America Just Failed the Test of Responding to Trump’s Politicized Prosecutions

/62 Comments/in , /by

Let’s imagine that, two years from now, Pam Bondi rolls out charges against some onetime adversary of Donald Trump. To the extent that journalists will still be employed and reading court filings, to the extent that prosecutors under Emil Bove (who at SDNY oversaw a team sanctioned for discovery violations) comply with discovery requirements, the adversary in question learns the following about his prosecution:

  • The case started when an investigator started looking into a transnational trafficking network
  • The investigator discovered that the prominent adversary had paid one of the sex workers trafficked in the network
  • Rather than pursuing the traffickers, the investigator used the payment for sex as cause to open an investigation
  • Of course, no one is going to charge a John … so the investigator starts pulling divorce records and four year old tax returns to try to move from that payment for sex work to something that can be charged
  • Then the investigator started incorporating oppo research from Peter Schweizer into his investigation
  • Kash Patel’s FBI set up protected ways to accept tips from Trump supporters who’ve doctored documents to create a crime
  • Trump called up Bondi and told her to take more aggressive steps
  • Trump called up foreign leaders asking for help on this prosecution
  • Bondi then set up a way to launder that information from foreign sources, including known spies, into the investigation of the adversary
  • Patel’s FBI asked a partisan informant to fabricate claims against the adversary
  • Trump publicly called out prosecutors — resulting in them and their children being followed — because they had not yet charged his adversary
  • Ultimately, the adversary got charged on 5-year old dirt, and only then, after charging, did prosecutors quickly do the investigative work to win the case at trial

Now, as I’ve described it, you surely imagine you’d say, wow, that looks like a thoroughly corrupt prosecution, a clear case of Trump using DOJ to punish his adversaries.

Right?

It’s not so much that investigators didn’t, after the fact, find a crime to charge. They did. If you investigate most high profile people long enough, you’ll find something to charge, particularly if multiple people come to DOJ with doctored evidence to help create that crime.

It’s that someone found the name of an adversary in the digital records of crimes that were more important to investigate, and instead of pursuing that crime, used the electronic record as an excuse to keep looking until they found some evidence of a crime against Trump’s adversary.

Everyone would recognize that’s what happened, right?

Of course not. Of course no one would recognize that that was a political prosecution.

We need no further proof than the fact that none of those very same details showed up in any of the coverage of the Hunter Biden investigation. Not now that he has been pardoned. Not when all these details came out last year. Not in any of the retrospectives of the times Trump demanded investigations on his adversaries.

What will happen instead is that a bunch of self-important DC scribes will chase the most salacious allegations, provide endless headlines about sex workers and wild parties. The DC scribes will ignore every detail about the legal investigation — every one!! — and instead use the prosecution as an opportunity to sell political scandal. And also, they will point to their Tiger Beat coverage as proof, they say, they are not politically biased.

Rather than diligently rooting out the obviously politicized prosecution, the press will be complicit in it.

And rather than deciding that the adversary was the target of an obviously politicized prosecution, American public opinion would instead decide that the adversary was icky, and because he is icky, his statements about Trump cannot be credited.

That is what political prosecutions look like. That is, of course, precisely what the Hunter Biden prosecution was (ignoring the assurances from prosecutors who say no one with the fact set Hunter faced would be charged). Every single bullet has an analogue in the Hunter Biden case. That obviously political prosecution is what happened.

Once the GOP got the House majority, they did nothing else but platform these claims, which a different set of self-important scribes treated as an interesting process story, not an obvious case of a great abuse of government power.

And now that Biden has pardoned his son, the very same self important scribes who ignored all the signs this was a political prosecution, are giving non-stop coverage to a pardon that — unlike those of Trump’s Coffee Boy, National Security Adviser, campaign manager, personal lawyer, and rat-fucker — are not about self-protection, most with no mention of all the evidence Trump ordered up this prosecution to target Joe Biden.

The question is, what are we going to do about this, now that we have rock solid proof the press establishment is not only incapable, but wildly uninterested, in rooting out this kind of politicized prosecution — at least not when they can instead sell scandal?

In the face of seeing Pam Bondi and Kash Patel preparing to redouble efforts to find politicized prosecutions against Donald Trump’s adversaries, Joe Biden chose to end the process, with his son, at least.

I’m actually on the record opposing the pardon — but not for the reasons everyone else is. I don’t think pardoning Hunter in this circumstance is corrupt. I take Biden at his word that he changed his mind about pardoning Hunter. I’m far more interested in Trump admitting he was lying about his plans to implement Project 2025 than that Biden reneged on assurances no one much believed anyway.

I oppose the pardon because it eliminates Hunter’s standing to appeal and with those appeals to begin telling the story that the media chose to ignore. I oppose the pardon because if we don’t start laying out how Trump already politicized DOJ while there’s a good base of legitimate judges in place, it’ll be far too late.

And don’t get me wrong. I think Biden fucked this one up. Not just for saying he wouldn’t pardon Hunter, but for not taking action far earlier — like firing David Weiss the day he was inaugurated, citing Trump’s first impeachment, or pardoning Hunter and firing Weiss on November 6 — to do something about this. I think Merrick Garland shouldn’t have given Weiss himself SCO status (not least, because Weiss continues to investigate crimes — the alleged attempted framing of Joe Biden by Alexander Smirnov — to which he is a witness). I think Garland’s supervision of Special Counsels allowed the abuse of the system, repeatedly.

I’ve never, as far as I’m aware, spoken with Hunter Biden. I have, however, spoken to a good number of the people who were and who would be politically prosecuted in Trump’s second term (not including myself, of course). And the thing I’ve learned from them is because the press is complicit in their politicized prosecution, it guarantees they’ll be isolated, regardless of guilt or innocence. Because the press has unquenchable thirst for lazy dick pic sniffing, they don’t do the work of reading the court filings. Because the press thirsts for a false appearance of both sides neutrality, they’re always on the hunt for something to fit into their both sides scandal box.

And meanwhile, those very same self-important scribes were largely silent in 2020 when Trump pardoned his way out of Russian trouble, and even more silent in 2024 when they could have explained to voters that he had done so.

Whatever else you think about the Hunter Biden case and the way Joe Biden pardoned him, it is crystal clear proof that the thing defenders of democracy swear they’ll do in a second Trump term — rise to the defense of those targeted for political prosecution — they already failed to do. Whatever you think about the Hunter Biden case, the vast majority of people talking about it have absolutely no clue that it is precisely what people fear in Trump’s second term, not (just) because Hunter was charged in two indictments when others would not be, but because Trump and his people repeatedly ordered up this prosecution.

Update: Peter Baker, who wrote an otherwise thorough piece during the election about Trump’s corruption which ignored Hunter, claims to be unable to tell whether Biden’s claim that Hunter’s prosecution was politicized is true or not.

Update: Here’s a copy of a white paper Hunter’s attorneys released to describe the politicization of the case. It adds the Parnas and Scott Brady allegations to the stuff in the selective prosecution motions.

Share this entry

Ball of Thread: Rudy’s Hunter Biden Witch Hunt

/6 Comments/in , /by

Nicole Sandler and I are taking another week off. But LOLGOP finished the next installment of our Ball of Thread series — this one tracing Rudy Giuliani’s effort to frame Joe Biden.

Share this entry

“Without Prejudice:” Jack Smith Moves to Dismiss the DC Case

/96 Comments/in , /by

Jack Smith has moved to dismiss the DC case against Donald Trump. OLC has found that the categorical prohibition on the federal indictment of a sitting President means DOJ cannot sustain the indictment against Trump.

OLC concluded that its 2000 Opinion’s “categorical” prohibition on the federal indictment of a sitting President—even if the case were held in abeyance—applies to this situation, where a federal indictment was returned before the defendant takes office. 2000 OLC Opinion at 254.1 Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice. Cf. id. at 255 (“immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment”). This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant

But OLC does not require dismissing the indictment with prejudice.

That means if Congress were to decide to impeach Trump on these issues, he could again be charged (through January 6, 2026).

Though it’s not yet clear whether Smith will dismiss the appeal against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira in Florida, this clears the way for Smith to file a report on what he found.

Update: In the 11th Circuit, Smith has moved to dismiss the appeal without prejudice against Trump but not his two co-defendants.

Update: Judge Chutkan grants Jack Smith’s request. How is notable: she focuses on defending the decision to dismiss without prejudice.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) provides that before trial, the Government “may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment.” The “‘principal object of the “leave of court” requirement’ has been understood to be a narrow one—‘to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment . . . when the [g]overnment moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.’” United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977)).1 Here, Defendant consents to the dismissal, Motion at 1, and there is no indication that the dismissal is “part of a scheme of ‘prosecutorial harassment’” or otherwise improper, Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d at 742 (quoting Rinaldi, 434 U.S. at 29 n.15). Rather, the Government explains that it seeks dismissal pursuant to Department of Justice policy and precedent. Motion at 2–6. The court will therefore grant the Government leave to dismiss this case.

Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate here. When a prosecutor moves to dismiss an indictment without prejudice, “there is a strong presumption in favor” of that course. United States v. Florian, 765 F. Supp. 2d 32, 34 (D.D.C. 2011). A court may override the presumption only when dismissal without prejudice “would result in harassment of the defendant or would otherwise be contrary to the manifest public interest.” Id. at 35 (quoting United States v. Poindexter, 719 F. Supp. 6, 10 (D.D.C. 1989)). As already noted, there is no indication of prosecutorial harassment or other impropriety underlying the Motion, and therefore no basis for overriding the presumption—and Defendant does not ask the court to do so. See Motion at 1. Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office. Id. at 6 (citing Memorandum from Randolph D. Moss, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 225 (Oct. 16, 2000)).

Some courts in this district have advanced a broader view of the “leave of court” requirement. For instance, one concluded that “a judge may deny an unopposed Rule 48(a) motion if, after an examination of the record, (1) she is not ‘satisfied that the reasons advanced for the proposed dismissal are substantial’; or (2) she finds that the prosecutor has otherwise ‘abused his discretion.’” United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620–22 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Even under that broader interpretation, however, the court finds no reason to deny leave here.

Share this entry

WaPo Enthusiastically Joins Trump’s Attack on Rule of Law

/42 Comments/in , , /by

One reason why Trump managed to win the election in spite of his four felony prosecutions is because self-imagined journalists never fact-checked him when he falsely claimed his prosecutions — all of them — were partisan witch hunts.

This article, from WaPo, is a remarkable example.

It confirms what was already clear — that Trump will attempt to fire everyone who worked on his own criminal prosecutions — and adds that Trump also intends to use DOJ to investigate his claims of voter fraud that his own DOJ already debunked in late 2020. It describes this fascist project to politicize DOJ as evidence of his “intention to dramatically shake up the status quo in Washington.”

The post notes that Trump, “lost to Joe Biden but continues to insist [the election] was stolen from him in key battlegrounds,” and describes that, “neither the president-elect nor his allies have ever provided evidence to prove their claims of voter fraud.”

But it doesn’t mention that Bill Barr’s DOJ already did investigate Trump’s claims of election fraud. And although Josh Dawsey is bylined, the story mentions none of Dawsey’s several stories on contractors whom Trump hired in 2020, who looked for — but could not find — any evidence to back these claims (one two three).

More tellingly, WaPo’s four journalists don’t bother to correct Karoline Leavitt’s objectively false claim that, “President Trump won the election in a landslide,” a claim that could be easily debunked by pointing out that Trump won’t break 50% of the popular vote and won by less than 2%.

They just let Leavitt lie.

Worse still, they repeated Trump’s claims of grievance over and over, saying only that it is a frequent claim, not a false one.

[1] a Trump spokeswoman echoed the president-elect’s frequent claim that the Justice Department cases against him were politically motivated.

“President Trump campaigned on firing rogue bureaucrats who have [2] engaged in the illegal weaponization of our American justice system, and the American people can expect he will deliver on that promise,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement. “One of the many reasons that President Trump won the election in a landslide is Americans are sick and tired of seeing their tax dollars spent on [3] targeting the Biden-Harris Administration’s political enemies rather than going after [a] real violent criminals in our streets.”

[snip]

And he has [4] maintained from the start that Smith’s investigations into his efforts to reverse his defeat — as well as his alleged mishandling of classified documents after he left the White House — are examples of the weaponization of government against him that must be avenged.

[snip]

“For too long, the partisan Department of Justice [5] has been weaponized against me and other Republicans,” Trump wrote when announcing his new pick, longtime ally Pam Bondi, in a post on Truth Social. “Not anymore. Pam will refocus the DOJ to its intended purpose of fighting Crime, [b] and Making America Safe Again.”

There are plenty of ways people who chose to engage in journalism could debunk these false claims: to point out that Joe Biden was also investigated for retaining classified documents, to describe that a former Trump US Attorney, Robert Hur, found characteristics that distinguished Trump’s case from Biden’s, to explain what those distinctions were — Trump’s year-long effort to hide documents from DOJ. Regarding January 6, a journalist might explain that hundreds of other people were charged with the same main crime — obstructing the vote certification — as Trump was, but in his case the fraudulent certificates made the evidence even stronger.

At the very least, describe — in detail! — what Trump was charged with! WaPo chooses not to do that.

On the claims of politicization, the laziest reporter might note at least that Joe Biden’s own son was prosecuted on two coasts, along with three high profile Democrats — Bob Menendez, Henry Cuellar, and Eric Adams.

Trump’s claim that Biden’s DOJ targeted Republicans is laughable, and yet four self-imagined journalists repeated the claim as if it were true.

Trump’s claims that Biden’s DOJ didn’t prosecute violent criminals in the streets bears special focus, since hundreds of the January 6ers — people Trump has suggested he’ll pardon — are just that: people convicted of violently assaulting cops.

And his claim that Pam Bondi will fight crime as if Merrick Garland did not? For fuck sake, people, mention that crime rates came down under Biden.

WaPo packages up all this unrebutted propaganda as a process story. Twelve paragraphs in, it addresses the question of whether Trump will be able to fire career employees. In ¶15, it describes the make-up of Jack Smith’s team.

But it’s all buried under dumb repetition of Trump’s attack on rule of law, as if the attack were true. WaPo just couldn’t be bothered to conduct the least little act of journalism on that point, and so simply repeated Trump’s false claims of grievance with no correction.

And as such, the article itself becomes part of precisely the outrageous abuse it describes: the creation of a false myth of grievance by burying (literally in Trump’s case and figuratively in the case of four people calling themselves journalists) the reality about rule of law.

Share this entry

David Weiss Dons His “Let’s Go Brandon” Frame

/13 Comments/in , , , /by

In a bid to defeat a motion in limine from Alexander Smirnov prohibiting mention of his nine lawfully owned guns, David Weiss’ prosecutors revealed that they only want to use the guns, if necessary, to prove ownership of other things found in a search of Smirnov’s home, including an anti-Biden hat.

On February 21, 2024, after securing a search warrant signed by United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, FBI agents executed a search of the defendant’s residence in Las Vegas. During the search, agents found nine firearms. Agents also found other items, including electronic devices, and other evidence, such as a hat emblazoned with an anti-Public Official 1 euphemism. These items are directly relevant to the charges in this case. For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1. And the hat seized from his residence demonstrate the same bias, which bears on the defendant’s motive in providing the FBI with false derogatory information about Public Official 1, who was a candidate for President of the United States, in the months leading up to the 2020 election.

On one level, by all means, show us Alexander Smirnov’s Let’s Go Brandon hat! It’ll work wonders in Los Angeles!

On another level, I can’t help but think that David Weiss’ team has just given Smirnov (who might well get a pardon anyway after Trump is inaugurated) a case for selective prosecution.

Smirnov, recall, is accused of lying to the FBI and in so doing causing the filing of a false report.

But these very same prosecutors — Derek Hines and Leo Wise — were in the last year faced with witnesses with an anti-Biden bias, the guy who sold Hunter Biden a gun in 2018 and the Delaware cop who first spoke to the gun shop owners, the former of whom (according to a filing from Abbe Lowell) similarly caused a false document to be filed, the gun purchase form to which his staffer belatedly added a claim that Hunter had provided a second form of ID when he purchased the gun. Hines and Wise have not charged those people, even though they reportedly sent WhatsApp texts during the 2020 election in an effort to publicize the gun purchase, the same kind of biased messages that Hines and Wise intend to submit to prove their case against Smirnov.

It also reveals a now-exposed attempt by the gun store to fabricate a false narrative about the gun sale. Palimere said the addition of the seller transaction serial number (“5,653”) may have been added on October 26, 2018. (TAB 4, Palimere FD-302 at 4). He said the vehicle registration reference was added in 2021. Yet, the government provided WhatsApp communications from October 2020 and February 2021 between Palimere, friends of his, and then-Delaware state trooper Vincent Clemons3 (see TABs 6 – 6C), all of which refer to the form, a plan to send it to others, needing to get their stories straight about what occurred in 2020, and wanting the gun sale issue and the form exposed during the Presidential campaign.

3 Not to be lost is the fact that Clemons was the Delaware State Police officer who first arrived at Janssens’ grocery store on October 23, 2018 when Hallie Biden threw a bag containing the handgun into a trash can in front of the store. It was Clemons who took statements about the handgun from both Hallie and Hunter Biden and was part of filling out an official police report on the issue. Two years later, he is in the communications with Palimere about the Form 4473, one of which states: “Yep your side is simple – Hunter bought a gun from you, he filled out the proper forms and the Feds approved him for a purchase.” (emphasis added). Palimere later responded, “I’ll keep it short and sweet as well: Hunter bought a gun. The police visited me asking for verification of the purchase and that’s all I can recall from that day. It was over 2 years ago.” (TAB 6B, 10/26/20 Palimere-Clemons Texts at 4, 6.) The reference to filling out the “proper forms” is not lost on defense counsel given what transpired thereafter. And, despite the importance of Clemons (e.g., the person who actually took the statements), the Special Counsel is foregoing him as a witness to call two other Delaware officers instead.

I’m at a loss to imagine how Hines and Wise would distinguish the doctored gun form from the FD-1023 from Smirnov they claim is false. Both were an effort to criminalize the Biden family during the 2020 election. If anything, the retroactively doctored gun purchase form was more dangerous. And yet Hines and Wise charged Smirnov but didn’t charge the gun shop owner. Indeed, they successfully buried precisely the kind of texts showing bias they want to use against Smirnov.

This apparent double standard regarding doctored forms comes even as prosecutors are trying to prevent Smirnov from invoking Hunter’s failed plea hearing to claim (falsely) that Hunter got a sweetheart plea deal. In a filing signed by Wise, prosecutors claim that Smirnov was not mentioned at Hunter’s failed plea hearing, and so he would have no evidentiary reason to rely on the transcript.

[C]ontrary to the defendant’s representation, in the 110 pages of transcript attached to his motion, there is not a single reference to (1) the defendant or this prosecution, (2) “the sitting President,” (3) any accusations against the defendant, (4) the defendant’s “loyal service” to the FBI, or (5) that the defendant was a “Russian Spy.”

I asked Weiss’ spox whether Leo Wise was really claiming that Smirnov went unmentioned. “We will decline to comment beyond our statements and filings in court,” he replied.

But when Leo Wise responded to Judge Maryellen Noreika that, yes, even though Hunter Biden had been assured a month earlier there was no ongoing investigation, that there was in fact was an ongoing investigation,

THE COURT: All right. So you said there might be additional charges. Are you at liberty to tell us what you’re thinking those might be or is that just a hypothetical that there might be?

MR. WISE: It was a hypothetical response to your question.

THE COURT: Is there an ongoing investigation here?

MR. WISE: There is.

THE COURT: May I ask then why if there is we’re doing this piecemeal?

MR. WISE: Your Honor may ask, but I’m not in a position where I can say.

And then said he could still charge FARA violations,

MR. WISE: So I can tell you what I think we can’t charge. I can’t tell you what the ongoing investigation is. So, for instance, I think based on the terms of the agreement, we cannot bring tax evasion charges for the years described in the factual statement to the Plea Agreement. And I think we cannot bring for the firearms charges based on the firearm identified in the factual statement to the Diversion Agreement.

THE COURT: All right. So there are references to foreign companies, for example, in the facts section. Could the government bring a charge under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

MR. WISE: Yes.

And then got Special Counsel status that would only be required if Weiss were pursuing something implicating Joe Biden — like Smirnov’s bribery claim — he almost certainly was invoking Alexander Smirnov.

Wise made that claim even while Smirnov was still fighting to obtain material on David Weiss’ decision to chase the Smirnov allegation (there was a hearing on this yesterday, but nothing is docketed on it yet).

The Defendant requested communication related to the request that U.S. Attorney David Weiss’s team “assist” with “an investigation of allegations” related to the FD-1023. The government refuses to produce this material and ignores that fact that the government chose to include the following language in the Indictment: “In July 2023, the FBI requested that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware assist the FBI in an investigation of allegations related to the 2020 1023. At that time, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware was handling an investigation and prosecution of Businessperson 1.” Accordingly, not only did the government, in its Indictment, place the communications at issue, it is clear that the communication are relevant and discoverable. This request has been outstanding since March 5, 2024.

And the apparent double standard comes as Smirnov is attempting to put the conduct of Smirnov’s FBI handler — the guy who didn’t take alarm when Smirnov sent him already debunked Fox News disinformation — at issue.

The dispute over the handler’s conduct is taking two forms. First, prosecutors are trying to exclude Smirnov’s expert witness Gregory Scott Rogers, a former FBI agent who would testify to errors that Smirnov’s handler made. They’re also trying to exclude the content of three reports on the handling of Smirnov.

It has, predictably, declined into a display of prosecutorial dickishness.

In their motion to exclude Rogers, for example, the same prosecutorial team who claimed sawdust was cocaine made much of the that Smirnov’s expert witness said “upmost” instead of “utmost.”

Next, the disclosure states, “A CHS providing the type and amount of information provided by Smirnov should be handled with the upmost [sic.] diligence.” Disclosure at 5. According to Merriam-Webster, “upmost is frequently used as a mistaken spelling of utmost in its adjective and noun forms.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/grammar/utmost-vs-upmostdifference#:~:text=In%20its%20dictionary%20sense%2C%20upmost,its%20adjective% 20and%20noun%20forms (last viewed by author on November 1, 2024). The government assumes that Rogers meant to say “utmost,” but the fact that he can’t even produce an error free disclosure speaks to the quality of his proposed testimony. In any event, like his opinion that the defendant was “poorly handled,” his opinion that the defendant should have been handled with the “upmost diligence” is also undefined. So what does “upmost diligence” mean? The disclosure doesn’t tell us.

Of course, these prosecutors aren’t above making their own typos, as when a filing signed by Leo Wise uses “again” instead of “against.”

For example, the government plans to introduce communications found on the defendant’s electronic devices that similarly evidence bias again Public Official 1.

Yet they want to treat far more significant errors made by Smirnov’s handler as “essentially ministerial errors.”

Among the errors documented in the Source Reports include getting Smirnov’s name and birth country wrong.

The reports are also critical to the defense, including based on the anticipated testimony of the Defendant’s noticed expert. For example, in the February 13,2013, Field Office Annual Source Report, FOASR, the following deficiencies were noted:

1. The Handler failed to give the CHS extraterritorial travel admonishments;

2. The Handler allowed the CHS to conduct otherwise illegal activity, OIA, outside of approved time periods;

3. The Handler documented the CHS’s true name in the wrong CHS subfile;

4. The Handler placed an unrelated CHS’s NCIC record in this CHS’s file;

5. The Handler identified the wrong country of birth for this CHS in his file;

6. The Handler failed to document appropriate receipts for payments to the CHS;

7. CHS was allowed to conduct personal international travel without appropriate approval and documentation in his file.

In a later Standard Validation Report covering 2013-2021 it was noted:

1. HA continued to fail to appropriately obtain approval and document CHS’s international travel;

2. Derogatory information reported about the CHS and more unreported/undocumented otherwise illegal activity, OIA.

In the Source Validation Report for the period March, 2021-November, 2023 FBIHQ recommended that FBI Seattle, the office where the HA had transferred to from FBI San Francisco in 2019 and brought Smirnov’s file with him, stop operating the CHS noting that they believed that the CHS was no longer fully under the HA’s control, may be committing unauthorized illegal activity, UIA, and concern that the media’s reporting of the CHS’s information concerning the Biden family’s influence peddling in Ukraine would vitiate his ability to continue to function as a CHS. In that same document, it was recommended that CHS be polygraphed. Based upon the records provided by the government, it does not appear that a polygraph of Mr. Smirnov was ever scheduled or conducted.

Smirnov claims he can prove that he said and did things with his handler that did not get documented. If he can prove that, then it’s going to be hard for prosecutors to prove that Smirnov’s claims are lies rather than that the FBI agent fucked up.

That said, there’s something more interesting about the validation reports on Smirnov: They go through November 2023 and still treat him as a viable informant. November is when, on November 7, David Weiss said the Brady side channel would only appear in his final report. November is when, on November 15, Abbe Lowell asked for discovery on the side channel. And November is when, on November 16, CNN reported that the FBI had dropped its pursuit of FARA and bribery allegations.

Smirnov’s lawyers are right there’s a tie between how Hunter Biden was treated and why he was charged. But they’ve got the emphasis wrong.

All the evidence suggests that prosecutors had to charge him or risk their Hunter Biden case too.

Filings

September 26: Smirnov motion to continue

September 27: Weiss response on motion to continue

October 14: Smirnov warns of motion to compel

October 15: Judge Otis Wright denies continuance

October 28: Government response to discovery

October 31: Smirnov reply on discovery

October 31: Smirnov motions in limine

November 1: Government motions in limine

November 4: Renewed bid to continue trial based on delayed discovery

November 5: Motion to dismiss for discovery violations

November 5: Opposition to renewed bid to continue

November 8: Judge Wright denies motion to compel

November 12: Response to motion to dismiss on discovery violations

November 15: Defense response to motions in limine

October 31: Government response to motions in limine

Share this entry

Special Counsel Reports Include Declination Decisions

/48 Comments/in , , , , /by

In this appearance on BradCast last week, I scoffed a bit at this Devlin Barrett/Glenn Thrush piece. The headline news — that Jack Smith will step down before Trump comes in — was fairly obvious from Smith’s request for three weeks to figure out what to do. The focus on Smith’s obligatory report is something I made clear a week earlier. To be sure, the piece relies on interviews to confirm that Smith (and his staff) will resign, that only outside decisions could thwart their effort to finish up, that Smith has encouraged those who don’t have to stick around to move on.

It’s this section, which aside from the assertion that most of the classification vetting has already been done, is not attributed to the anonymous sources for the story (but which could rely on background sources), that I find odd.

Justice Department regulations require a special counsel’s report to explain why the prosecutor decided to file the charges they did, and why they decided not to file any other charges they considered.

But like much of Mr. Smith’s work involving Mr. Trump, this step is fraught with both technical and practical challenges that could make the report significantly different — and shorter — from the lengthy tomes produced by other recent special counsels. It also unlikely to contain much in the way of new or revelatory disclosures.

Mr. Smith, who has been the subject of round-the-clock protection after receiving death threats since taking over, has already described much of the evidence and legal theories behind the election obstruction indictment. Since he filed two separate and lengthy indictments last year against Mr. Trump, he has supplemented that record with scores of court filings elaborating on the allegations.

One potential wrinkle for the filing and release of Mr. Smith’s report is that it may have to undergo a careful review by U.S. intelligence agencies for any classified information. That can be a lengthy process. Intelligence agencies took weeks to review Mr. Hur’s report.

But in the case of Mr. Smith’s final report, most of that vetting has already been done, so officials expect that step to take little time.

It correctly describes that Special Counsel regulations require them to report on why they filed particular charges … but also why they didn’t file other charges, their declination decisions, but then suggests we’ve already seen what there is to see.

Jack Smith’s declination decisions are one place where a report might get interesting. Just as one example, the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago listed three suspected crimes: 18 USC 793(e) (retaining national defense information) and 18 USC 1519 (concealing a document to obstruct an investigation), both of which were charged. But it also listed 18 USC 2071 (removal of documents). That crime was not charged, even though the indictment describes that Trump personally oversaw the process of packing up boxes (that a witness described Trump knew) containing classified documents to send to Mar-a-Lago.

In January 2021, as he was preparing to leave the White House, TRUMP and his White House staff, including NAUTA, packed items, including some of TRUMP’s boxes. TRUMP was personally involved in this process. TRUMP caused his boxes, containing hundreds of classified documents, to be transported from the White House to The Mar-a-Lago Club.

Since the warrant was made public, there has been a pretty heated discussion about 2071, not least because Republicans claimed that Smith had considered charging it, which carries a light three year maximum sentence but also disqualifies someone from holding office again, as a way to disqualify Trump from running for President.

There are at least two obvious explanations for why Smith didn’t charge 2071. Perhaps it would be impossible to charge a President under 2071, given that until noon on January 20, 2021, he had authority to do whatever he wanted with those classified documents, sending them off while he was still President. Or perhaps Smith thought he could have charged it, but first needed the testimony of one of the key people involved in the packing process: Walt Nauta.

The reasons behind that prosecutorial decision not to charge Trump for intentionally taking classified documents with him are interesting for another reason. Among the classified documents discovered at Mar-a-Lago that weren’t charged is a “compilation” that mixed communications with “a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster” with some kind of classified information.

This document is a compilation that includes three documents that post-date Plaintiff’s term in office and two classified cover sheets, one SECRET and the other CONFIDENTIAL. Because Plaintiff can only have received the documents bearing classification markings in his capacity as President, the entire mixed document is a Presidential record.

Besides the classified cover sheets, which were inserted by the FBI in lieu of the actual documents, none of the remaining communications in the document are confidential presidential communications that might be subject to a claim of executive privilege. Three communications are from a book author, a religious leader, and a pollster. The first two cannot be characterized as presidential advisers and all three are either dated or by content occurred after Plaintiff’s administration ended. [my emphasis]

These documents are nowhere near as sensitive as the ones actually charged against Trump; prosecutors probably prioritized documents that it would be easy to convince a jury they were “national defense information” for the indictment, an explanation that also may appear in the report. But the compilation of classified information with a pollster’s message also suggest that Trump not only took classified documents home, but he used them as part of his campaign to get elected again (it would be particularly interesting if this document pertained to something like Israel).

And note NYT’s description that “most of that vetting has already been done”? In discovery communications, prosecutors have described that some of the classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago have since been declassified; for others, prosecutors would have been working on substitutions they might use in case of trial. So for less sensitive documents, prosecutors may be able to describe precisely what Trump took.

Another classified document, classified Secret, found at Mar-a-Lago but not charged is the very first classified document the FBI found, something pertaining to Emmanuel Macron and associated, in some way, with an Executive Grant of Clemency for Roger Stone stashed (unlike all the other pardon packages found in the search) in Trump’s own desk drawer. I’ll admit that, given my understanding of the Stone investigation, I’m particularly interested in this file, but here’s to hoping that prosecutors will satisfy my curiosity about the document.

There are similarly important declination decisions on the January 6 side of the investigation.

The most obvious of those is why Jack Smith never indicted any of the eight people variously treated as co-conspirators: Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, Jeffrey Clark (who was removed in the superseding indictment pursuant to SCOTUS’ immunity ruling), Ken Chesebro, Boris Ephsteyn, and — treated as co-conspirators in the immunity brief but not the superseding indictment — Steve Bannon and Mike Roman. It might be as simple as a decision, given the course of the Mueller investigation, to ensure that Trump couldn’t pardon these co-conspirators before charging any of them.

But prosecutors might also explain why Bannon and Roman only belatedly got included as co-conspirators. I have speculated that it may have to do with delays in exploiting the phones of Roman and Epshteyn. If that’s true in the case of Ephsteyn, those delays would likely have arisen from post-hoc privilege claims tied to Epshteyn’s claim to be Trump’s lawyer. And if that is true, it would mean Trump’s nominee for Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, was the one who fought for the delay.

In any case, any discussion of Trump’s co-conspirators may prove useful to the extent that state prosecutors are able to sustain their cases against the co-conspirators.

Finally, though, there is perhaps the most important declination decision: the decision — after Congress impeached Trump and the January 6 Committee referred for prosecution — not to charge 18 USC 2383, inciting insurrection, the single charge that (per SCOTUS’ decision in the Colorado case) could have disqualified Trump from the Presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasoning here might be fairly prosaic: Perhaps Smith feared precisely the immunity challenge, tied to impeachment acquittal, that Trump launched anyway. Perhaps Smith was not able to substantiate that case until he received evidence and testimony that post-dated the delay John Roberts caused, and so could charge insurrection now, but could not have done so in August 2023, when he first indicted Trump.

If Smith were to explain why he declined that charge, however, he would — as Robert Hur did in his 388-declination report — describe the evidence that would have supported such a charge.

NYT suggests Smith’s report will be short; again, it’s not clear whether that reflects information received on background, or just speculation. Smith has had an eternity to consider the possibility Trump would be elected, and he managed to write up the 165-page immunity brief in the same three weeks he gave himself in asking for an extension until December 2.

Even assuming we’ve already seen the evidence Smith has — Smith’s decision to exclude mention of the Proud Boys and Trump’s January 6 fundraising from the immunity brief suggests there may be stuff we have not seen — the declination decisions, themselves, may provide important answers to questions about whether it ever was possible to disqualify Trump from becoming president again.

And it’s a marker in the sand. The report presumably will, at least, lay out some of the consequences of what John Roberts has wreaked. Republicans won’t care. But that lays out what they own going forward.

Share this entry

Boris Epshteyn’s One-Two Punch on DOJ

/103 Comments/in , , /by

Politico had a detail about the Matt Gaetz selection that I’ve seen no one else pick up.

It was Boris Epshteyn’s idea.

How did we get here? That story is still coming out, but here’s what we know. As of Monday, Gaetz was not on the short list to be Trump’s choice for attorney general. But Trump wasn’t satisfied with those options, our Meridith McGraw tells Playbook.

[snip]

The Gaetz-for-AG plan came together yesterday, just hours before it was announced, Meridith tells us. It was hatched aboard Trump’s airplane en route to Washington, on which Gaetz was a passenger. A Trump official revealed more details to Playbook late last night: BORIS EPSHTEYN played a central role in the development, lobbying Trump to choose Gaetz while incoming White House chief of staff SUSIE WILES was in a different, adjacent room on the plane, apparently unaware.

Maggie and Swan have retconned that detail to describe, only, that Boris, Elon, and Susie Wiles were all on the plane, then fluffed it all into bullshit about clarity of what he wants.

Boris’ role in Trump’s apparent plan to destroy the country has gotten little notice amid the parlor games focused on when the two narcissists, Elon and Trump, will tear each other down. But his apparent role in this decision bears more notice.

After all, he’s unindicted co-conspirator 6 in the January 6 indictment. He had a central (though uncharged) role in the documents case, orchestrating parts of the plan to have Evan Corcoran do the search but have Christina Bobb do the certification. And he was or may still be under investigation, with Steve Bannon, for a cryptocurrency scheme that cheated Trump’s rubes.

His communications with now Chief of Staff designate Susie Wiles appear to have been a subject of interest for investigators — a subject tied to what a witness that is likely Eric Herschmann described as an effort to cover his own past legal exposure with a retroactive claim to have been acting as an attorney.

And the potentially belated access to the contents of his phone are what expanded the focus of the immunity brief to incorporate Bannon as an unindicted co-conspirator and Bannon’s prediction that “All Hell will break loose” part of the plot.

Donald Trump was considering actual lawyers for the role of Attorney General, but (per Marc Caputo) didn’t like them because they talked Constitution and all that.

“Everyone else looked at AG as if they were applying for a judicial appointment. They talked about their vaunted legal theories and constitutional bullshit. Gaetz was the only one who said, ‘Yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ fuckin’ heads.’”

And then, at least according to Politico, Wiles left the room and Boris convinced Trump to pick Gaetz.

After that, Trump has announced plans to install his defense team — Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, and John Sauer — as Deputy Attorney General, PADAG, and Solicitor General, respectively (note: PADAG is not a confirmed position, so Trump only announced it to make the intent crystal clear).

Now, Bove and Sauer are at least competent to the positions Trump will install them in. All three men know their way around DOJ. Blanche is less horrible than the Gaetz pick — again, if you ignore the symbolism of converting the Department of Justice into the defense firm for the President.

And he’s also Boris’ defense attorney. He was Boris’ defense attorney and then, possibly at Boris’ suggestion, added Trump as a client, creating some challenges regarding discovery.

According to Politico, a key player in Trump’s assault on the Constitution, on the Capitol, is the guy who picked Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General (or who suggested Matt Gaetz be proposed for Attorney General, creating an impossible loyalty test for the Senate).

And the competent people reporting to Gaetz are there to mount a defense.

Share this entry

The Orbanization of US Politics Began Years Ago

/66 Comments/in , , , /by

In this post, I posited a way of understanding the election. Where Kamala Harris and down ballot Democrats engaged in traditional politics, it worked (as exhibited by Harris’ better performance in swing states and the retention of at least four of the swing state Senate seats, among other things). But propaganda worked far better across the board (exhibited, in part, by the large numbers of disaffected voters who supported Trump because they believed false claims about his policies or were mobilized by propaganda campaigns stoking fear).

Since I wrote the post, the election results have actually gotten a lot closer. Trump won by a lower percentage of the popular vote than Joe Biden did (and only just cracked 50% of the vote), and like Biden, won by narrow margins in the states that mattered.

If I’m right about that dynamic — that politics worked but propaganda worked far better — then it means much of the post-election soul-searching is misplaced (and, indeed, a dangerous misallocation of focus). That’s because Harris lost, in part, because of media disfunction, because electoral choice became dissociated from political persuasion more than any recent US election, largely due to an assault on the press and rational thought.

All this builds on Fox News and other institutions of right wing propaganda — though, partly because of the Dominion judgment and partly because Pete Buttigieg had started to crack through that facade, that’s an area where Dems did important work.

It builds on the hollowing out of the traditional press that has been happened for years, as corporate raiders turn news into a profit center. Several things made that worse, this year. As WSJ reported the other day, social media referrals to legacy newspapers cratered last year.

This was a deliberate choice by gatekeepers to dramatically alter their function, from a referral service to a disinformation swamp. But it had an immediate affect on the readership of those legacy outlets and other services relying on them, effectively neutering their power. (One reason I recommend Bluesky over other Xitter alternatives is because Bluesky encourages outlinks.)

At the same time, the oligarchs who own those papers shifted their priorities in ways that would have more subtle impact on the coverage. WSJ, which has flourished in spite of the media environment, nevertheless fired a bunch of journalists in spring, targeting local news and, anecdotally, a certain profile of journalist. Jeff Bezos taunted WaPo’s reporters with their declining influence when he brought in Will Lewis, a Murdoch retread with a history of protecting the boss, and Will Lewis reveled in the kind of ethically problematic both sides journalism that chases manufactured scandals as much as GOP crime. Bezos taunted his journalists again when he declined to endorse Kamala Harris, only to issue a simpering congratulations once Trump won.

There’s still a lot to unpack about the turn of the oligarchs (I’ve left out their embrace of AI because I hope even they will soon have to concede that AI hasn’t replaced human workers but it has enshittified their product). But when a number of these things all happened in spring, I remember wondering whether all the oligarch owners had gotten together in a room and decided to make their product worse in an election year, all in the name of chasing different kinds of influence.

Partly, they’re trying to compete with podcasts. And while there’s a lot to be said for the authenticity of podcasts, it’s another industry driven by algorithms, and some of the key platforms cater to far right politics.

Before we turn to Musk, consider that Trump used manufactured grievances — including the goddamned Hunter Biden hard drive!! — from 2020 to bully Mark Zuckerberg in advance of the election. It’s unclear to what degree Zuckerberg’s efforts to depoliticize Meta stem from fear, from a desire for another tax cut, or from a genuine solidarity with his oligarch brothers. Whatever the motive, Threads was built not to replicate what Twitter used to be, yet it continues to be the destination for journalists exercising no critical thinking of what they need from a new social media platform. And Meta sold at least a million dollars in ad spending that violated Meta guidelines. Something led Zuckerberg to reverse his prior support for democracy, and it had a significant effect on the election.

Ah, Elon Musk. Perhaps his original motivation for buying Xitter was simply the imagined moral injury his ego suffered when Grimes ditched him to (briefly) date Chelsea Manning and his daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson, transitioned (since the election, Wilson has announced she’s leaving the US for a country more welcoming to trans people). But the plan definitely took shape in the aftermath of January 6. It appears to have taken shape with the kibbitzing of Stephen Miller.

Musk — aided by David Sacks — played a key role in the kind of operation we see in the Viktor Orbán regime, but which happened in order to install Trump for a second term. By giving Substackers who were willing to misrepresent primary documents access to Xitter’s documents, Musk created a false narrative about moderation, pitching voluntary efforts to protect democracy as instead efforts to censor far right speech. That, in turn, gave demagogues in Congress the opportunity to create the appearance of substantiating that narrative with an investigation into the people who formerly moderated social media. This investigation resulted in legal costs and death threats to those involved — but only easily debunked propaganda reports that melt under the least scrutiny.

Nevertheless, those investigations have an enormous chilling effect. Paired with lawsuits against entities like the Stanford Internet Observatory, they disrupted most of the infrastructure attempting to limit disinformation on social media.

When Congressmen like Jordan and James Comer investigate, they aren’t bound by mere facts. They invent wildly. But with the help of process-oriented Congressional beat journalists, they still manage to tell their tales anyway. Such journalists report what Jordan and Comer said and who they’ve subpoenaed with almost no scrutiny of whether any of it makes sense. Those beat journalists are getting played.

This is precisely the kind of persecution of civil society at which Viktor Orbán has excelled. Many people are just beginning to think of what will come, but (as Renee DiResta, one of the targets of Jim Jordan’s wrath, keeps noting on Bluesky), what will come already started, years ago, and accelerated two years ago in earnest.

The election result significantly built on these prior Orbanization efforts. Certainly, Xitter became the cesspool of disinformation that researchers formerly combatted. Musk favored pro-Trump speech and seems to have throttled others (though some of Musk’s Terms of Service and API changes make it far harder to quantify). That favored speech includes his own, from the day he endorsed Trump.

And it wasn’t just the assault on moderation. Congress also targeted state and local prosecutors, the professionalization of the FBI, FTC Commissioner Lina Khan, any pushback on Elon Musk, and even government efforts to protect against Russian influence operations. The lawsuits against media outlets — even the embarrassingly frivolous ones launched by Devin Nunes, and the efforts to co-opt oligarch owners, also played a role. The Hunter Biden witch hunt, with its mythical foundation in the laptop that is not a laptop, its projections of corruption, the constant narrative it fed right wing propaganda (drowning out even Ron DeSantis’ bid to challenge Trump), was undoubtedly a big part of Joe Biden’s terrible approval ratings, and it is precisely what we’ll see all the time going forward.

We can’t assess the election without assessing the degree to which such efforts impacted the race. We sure as hell can’t discuss how to win the next election without thinking of how Republicans will work to further neuter liberal and nonpartisan civil society that protects democracy. Some of the biggest supporters for Kamala Harris will spend the next four years fighting to protect their professional lives and, in some cases, even their freedom.

The same disinformation researchers who’ve been evicted from safe university posts did their job in at least documenting what happened and in real time the press tracked what they were seeing (and what dedicated journalists found themselves). Next time, however, both the disinformation researchers and the press will be under more sustained assault (or, via their oligarch owners, cooptation), both via targeting their funding and creating more scapegoats to chill such work.

So if you want to think about the next election — if you’re optimistic enough to assume there will be a next election — you have to factor in the assault on civil society that has already started and will ratchet up in the next few years.

Share this entry

How Garland-Whinger Ankush Khardori’s Willful Impotence Helps Trump Evade Accountability

/80 Comments/in , , /by

There’s a telling quote from Greg Sargent in his description of Kamala Harris’ difficulties in convincing voters that Trump was a bad president.

Some Democrats believe that the leading pro-Harris Super PAC, Future Forward, failed to spend enough of its enormous budget on advertising early on that might have reminded voters of the horrors of the Trump presidency. That perhaps allowed him to slowly rehabilitate himself and edge up his favorable numbers while Democrats weren’t looking.

“There was a calculation among Democrats after 2020 that Trump was disqualified and wouldn’t be back,” Democratic data analyst Tom Bonier told me. “That evolved into a calculation that he would be disqualified by his legal troubles and could end up in jail. Democrats undeniably failed to disqualify him. The result was that by the time the Harris campaign started, it was too late.”

“Was disqualified … would be disqualified … failed to disqualify.”

Bonier is just one person. But the passivity he describes on the part of Democrats expecting and hoping that some magic unicorn would just make the problem of Donald Trump go away is telling. As described, Democrats as a party apparently abdicated all agency for making that case themselves until it was far too late.

It is precisely the reason I’m so impatient with the Merrick Garland whinger industry, which has flourished again since Trump’s win: because they replicate precisely the impotence that got us here. They always asked that Garland do the work, singlehandedly, of making Trump go away, without considering the political groundwork that was necessary to any successful legal case.

Take Ankush Khardori’s description of Trump’s legal impunity. After laying out that, with his election, Trump’s legal troubles will now go away, with which I mostly agree, Khardori then lays out his three culprits: Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell, SCOTUS.

His culprits are not in temporal order; if McConnell — who had an immediate way to disqualify Trump from further office — had engaged in an impeachment effort, DOJ would have had more time to prosecute.

They’re not in order of culpability. He addresses SCOTUS’ actions in four paragraphs close to the end of his rant. He ignores how their interventions on the Colorado case and Fischer also affected DOJ’s options, and never mentions precisely how long they stalled the case: eight months, with a guarantee of more on the back end. Once you address SCOTUS’ delays and rewriting of the Constitution, it’s not clear a case could ever have been brought before an election, even ignoring how COVID stalled everything for a year, to say nothing of bringing an insurrection charge that would be (per the Colorado decision) the only thing that could disqualify Trump from office. If that’s the case, it wouldn’t matter whether Garland or a gun-toting Adam Schiff, as prosecutor, were in charge. SCOTUS’ intervention, assuming it would have been the same whether it happened in 2021 or 2022 or 2023, was decisive. Trump’s judges made a prosecution of him before the election impossible and further ruled that the only thing that could disqualify him was an insurrection charge.

Instead of focusing primarily on the main culprits, Khardori prioritizes what he imagines was Garland’s role over that of McConnell and — astonishingly — SCOTUS.

And as is typical with Garland whingers, his indictment of Garland is riddled with problems (and, as the red typeface I used to mark links to his own past pieces shows, his own bellybutton lint).

It is now clearer than ever that Garland was a highly questionable choice to serve as attorney general from the start. From the outset of the Biden presidency, it was readily apparent that Garland had little desire to investigate and potentially prosecute Trump.

The most comprehensive accounts on the matter, from investigative reporting at The Washington Post and The New York Times, strongly indicate that the Jan. 6 committee’s investigation and public hearings in 2022 effectively forced Garland to investigate Trump and eventually to appoint Smith in November of that year — nearly two years after Trump incited the riot at the Capitol.

There are many people — including many Democratic legal pundits — who have continued to defend this delay and may continue to do so, so let me be very clear: Those people are wrong.

It was clear after Trump’s loss in 2020 — even before Jan. 6 — that his conduct warranted serious legal scrutiny by the Justice Department, particularly in the area of potential financial crimes. But that probe, which could and should have been pursued by Biden’s U.S. Attorney and aspiring attorney general in Manhattan, somehow never materialized.

It was also clear — on Jan. 6 itself — that Trump may have committed criminal misconduct after his loss in 2020 that required immediate and serious attention from the Justice Department.

The formation of the Jan. 6 committee in early 2021 did nothing to change the calculus. There too, it was clear from the start that there would still need to be a criminal investigation to deliver any meaningful legal accountability for Trump.

In fact, the warning signs for where this could all end up — where the country finds itself now — were clear by late 2021, less than a year into Biden’s term. The public reporting at the time indicated (correctly, we now know) that there was no real Justice Department investigation into Trump and his inner circle at that point, even though the outlines of a criminal case against Trump — including some of the charges themselves that were eventually brought nearly two years later — were already apparent.

As a result, the Biden administration and the Garland Justice Department were running an extremely obvious risk — namely, that Trump would run for reelection and win, and that any meaningful criminal accountability for his misconduct after 2020 would literally become impossible. That, of course, has now happened. It was all eminently predictable.

Garland’s defenders over the years — including many Democratic lawyers who regularly appear on cable news — claimed that Garland and the department were simply following a standard, “bottom-up” investigative effort. Prosecutors would start with the rioters, on this theory, and then eventually get to Trump.

This never made any sense.

It did not reflect some unwritten playbook for criminal investigations. In fact, in criminal cases involving large and potentially overlapping groups of participants — as well as serious time sensitivity — good prosecutors try to get to the top as quickly as possible.

The Justice Department can — and should — have quickly pursued the rioters and Trump in parallel. The fact that many legal pundits actually defended this gross dereliction of duty — and actually argued that this was the appropriate course — continues to amaze me.

As for Garland, his legacy is now out of his control, and the early returns are not looking good.

Garland is a serious, well-intentioned and complex figure. But given all this, he may go down as one of the worst and most broadly unpopular attorney generals in American history — hated by the anti-Trump part of the country for failing to bring Trump to justice, and hated by the pro-Trump part of the country for pursuing Trump at all. I sincerely hope he provides a first-hand accounting of what happened after he too leaves office next year.

The only sources of information on the investigation Khardori cites (aside from his own posts about what he could see without looking) are a WaPo and a NYT article. From both, only Glenn Thrush, a political journalist rehabilitated to the DOJ beat, covered the Trump case closely; none covered the larger investigation.

The WaPo article, which fairly obviously relies heavily on sources from the January 6 Committee members and people who left DOJ when Garland came in, has a number of problems I’ve laid out before (one, two, three).

  • It missed the significance of Brandon Straka, whose “cooperation” I believe was mishandled, but had it not been, might have gotten you into the Willard in March 2021.
  • It focused on the Oath Keepers and almost entirely ignores the Proud Boys, and in the process misunderstands the specific role they played, the ways DOJ under Bill Barr had made their prosecution far harder, and their importance to any hypothetical insurrection charge (because they kicked off the insurrection before Trump did, a problem impeachment prosecutors faced).
  • It ignored the decisions DOJ made with Rudy Giuliani’s phone — which was seized with a warrant obtained on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job — which made that content, including content J6C never got, available to DOJ starting in November 2021.
  • It ignored the way DOJ, in August 2021, opportunistically used the prior Deferred Prosecution Agreement of Alex Jones sidekick Owen Shroyer to arrest and exploit the phone of someone who otherwise would likely be protected under media guidelines.
  • It ignored the overt investigative steps against Sidney Powell taken no later than September 2021.
  • It ignored a subpoena that was overt in May 2022, which included people who were not immediately a focus of J6C (and so not derivative of that investigation), as well as warrants dating no later than May 2022 targeting (among others) John Eastman. Since then, thanks to Khardori’s colleagues at Politico who do cover these investigations, we’ve learned the exact date that kicked off over ten months of Executive Privilege fights to get the testimony of 14 of Trump’s closest aides: June 15, 2022, one day before J6C interviewed those same witnesses: Marc Short and Greg Jacob. Which is to say, WaPo’s timeline even of known investigative steps is off in a way that suggests DOJ was entirely derivative of J6C, which it could not have been.
  • Perhaps predictably, given the obvious reliance on J6C sources, it didn’t talk about how their decision to delay sharing transcripts from April until December 2022 withheld information both helpful and crucial from criminal investigators.

More importantly, WaPo focused on Steve D’Antuono’s hesitancy to turn to the fake electors, even as DOJ was pushing to do so. Which is to say that D’Antuono — someone no longer at DOJ — was the key cause for delay, not Garland.

So there are a lot of problems with the WaPo story that Khardori, if he had actually tracked the investigation or followed those of us (including Politico’s own reporters) who do, should have known.

But Khardori didn’t even need to do that to understand that the WaPo had blind spots. That’s because the NYT story describes two prongs of the investigation, started in 2021, that don’t make the WaPo. It describes that,

  • Garland encouraged investigators to follow the money in his first meeting with them, though that turned out to be largely a dead end (note: Garland publicly implied that investigators were following the money in October 2021).
  • By summer of 2021, Lisa Monaco convened a team focusing on John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, Rudy, and Roger Stone.

The NYT story missed a lot of what I included above, too (though not the Proud Boys), but it tells a very different story about efforts to focus on people close to Trump in 2021 than the WaPo did.

In spite of the NYT description of two prongs of the investigation that started in March and summer 2021 that attempted to get directly to those in Trump’s orbit, Khardori spent four paragraphs of his complaint claiming that DOJ had exclusively tried to work their way up from rioters. That’s not what the public record shows, it’s not what NYT says happened, it’s not what public reports on the Powell subpoenas say, it’s not what Garland said in October 2021 testimony. And yet that is the basis Khardori uses to condemn Garland. Further, the NYT describes that, in his first meeting with investigators, Garland, “said he would place no restrictions on their work, even if the ‘evidence leads to Trump,'” That statement is inconsistent with most of Khardori’s first two paragraphs on Garland. The Attorney General told investigators from the start he had no problem investigating Trump. Yet Khardori still links his own past work and claims vindication, rather than confessing that, if the NYT piece he relies on is accurate, he was wrong.

Which is to say, Khardori doesn’t claim to (and shows no signs of) having reviewed how the investigation actually happened.  That’s not his job, I guess, as a legal journalist. Instead, he relies on two sources, one of which partly debunks the other, as well as countering his own claim about Garland’s unwillingness to investigate and his four-paragraph argument that Garland should have pursued multiple routes to Trump but did not.

There are facts. And Khardori chooses to ignore them, clinging instead to past assertions that he falsely claims have been vindicated.

It’s the most irresponsible kind of laziness. Without having learned what really happened, Khardori concocts out of his uncertainty and frustration broad judgements that support his priors but are inconsistent with the public record. Via that invented theory to explain the scary unknown, Merrick Garland remains his primary villain, not John Roberts, not Mitch McConnell.

Poof! Thousands of clicks, each time misleading another despondent reader, encouraging helplessness.

Having made Garland his villain, he proclaims defeat.

I am, if anything, more furious than Khardori that Trump will not face legal accountability for his alleged crimes, because I know the kind of insurrectionists whose likely pardons will effectively flip patriotism on its head, valorizing Trump over country. This is a potentially irreparable blow to rule of law in the US.

But I’m not ready, as Khardori seems to be, to concede defeat. That’s because legal accountability is not the only recourse; indeed, we were never going to get legal accountability without first demanding political accountability. That’s the mistake many made: by looking passively at Merrick Garland and begging for a sparkle unicorn to make Trump go away, many failed to take steps, themselves, to hold Republicans to account for abandoning rule of law.

Consider how Khardori disempowers himself elsewhere in his column. Here’s how he describes Jack Smith’s closure of the case.

Already there is reporting suggesting that special counsel Jack Smith will leave his post and dismiss the pending cases, which is not that surprising considering that Trump pledged to fire him once back in office anyway.

He describes this as driven by Trump’s threat to fire Jack Smith, not DOJ regulations that prohibit further prosecution. He doesn’t link or consider any of the reports that lay out the obvious: by stepping down rather than waiting to get fired, Smith obliges himself to write a report. He chooses how he will go out. Admittedly, Khardori published his piece before last week’s filing that suggests we’ll have, at least, clarity by early December which, if it were the actual report, would (among other things) be early enough to hold a hearing.

That’s not going to change Trump’s win. But it provides an opportunity to lay a marker in the sand: This is what Republicans have chosen to enable going forward. This is what Republicans have chosen as a party to become.

It lays a marker for the two other villains in Khardori’s column: McConnell and the other Senate Republicans who refused to convict Trump, and John Roberts and his colleagues who vastly expanded his power without even knowing what Jack Smith had discovered.

Fresh off a big electoral victory, I doubt any will much care. But when the obvious repercussions come — when a guy who stored nuclear documents in a coat closet further compromises US security — the report and the hearing provide a marker that those who failed to stop Trump were warned and chose to do nothing (or worse, on the part of SCOTUS, chose to give him more power).

One of the only remaining possible checks on Trump’s power are the people in the Senate and SCOTUS who failed to check him on these alleged crimes before (though SCOTUS did check some of his other initiatives the first time around). We won’t soon persuade any of them to change their minds. But that doesn’t mean we stop trying — or at least laying a record of their complicity. In that path lies capitulation.

All the more so given that Roberts and his colleagues will be the villains in many more stories that have direct impact on people’s lives going forward.

Donald Trump is about to do a great deal of outrageous things at the start of his term to reverse the treatment of January 6 as a crime. The response cannot be to say, ho hum, if only that awful Merrick Garland would have yelled louder, and give up, especially not when no amount of yelling was going to change what SCOTUS did.

The response is to stop hoping for a sparkle unicorn to do this work for us. The response is to take some agency for making the case about Donald Trump. And a first step in that process is to stop blaming Garland for things — the public record shows — he didn’t do, and especially to stop blaming Garland for things that more important villains, like John Roberts, did do.

The first step to effective accountability is to identify the actual villain.

Update: Ty Cobb, when asked what he thinks about Trump’s promise to pardon the Jan6 defendants, stated, I don’t think anybody in our history has more tarnished the rule of law than Donald Trump.”

Share this entry

Jack Smith Asks for Three Weeks

/32 Comments/in , /by

Jack Smith just requested and got a consent motion to file a status report “or otherwise inform” Judge Tanya Chutkan of what they’re going to do with the January 6 case.

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy. By December 2, 2024, the Government will file a status report or otherwise inform the Court of the result of its deliberations. The Government has consulted with defense counsel, who do not object to this request.

If that “otherwise inform” is a report, it would be done in plenty of time for Dick Durbin to hold a hearing.

Share this entry