FWIW it is worth but a growing chorus of national security minded folks are essentially all openly talking about how off the rails the FBI and (increasingly) the DOJ is. For example:
Ryan Goodlaw (former Special Counsel) Tweets and writes about this at justsecurity.org.
Jennifer Rubin wrote an article in the Washington Post last month detailing a case that justifies firing FBI Director Chistopher Wray.
Former FBI Acting Director McCabe and Asha Rangappa have talked about this extensively on their podcast.
It's bonkers. I don't think people at the street level really get how dysfunctional parts of our national security apparatus are. This isn't entirely new. The FBI has always had periods with serious issues and we survived but the difference was that when problems were exposed they were generally dealt with. Now they are being buried. Wray - who absolutely should be fired - has not even investigated the FBI failures that caused them to miss 1/6. An event that PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD SAW COMING. Either they were incompetent, looking away intentionally, or they were in on it. And the avoidance of an investigation makes the latter two feel more plausible than they aught to be. The future has tons of unacknowledged risk ahead.
The MAGA right thinks FBI Director Christopher A. Wray is some sort of patsy for Democrats. But the problem is not that Wray, a Trump appointee, is showing favoritism to a Democratic administration. It’s that he is not doing his job when it comes to threats from right-wing authoritarianism.
Don’t take my word for it. The Government Accountability Office issued a report this week concerning the performance of multiple agencies and police units regarding the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Among its findings: The FBI “did not consistently follow agency policies or procedures for processing tips or potential threats because they did not have controls to ensure compliance with policies.”
Putting the incidents together — the Jan. 6 debacle, the failure to collect domestic terrorism data and the FBI’s undue resistance to enforcing a subpoena (that ultimately turned up a raft of documents not previously disclosed) — one is left wondering why the FBI seems disinclined to stand up to right-wing authoritarian movements and figures. Whatever the reason, the pattern reveals an unmistakable lack of effective leadership. And that in turn raises the question: Why is Wray still there?
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
I hadn't seen it officially noted. I guess they're too busy reading the Constitution, having charlatans testify over COVID-19 and packaging up 1/6 footage for Fox News to really focus on the GAO. Maybe this will get them refocused on really screwing things up more.
They don't need to dismantle the GAO. They just ignore it anyway. Wray is going to ignore this and Biden will do nothing probably. Because we live in a post-truth post-accountancy period of history.
"Keep our eyes locked forward soldiers! You don't have to worry about all the people you trampled along the way. A bright future is always ahead!" - the American elite class.
The Justice Department on Thursday urged an appeals court to reject sweeping claims of presidential immunity put forward by former President Donald Trump in the civil litigation surrounding the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol.
The department told the appeals court – which is considering several private lawsuits brought against Trump for his conduct in the lead-up to the attack on the Capitol – that a president can’t be absolutely immune for speech on a matter of public concern if the speech is found to have incited violence.
“No part of a president’s official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence,” the Justice Department said in a friend-of-a-court brief that the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals asked the government to file.
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:30 pm
Somewhere Merrick Garland readies to sigh in relief. The shame is that the Federal version of this same crime is a much stronger case.
Who knows, but intuitively I feel like this marginally increases the chance that DOJ eventually indicts Trump. If this goes ahead then Garland doesn't need to be the one who crosses the Rubicon in terms of indicting a former president - the second or third indictment will seem less risky than the first. Plus I think the shame of a local DA leading the charge will push people in DOJ to act.
Is there a chance that some will hold off on indictments if he is already under multiple indictments? Will they give any consideration to the court schedule he might have with multiple indictments?
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:30 pm
Somewhere Merrick Garland readies to sigh in relief. The shame is that the Federal version of this same crime is a much stronger case.
...however, President De Santis can't wipe away a NY conviction.
Federal prosecutors in New York involved in the criminal investigation into Donald Trump’s social media company last year started examining whether it violated money laundering statutes in connection with the acceptance of $8m with suspected Russian ties, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The company – Trump Media, which owns Trump’s Truth Social platform – initially came under criminal investigation over its preparations for a potential merger with a blank check company called Digital World (DWAC) that was also the subject of an earlier investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Towards the end of last year, federal prosecutors started examining two loans totaling $8m wired to Trump Media, through the Caribbean, from two obscure entities that both appear to be controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, the sources said.
This is turning into a wild ride. My boss, a former FBI leader, said he thinks that no one wanted to be first. When Bragg goes forward others may follow. It does appear that Special Counsel Smith is charging hard on this case and has convinced multiple judges of the seriousness and need for speed in the classified documents matter.
I know that the House views the Fox News base as its sole constituents, but isn't that kind of a stupid threat? Unless I'm missing something the House can't cut off funding to the DA's office without the consent of the Senate and the president (obviously not forthcoming). And the threat's loud and public enough that Bragg almost has to indict or he looks like he's caving.
El Guapo wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:27 am
I know that the House views the Fox News base as its sole constituents, but isn't that kind of a stupid threat? Unless I'm missing something the House can't cut off funding to the DA's office without the consent of the Senate and the president (obviously not forthcoming). And the threat's loud and public enough that Bragg almost has to indict or he looks like he's caving.
Most of the GOP threats are stupid. But stupid threats and grandstanding speeches over the last few decades are how they've chipped away at our system to get us to this point. This type of threat would have led to extremely loud criticism from all sides even 10 years ago. Also the pattern is they make these threats, eventually they find themselves in a position to make them real, and then they do so to some extent.
Manhattan grand jury in Trump hush money case is not meeting today, on standby for tomorrow.
Most likely reason: all the law enforcement coordination and security logistics that are being worked out, including with NYPD and Secret Service.
They don't want to indict and then have a long gap between indictment and arrest/arraignment.
Also: part of the security is to ensure the GRAND JURORS themselves -- 23 regular New Yorkers, doing their civic duty -- are protected from a defendant who incites violence.
The right-wing is peddling a story that Bragg was caught hiding exculpatory information. The source as of yet? Trump-land bullshitters. No outlet with any track record of reasonable reliability has reported this.
malchior wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:36 pm
The right-wing is peddling a story that Bragg was caught hiding exculpatory information. The source as of yet? Trump-land bullshitters. No outlet with any track record of reasonable reliability has reported this.
Yeah, the tweets I've seen have been saying that the most recent witness testified that Bragg was withholding "hundreds of pages" of exculpatory documents, and that he was facing "prosecutorial misconduct" charges. None of which makes any sense, of course.
malchior wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:36 pm
The right-wing is peddling a story that Bragg was caught hiding exculpatory information. The source as of yet? Trump-land bullshitters. No outlet with any track record of reasonable reliability has reported this.
Yeah, the tweets I've seen have been saying that the most recent witness testified that Bragg was withholding "hundreds of pages" of exculpatory documents, and that he was facing "prosecutorial misconduct" charges. None of which makes any sense, of course.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that a requirement only after charges have been laid?
pr0ner wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:19 pm
They haven't yet on the documents case. Why would they now?
They might take a narrow look at the crime fraud exception. There is no real indication they will but folks are wondering if they will intevene.
Thus far SCOTUS hasn't shown much interest in contorting the law to help Trump, but they've been happy to slow things down. I guess what I'd be worried about is them taking the case, staying the lower court, not expediting the appeal process, and then issuing some new crime-fraud standard that then merits punting the matter back down to the district court for a new decision under the new standard.
malchior wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 3:36 pm
The right-wing is peddling a story that Bragg was caught hiding exculpatory information. The source as of yet? Trump-land bullshitters. No outlet with any track record of reasonable reliability has reported this.
Yeah, the tweets I've seen have been saying that the most recent witness testified that Bragg was withholding "hundreds of pages" of exculpatory documents, and that he was facing "prosecutorial misconduct" charges. None of which makes any sense, of course.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that a requirement only after charges have been laid?
If Trump gets indicted then he'll be arrested. And it does look like they are probably going to indict him. Was that ever going to happen on Tuesday? Was that the plan, and then they changed the timing in response? Is this something that Trump made up? Is it something that he misunderstood / misinterpreted? Who knows. We also know almost nothing about the grand jury issue today, so who knows.
As to the exculpatory evidence nonsense...I do have to say that I'm not a criminal attorney, so this isn't my expertise. But the concept of "withholding exculpatory evidence" from a grand jury is kind of weird. Prosecutors have requirements to turn over exculpatory evidence to defense counsel during trial proceedings (post-indictment). But a grand jury is not an adversarial proceeding - it's just prosecutors presenting evidence to the grand jury. A grand jury doesn't have a right to review all evidence available to the prosecutors, nor would they be reviewing documents outside of the presence of the prosecutors. How would the DA even be producing "hundreds of pages" to a grand jury?
