTUS did walk through what still be left to be used against Trump and decided that they couldn’t protect him completely.
.
The NYT article cited in the text says that that John Roberts was just sure his brilliant arguments would soar above the political process. The pompous ass Neil Gorsuch and Alito, I think, disavowed any need to consider tha actual facts of the case because they wanted to create a “rule for the ages”.
So I’m guessing neither MAGA SCOTUS nor any of their unworldly clerks had a clue about the future.
Apparently none of the GOP on the SCOTUS did a Flow Chart, Decision Tree or similar to plot/map what SC Smith would still be able to do once the Official Capacity parts were removed.
I realize that one doesn’t have to be brilliant to get appointed to the SCOTUS, but they do appear to have underperformed and made a mistake by leaning so hard into the theoretical stuff rather than the reality of the case against Trump.
It’s the entitled ARROGANCE of them that’s so galling.
I think we should be careful not to presume that the actions of the conservative SCOTUS justices were done with the intent of protecting Donald Trump, the person.
I’m not ruling that out, but I would suspect that if you could buttonhole Roberts, he would argue that his intent was to protect the presidency, or more specifically, Unitary Executive Theory.
In that context, you could imagine them easily ruling against Trump on at least some of the specifics outlined in Smith’s filing. Anything he did which was short-sighted, poorly conceived, and ham-fisted could be found to fail to meet the presumption of immunity. Trump would be hoisted on his own petard but the precious UET would remain unscathed.
Thus leaving room for a much more capable and methodical sociopath to completely torpedo democratic institutions at some point in the future.
I’m guessing that Roberts made his decision before hearing arguments, and the other “conservatives” went along with it for their own reasons.
Supremely Corrupt Court.
Not wanting to know the facts, or let the public know them, is one reason this Supreme Court majority is likely to intervene in the appellate process whenever it needs to, to extend Trump’s immunity or otherwise prevent these accusations and disclosures, and the attendant witness examinations and cross-examinations, from being made in open court.
It does not want the public and public officials to know the explicit criminal behavior — by a president — that it is so eager to immunize. Among other consequences, that might help create a majority to pass legislation to reform the Court.
Jack Smith obviously anticipated the Court’s reluctance, when he laid out so much detail in his brief. Even without a trial, a great deal of evidence has already made it into the public domain. The Court can’t unring that bell.
I suspect RW SCOTUS was expecting people like Chutkan, Smith, Garland, etc. to, as Professor Snyder puts it, surrender in advance.
Trump was running against Biden at the time and looked quite likely to win.
Conditions have changed.
It’s the arrogance of believing your enemy doesn’t have options.
As they say at the War College, the enemy always has a vote.
I think, as you say, the person they underestimated was Garland. He was, in another universe, one of their number already. And they have spent years now reading media from both left and right accusing him of being anything from overly genteel to lackadaisical to incompetent. He didn’t need to do anything but refuse to sign off on procedural decisions “so close” to the election. I suspect that in their calculations, he was never going to do what he did, which was sort through the spirit and letter of the DOJ guidance and decide the SC was free to respond to an argument almost certainly stalled just TO nudge him into waiting. Like Ed said, they felt like they had sufficiently gummed up the timeline such that their arguments could focus on “soaring above”, and they assumed a wistful Garland would just lie down in the grass looking up at the sky dreaming he was flying with them
I agree with this.
So many people push the Garland as slow walker view (not Marcy) that I could see how some (especially those engaged in a quasi religious coup) might make such an error.
Seeing Garland thru that lens is a mistake, IMO.
I love how Chutkan sidelined SCOTUS with the quick reveal.
If/when Harris wins things get very interesting.
We can hope that the book report changes the way the media report on the failed former President. I expect CBS in particular is going to treat him honestly=badly, because he skipped 60 Minutes again.
Trying the case in the court of public opinion works for Sp Counsel Smith too. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, and he does not have to obtain a unanimous verdict.
My WAG is the submission is why he skipped the interview. Probably not a bad idea. He would look even more like a clown under questioning (hard to do).
No doubt that knowledge of what was coming down the pike from the SC played a part in Team Trump nixing the 60 Minutes interview …
But, have you seen the “interview” of Trump by Kelly-Ann Conway broadcast recently on FoxNation, and excerpted and critiqued on various on line channels (eg Luke Beasley, and Pondering Politics)?
Trump’s performance was excrable, even more excruciatingly bad than his recent soft ball interviews on Fox News
The decline of Trump is an even better reason to keep him away from environments his team can’t control.
Thanks, I’ll check those beauties out.
Mean tweets certainly connect the dots. Perhaps Roberts will read the 165-page brief while having breakfast and change his mind about the Rule of Law. Or not.
I suspect it will be “Or Not”. Roberts likes to play the part of ole’ balls and strikes, but he has revealed himself to be as big a partisan hack as Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch. That’s the bell he cannot un ring.
From the order:
At some point Chutkan may be ready to impose sanctions on the “experienced defense counsel” for this intolerable continued assault on the judicial process. This garbage is interposed for an improper purpose. Chutkan’s statement should be a warning.
Yup. Including that in my post on this.
Chutkan’s patience has worn thin, and Trump really doesn’t provide a reason to delay.
Or, to be more specific, Trump’s lawyers really don’t provide a reason to delay. I suspect they may be tied to the wishes of their client on this.
Of course, this isn’t the first time this has happened. The filing spells out in great detail (supported by various items in redacted footnotes) another such example, where Trump’s lawyers didn’t properly follow the law and instead chose to bow to the wishes of the client and file legal declarations they knew to be false. See pp. 27ff.
Note: this legal approach never works out well for the lawyers.
Is it Trump or his lawyers that decided what Cannon has done in Florida with the MAL Documents case should be cited as guidance for what Judge Chutkan should do in DC?
It comes across as insulting Judge Chutkan by citing what Cannon does/did when they should be trying to get along with Judge Chutkan.
I view Trump and his defense team as one and the same—mobsters call their attorneys “mouthpieces” for good reason.
For purposes of these proceedings, Trump and his defense counsel are the same. He’s the principal and they are his agents. He can disown a position, and cause them to change it, or fire them. But until he does, they are one.
In terms of how the judge views them and the court operates, they are the same, and are referred to most often as “the defense” including both client and lawyers. “The defense calls to the stand . . .” and “The defense rests . . .” and so on.
In terms of strategy, however — crafting briefs, preparing motions, and taking specific legal positions in court — the lawyers and the client are decidedly separate.
The lawyers may know the law, but in large part they must bow to the client’s wishes in terms of positions to take. The lawyers are not supposed to lie or misrepresent things to the court, but they are otherwise bound to do what the client requests and not do what the client prohibits them from doing.
Peterr
October 3, 2024 at 5:23 pm
“ The lawyers are not supposed to lie or misrepresent things to the court, but they are otherwise bound to do what the client requests and not do what the client prohibits them from doing.”
They should not also repeatedly argue points which have already been subject to rulings adverse to them – this is fivolous and vexatious conduct.
It is unnecessary to repeat points for the purpose of preserving a record for appeal. It is conceivably possible that some occurrence or revelation may justify reconsidering a point in the light of new information, but that needs proper argument.
Team Trump repeatedly use filings on court dockets to rehash arguments that are legally otiose, solely for the purpose of public consumption, and this is improper.
After reading your thoughtful and articulate blogs, I generally forward them to my wife’s Amherst circle of alumni and a couple lawyer friends.
Similar responses each time: “I hope that the few serious journalists left out there are reading this analysis”.
But this time it feels more like…”I hope John Roberts has the courage to take a look and reflect for a moment”.
I keep wondering if he can really be as bad an actor as he appears to be. (And that’s pretty bad indeed).
At some level he is forcing a Democratic administration to expand the court. Not just daring them but realistically forcing them.
John Roberts, like his right-wing colleagues, suffers from hubris. It’s visible in many of his opinions, and in his unwillingness to rein in the craziness of Alito and Thomas.
He’s a rabid right-wing partisan. He believes he knows best and intends to force his views on the nation regardless of the damage it has and will cause.
The benefit of abandoning stare decisis in favor of reinterpreting the Constitution to invent new law is that Roberts has declared himself and the Court unbound from previous rulings, and that includes his own. I would not be surprised to see Roberts expand his definition of official acts when given the opportunity to review this filing.
I’ve never seen “polished” gaslighting the likes of Vance understanding now we have a new definition via roberts & his court, supreme gaslighting.
” He believes he knows best and intends to force his views on the nation regardless of the damage it has and will cause.” I find this statement quite interesting. It is the basis of all authoritarian thinking except that there is never any consideration for damage that can be caused because their beliefs are above question.
I think one thing ACB banked on was that when this comes back, the idiocy of some of the majority opinion will be clear.
And in any case, Roberts may have been banking on the election guiding how he deals with this when it does come back. If Trump wins, it’ll become meaningless. If Trump loses, they have a big incentive to reign in the idiocy.
Part of that incentive is, of course, that if Trump loses, this Court majority will want to limit how much it protects a Democratic Party president.
I have been thinking about this as well.
If the goal of the GOP on the SCOTUS is to maintain their majority which means providing a viable Exit Plan for Alito and C Thomas if they wish to retire, then getting a GOP POTUS is going to be a high priority.
The RWNJ – MAGA part of the GOP won’t want to give up the influence that they have gained in recent years, but Alito (Born ’50) and Thomas (Born ’48) will be into their 80’s if they have to wait until 2033 for the GOP to retake the White House.
If the GOP on the SCOTUS placates the RWNJ – MAGA faction by helping Trump with his Courthouse issues in ’25, that could make it more difficult for the GOP to get a GOP POTUS for a while and thus make it more difficult to maintain a GOP majority on the SCOTUS.
Trump in the White House in ’25 can be helpful to the GOP on the SCOTUS while Trump in Courthouses could/would be a Boat Anchor for the GOP on the SCOTUS.
At least Roberts has the judgment to not be a Twitter user. He likes to write longer stuff.
Excellent research and analysis!
Over the past couple of years, it has become obvious that Leonard Leo and Steve Calabresi of the Federalist Society have successfully gained control of six members of the Supreme Court—Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Moreover, public evidence shows Thomas’s wife, Ginni, conspired with the Trump Administration in the J-6 Insurrection. And it appears Alito’s wife, Martha, was at least sympathetic to the Insurrection.
And who knows what Roberts’s wife has been up to with regard to helping the Federalist Society achieve their goals and objectives.
And what about Scott Perry and his role in the J-6 Insurrection?
The American public has no idea how widespread and extensive the conspiracy was to overturn the 2020 election.
The recent brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals re: Judge Cannon doc dismissal case by Attorney Robert Ray and other members of the Federalist Society should be watched closely.
Leo, Calabresi and Ray are determined to protect Trump by persuading these six SCOTUS justices to overturn the SCOTUS decisions against Nixon in 1973.
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I was reading the SCOTUS immunity opinion, I was thinking about how it would have applied to Nixon and his merry band of criminals. Specifically, I wonder if John Mitchell would not have gone to prison.
He would have gone to prison. The immunity extends only to POTUS, not the minions (or in Mitchell’s case, a former official minion and then a campaign minion at the time of his wrongdoing).
12/8/20 EASTMAN pushes Texas lawsuit on FOX
12/9/20 TRUMP and 17 states want SCOTUS to let them join Texas suit; brief is signed by EASTMAN
12/10/20 EASTMAN again touts Texas lawsuit on FOX
12/11/20
3:28 PM TRUMP tweets: If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!
5:30 PM [approx] SCOTUS DISMISSES Texas v Pennsylvania for lack of standing
11:50 PM TRUMP tweets: The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!
More here:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/09/20/sdny-showed-probable-cause-rudy-giuliani-was-criming-while-he-represented-trump-in-the-russian-investigation/#comment-903103
Here’s a #J6TL comment with a Cliff’s Notes version of TRUMP’s J6 speech:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2021/02/08/in-his-impeachment-defense-trump-spends-five-times-as-long-not-addressing-the-mike-pence-allegations/#comment-882296
Note the “Bashing weak Republicans” series.
And of course, I missed one and added it later, but emphasize it here:
Add: [just before the one about BARR]
12:29 PM Bashing weak Republicans [Supreme Court, Kavanaugh]
ALSO of note:
1:00 PM The WHOLE election was fraudulent and
I appreciate how Jack Smith noted repeatedly that during Trump’s supposed “take care” investigations in the various states, he was completly unconcerned about the results of any other federal elections but his own. The Republicans that wrote the immunity decision demand to have the evidence placed in front of their faces like toddlers, so Smith gives it to them.
The story of downballot Republicans blithely taking seats, based on the same election process they claimed to be fraudulent, should have been front and center every day.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Toastlover” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match. /~Rayne]
I was struck by the WH binder for Trump’s “victory rally” event in Dalton GA on Jan 4 — just prior to both the GA senate runoff elections as well as the J6 events in DC. From the SC filing, p. 116 (footnotes omitted):
The folks who prepared the trip binder knew that this was a political event, not an official presidential event. Trump, OTOH, seem to think that if the president does it, it is an official presidential event. He is getting a rude awakening.
Again.
From a political standing; Liz Cheney will be joining Harris in PA today for a rally. With Cheney’s deep knowledge and sheer determination ‘to do everything I can to prevent Trump from returning to the WH’ no doubt the timing of Chutkan’s unsealing of this tremendous filing will fire up the rally. Hopefully it will play a role in getting Harris elected and then the case will reach a jury. Thank you Marcy for your work, I share it widely!
You might have to put in a few reefs MainSail, or even make a bee-line under bare-poles for the nearest safe-harbor. I think we’re in for some real foul weather ahead. Not like it would’ve helped Bayesian, or many of the marinas in Helene’s wake but at least we all know that an October Surprise might look like.
Nice idea but I doubt that any, other than a very few, voters will take any notice of the unsealing.
Again, thank you all for your amazing work, Dr. Wheeler/Rayne etc. I know I’m not the only one that realizes that your work is probably going to save our democracy, and then some.
11/4/20 ROMAN: [in Detroit] “give me options to file litigation… even if itbis [sic]”
ROMAN: “Make them riot” [] “Do it!!!”
Marcy wrote about this here:
DOJ Will Show that Trump’s Campaign Intended to Cause a Riot at TCF Center in Detroit
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/12/05/doj-will-show-that-trump-intended-to-cause-a-riot-at-tcf-center-in-detroit/ December 5, 2023
Brooks Brother’s Riot [STONE] connects to SCOTUS / Bush v Gore [TRUMP justices]
The ROBERTS COURTesan Majority Faction and Bush v. Gore
1991 THOMAS [GHWBush]
2000 SCOTUS: Bush v. Gore [BvG]
2005 ROBERTS [GWBush]
2006 ALITO [GWBush]
2017 GORSUCH [Trump]
2018 KAVENAUGH [Trump]
2020 BARRETT [Trump]
Right: I wondered whether the mention of Brooks Brothers was a nod (or something else?) to the three SCOTUS Justices who participated.
I wonder about that as well. That would make an interesting piece to consider writing. Very curious.
My vote would be for: (or something else?), but I couldn’t tell you what or why.
ie: not a “nod”… but something else.
My favorite 3 words mentioned in the brief. Brooks Brother’s Riot. Not a side note – a fact many watched and just dismissed – they are all so cute.
Strip Judicial Immunity. It was made up.
Marcy asks on Bluesky:
https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3l5okgj6z252q
October 4, 2024 at 6:26 AM
From the screenshot in Marcy’s post:
Interesting: SC re ROMAN as “campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator.
“create chaos” is definitely a phrase I associate with STONE, and with [P1]BANNON. That phrase is also associated with the word “agent”, used for ROMAN.
Aren’t riots generally violent by their nature?
In particular the Brooks Brothers Riot featured people being “trampled, punched [and] kicked,” and a DNC aide “claimed to be kicked and punched”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot
Seems violent enough to me!
ugggg! I guess this whole series of comments would have been better on the next post about “How we got here […]”
I’m very sorry about that. :-/
I’ve just scrolled through the whole thing [because the redaction identifiers don’t always show up when I search for them], as far as I can tell, if STONE is [P6], he only shows up two times, both on pdf5/165.
added: “[P6][STONE] (then a private citizen)”
Just wondering why they would describe STONE that way?
^^^ I mean why the “then”?
dopefish reminds us here that [P2]STEPIEN took over PARSCALE’s duties on the Campaign on 7/15/20 https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/10/02/jack-smiths-immunity-argument/#comment-1072818
[Might as well finish this here.]
The first two entries from a TL of
The Roger Stone Tapes Previously unseen documentary footage shows the long time Trump advisor working to overturn the 2020 election, and after the Jan. 6 riot, secure pardons for the former president’s supporters (“A Storm Foretold”) [link] Bennett/Swain March 4, 2022 https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/03/08/enrique-tarrio-gets-his-chance-to-fit-in-or-fuck-off/#comment-926082
Strange he isnt mentioned. The “Brooks Brothers riot” was an election intimidation effort organized by none other than Roger Stone. He has spoken about this publicly years before Jan. 6 happened. So there is no chance he wasn’t aware of or not architecting the J6 Capitol attack.
In fact, Stone had a team with him at the Willard Hotel in the days before and on J6. He popped up on camera a couple times flanked by The Proud Boys, who were his “security” guys. He attended that infamous meeting with Bannon, Rudy, etc. on Jan. 4 or 5 to pregame the final coup logistics. In that J6 documentary by Brit Alex Holder that the J6 Committee subpoenaed, Stone is shown in his hotel room, as the coup is underway on tv, bitching bc he knew Trump was not going to pull it off. He was purportedly mad that his speaking role at the rally was pulled at last minute. Maybe true, but probably not why he got outta dodge so fast that day. Also, Stone had been in DC in December with PB leader Enrique Tarrio for what was a dry run of violent mayhem against “Antifa.” His fingerprints are all over the polling place riot attempts and the Capitol.
“But prosecutors personalized it.”
And somewhere Saul Alinsky* turns to the barkeeper in one of the afterlife’s working class taverns, smiles approvingly, and orders a round for the house.
*Rule #13 of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Trump’s lawyers are pretending they’ve never practice criminal law. Prosecutors always prosecute named defendants for specific crimes. That’s a requirement. They always describe the facts and law in a way most disadvantageous to the defendant. It’s doing their half of the job of the adversarial system.
Besides, saying prosecutors “personalized” something is like using “collusion,” when the crime you’re really describing is conspiracy. It’s not really a legal thing, so you can say almost anything about it you want. I suspect it comes from the right wing book of victimization.
We’re just lucky they’re as dumb as they are mean. Funny how that often works out.
MAGAt Court
Don’t ever laugh as Roberts goes by
For you may be the next to cry
He’ll wrap you up in his big conceit
Bombard your head and browbeat
He’ll put you in a MAGAt box
Cheat you out of American docs
All goes well for about a week
Then democracy begins to leak
The harms crawl in
The harms consort
The harms predictable
in Roberts’ court
The ones that go in
are lean and thin
The ones that come out
are fat and stout
They cheat your eyes
they cheat your knows
They spread their lies
with a fascist hose
He’ll put you in a MAGAt box
Cheat you out of American docs
And when democracy is all gone
There’s no republic to carry on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqfxHujDrbM
“The Hearse Song Rusty Cage Piano Cover”
7/1/24
INAL, but as an average citizen, I love how this quote demonstrates Trump’s blatant expectation the SC should rule corruptly in his favor. Judges in our legal system aren’t supposed to “step up to the plate” in favor of one party or the other but rule fairly based on the law. I hope this jumps off the page to the Supremes when they see it.
OT
But very related:
“My organization, Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, had created an initiative we called “Operation Higher Court” that trained wealthy couples as “stealth missionaries,” befriending Thomas and his wife, Ginni; Samuel and Martha-Ann Alito; and Antonin and Maureen Scalia—lavishing them with meals at high-end restaurants and invitations to luxurious vacation properties. Alongside these amenities, our ministry offered prayers, gift Bibles, and the assurance that millions of believers thanked God for the decisions this trio of justices rendered on abortion, health care, marriage, and gun ownership.”
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/09/rob-schenck-confessions-of-a-former-christian-nationalist/
Thanks, klynn! I’ll definitely read it!
“Faith and Action” rang a bell, and it is mentioned in this article:
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can’t Be Compromised’ In a new, secret recording, the Supreme Court justice says he “agrees” that the U.S. should return to a place of godliness https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/
TESSA STUART, TIM DICKINSON JUNE 10, 2024
Here it is on the Web Archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240610164319/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/
OMG, that is a riot, “the U.S. should return to a place of godliness”. Still laughing. Did he give any indication what “godliness” is or will he and the rest of the Supreme Court decide what that is. The arrogance of the idiot is really a bit much for some one who isn’t all that in touch with reality–“godliness”, what does it mean? Perhaps some Supreme Court members think they are gods or some such thing. Last time I looked at history those “godily” types had caused a whole lot of pain and suffering and war and death in the world. If the judge thinks we ought to have more of that, perhaps he can be the first to volunteer to subject himself to all of that.
Did they forget their US history? The Puritans and Pilgrims were “godly”, and they were also very narrow-minded THEOCRACIES.
That whole piece is quite the read. Thank you.
I had the same reaction to this piece as I’ve had to a lot of the “Oh dear, I never intended it to go this far. My bad!” gaslighting I’ve seen & read: F**k you and the Reaganite, neocon, christofascist horse you rode in on.
Arrogant hypocrites. Shut up and go away.
YES!!! Exactly.
FYI to others. Threads (open for all – unlike Zuck’s FB and some Insta – and of course now Xitter =Musk) is throttling folks who attempt to simply post this link here – about Roberts 14 pages.
Sorry – I can not provide links. Do not know how but if you look outside – to just regular platform Conway’s ghost persona – has always in past let me view. Not now.
Really apologize I can’t cut and paste the thing I know I need (but suck links of html’s and WP- like links for dummies books) and not going to risk.
But bottom line – this is new (to me) that Threads is throttling Marcy.
Just as his insult to Pence “you’re too honest” is damning, I’ve always wondered why Trump was never asked how he knew on Dec. 19 that a ‘patriotic and peaceful protest’ on Jan. 6 would “be wild?” I read through his Twitter archive from 2011-2020 last night and “wild” is not a word he uses. Fraud, lies, laughing at us, etc all crop up there regularly, but not wild.
Two observations/questions. Isn’t it abnormal for such specificity in a CONCLUSION? No “… such other relief as the Court deems just.” Second, the signatures. Are those two signing the brief regular DOJ appointees, reassigned their duties within DOJ, and not bumping into any Confirmation Clause nuance?
Normally there’d be a separate proposed order.
Yes, Gaston and Windom are just career AUSAs. Windom moved over from MD USAO. He’s known for getting a terrorist charge to stick against a white supremacist, but just as interesting, he prosecuted a guy named Nghia Pho who took docs home from NSA whence Russia stole them.
Gaston is a long-term top Public Integrity AUSA. She was involved in the handed off Mueller cases. She prosecuted a cop who tipped off a Jan6er, but otherwise was pulled off crime scene cases in February and March 2021 (she had maybe 3). She also did some financial investigation of Sidney Powell in September 2021, for which she never gets credit.