Trump’s Coup Attempts: A Tale of Five Pardon Dangles

In an analysis piece earlier this week, the NYT reported as newsworthy that,

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump also dangled, for the first time, that he could issue pardons to anyone facing charges for participating in the Jan. 6 attack if he is elected president again — the latest example of a yearslong flirtation with political violence.

Politico followed that with a report that Trump at least considered blanket pardons for those who might be implicated in January 6.

“Is it everybody that had a Trump sign or everybody who walked into the Capitol” who could be pardoned? Trump asked, according to that adviser. “He said, ‘Some people think I should pardon them.’ He thought if he could do it, these people would never have to testify or be deposed.”

Offering preemptive pardons is not a new idea for Trump. According to Michael Cohen, Trump also entertained bulk pardons with the Russian investigation before Jay Sekulow figured out that it would make it easier for people to testify against him.

Q What is – you had a conversation with Jay Sekulow about something called a pre-pardon?

A Yes.

Q How many conversations did you have with him about pre-pardoning

A One or two.

Q And what did he say to you?

A The problem with a pre-pardon is that you have to answer every question because technically you have immunity, so you can’t assert any Fifth Amendment privilege.

Q Let’s back up for a second, because that presupposes that you’ve already discussed the idea of you getting a pardon. Did Jay Sekulow tell you that the President was considering giving you a pardon?

A That’s not the way that he stated it, but we had a conversation, one at least – I believe it may have been two – and I am not 100 percent certain of the exact date that that occurred, but the concept of a pre-pardon was discussed, yes.

Q Okay. So if you said that’s not exactly how he said it, what do you remember him saying about the idea of you getting a pardon?

A Well, it wasn’t just me. It was globally, in order to, I guess, shut down, you know, this investigation. And I had said to him, you know, what .. well, you know, there’s always the possibility of a pre-pardon. And –

Q Let’s take your time, because it’s important for us to understand not just the gist of the conversation but who said what exactly. All right? So you mentioned something called a global pardon. Did he use that term?

A No.

Q Okay. What do you mean by a global pardon?

A Okay. That in order to shut this whole thing down, that this is how they were potentially going to do it, and everybody would just get a pardon. And said, well, it wouldn’t be a pardon, it would be a pre-pardon, because nobody’s been charged yet. So it ultimately just became, that’s not really something that could be accomplished, because then they’d have the right, again, to ask you questions, everyone on the team.

Q So when you say everyone, who do you mean?

A I guess whoever it is that you started to request to come in, testify, subpoenaed.

And in Trump’s last days in office, he considered pre-emptive pardons, but — in part because of Pat Cipollone’s opposition — he did not do so.

It is the case that Trump has now dangled pardons at a time he doesn’t have the power to grant them. Even that is not new, though, given that Roger Stone was brokering a Julian Assange pardon no later than November 15, 2016 and probably starting even before the election, in October 2016.

This latest dangle is more newsworthy, though — and for reporters who don’t want to enable Trump’s authoritarian power, ought to be reported as — an attempt to reclaim power he already lost after reneging on promises of pardons made while he still had the power to grant them.

It is not news that Trump used pardon dangles as one tool to attempt a coup on January 6. At least five people directly involved in the coup attempt benefitted from pardons, some awarded at key times in the planning process, with Steve Bannon’s issued at the last possible moment.

It is not news that Trump is making pardon dangles publicly to try to bend the will and buy the silence of others. This latest pardon dangle comes in the wake of five events, all of which pose a direct threat to Trump:

  • December 15: The Select Committee contempt referral for Mark Meadows that puts him at risk of Presidential Records Act and obstruction prosecution
  • January 12: The indictment on sedition charges of the Oath Keepers whose testimony could most directly damage Trump
  • January 19: SCOTUS’ refusal to reverse the DC Circuit order allowing the Archives to share Trump records
  • January 19: The delivery to prosecutors, on January 19, of a large number of texts and messages from Rudy Giuliani’s phones
  • January 20: The Select Committee request for Ivanka’s testimony, which strongly suggested she has violated the Presidential Records Act
  • January 21: The report from Sidney Powell’s attorney that she is “cooperating” in her own prosecution and the Select Committee

What’s newsworthy is that Trump is trying this tack after reneging on promises to three of the people involved (during the last days of his Administration, there were reports that Meadows, Rudy, and Ivanka all might receive pardons) that Trump made in the course of planning for the coup.

So I’d like to tell the story of five pardons — three granted, and two withheld — in the context of Trump’s attempted coup on January 6.

Michael Cohen pardon dangle

This first pardon necessary to understand what Trump is up to is one that didn’t happen: The pardon dangle to try to silence Michael Cohen. As the Mueller Report described. in the wake of a raid on Cohen, Robert Costello started reaching out as an envoy for Rudy Giuliani, offering pardons.

On or about April 17, 2018, Cohen began speaking with an attorney, Robert Costello, who had a close relationship with Rudolph Giuliani, one of the President’s personal lawyers. 1022 Costello told Cohen that he had a “back channel of communication” to Giuliani, and that Giuliani had said the “channel” was “crucial” and “must be maintained.” 1023 On April 20, 2018, the New York Times published an article about the President’s relationship with and treatment of Cohen. 1024 The President responded with a series of tweets predicting that Cohen would not ” flip” :

The New York Times and a third rate reporter . . . are going out of their way to destroy Michael Cohen and his relationship with me in the hope that he will ‘flip. ‘ They use nonexistent ‘sources’ and a drunk/drugged up loser who hates Michael, a fine person with a wonderful family. Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who I have always liked & respected. Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don’t see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media! 1025

In an email that day to Cohen, Costello wrote that he had spoken with Giuliani. 1026 Costello told Cohen the conversation was “Very Very Positive[.] You are ‘loved’ … they are in our corner … . Sleep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”1027

According to Cohen, Rudy Giuliani and Robert Costello were at the heart of Trump’s efforts to buy silence.

But Cohen couldn’t be silent about his own plight, and so facing prosecution from that and after a privilege review of his files discovered the recording Cohen made of Trump’s hush payments, he started cooperating with Mueller, helping them to understand what Trump was trying to hide about his ties with the Kremlin during the election.

Cohen paid for that decision, too. He did more time, for example, than Roger Stone, who (like Cohen) had kept blackmail material on Trump. As such, Cohen served as a useful example to Trump: if you cooperated against Trump, Trump would ensure that you suffered a worse outcome than those who had sustained the lies to protect him.

Roger Stone commutation

Roger Stone kept a notebook recording every conversation he had with Donald Trump during the 2016 election. After the election, according to an unreliable October 2018 interview that Steve Bannon had with Mueller’s team, Stone got a meeting to which he brought what appears to be that notebook. Trump asked Bannon to attend, it seems, to ensure that Stone would be kicked out after a short time.

While BANNON was at Breitbart in 2013-2015, BANNON had a strong relationship with [redacted]. BANNON heard from [redacted] STONE was still talking to Trump and was an advisor. STONE subsequently made those statements to BANNON as well. BANNON was suspect and upset. BANNON believed you had to eep TRUMP “on program.” While BANNON was on the Trump Campaign he never heard any mention of STONE from TRUMP or anyone else on the campaign. After the win, STONE tried a full court press in order to get a meeting with TRUMP. [redacted] eventually set up a meeting with TRUMP and STONE in early December 2016 on the 26th floor of Trump Tower. TRUMP didn’t want to take the meeting with STONE. TRUMP told BANNON to be in the meeting and that after 5 minutes, if the meeting hadn’t concluded, to throw STONE out. STONE came in with a book he wrote and possibly had a folder and notes. [full sentence redacted] TRUMP didn’t say much to STONE beyond “Thanks, thanks a lot.”. To BANNON, this reinforced STONE [redacted] After five to six minutes, the meeting was over and STONE was out. STONE was [redacted] due to the fact that during the meeting TRUMP just stared.

That was Bannon’s second-to-last interview with Mueller’s team. A week after his last interview, at which Bannon also appeared before the grand jury, the FBI raided Stone’s homes. One of the things they explicitly looked for was that notebook.

53. On May 8, 2018, a law enforcement interview of [redacted] was conducted. [redacted] was an employee of Stone’s from approximately June 2016 through approximately December 2016 and resided in Stone’s previous New York apartment for a period of time. [redacted] provided information technology support for Stone, but was not f0rmally trained to do so. [redacted] was aware that Stone communicated with Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, and afterward, both in person and by telephone. [redated] provided information about a meeting at Trump Tower between Trump and Stone during the time [redacted] worked for him, to which Sterne carried a “file booklet” with him. Stone told [redacted] the file booklet was important and that no one should touch it. [redacted] also said Stone maintained the file booklet in his closet.

54. On December 3, 2018, law enforcement conducted an interview of an individual (“Person 1 “) who previously had a professional relationship with a reporter who provided Person 1 with information about Stone. The reporter relayed to Person 1 that in or around January and February 2016, Stone and Trump were in constant communication and that Stone kept contemporaneous notes of the conversations. Stone’s purpose in keeping notes was to later provide a “post mortem of what went wrong.”

In November 2019, Stone was convicted for lying about the nature and Trump’s awareness of his back-channel to the Russian operation. Billy Barr went to extraordinary lengths to attempt to minimize the punishment Stone would suffer for covering that up. He went so far as claiming threats against a federal judge by Roger Stone and the Proud Boys, threats which foreshadowed January 6, were a mere technicality.

But in July 2020, the moment when Stone would have to report to prison approached. Stone made several public appearances telling a story that was impossible as told, the gist of which was that prosecutors had promised Stone they would fight for leniency if he would testify about the content of a subset of the conversations he had with Trump during the election. That had the desired effect: Trump commuted Stone’s sentence before he reported for prison, protecting Stone in a way he had not done for Paul Manafort.

Billy Barr minimized the damage this should have done to Trump’s electoral chances. The Attorney General sat on a footnote of the Mueller Report that revealed when all this occurred, Roger Stone was still under investigation for the hack-and-leak with Russia. Barr released that literally on the eve of the 2020 election, and to this day no major outlet has reported that Stone was still under investigation for conspiring with Russia after the Mueller Report was released.

Mike Flynn pardon

As I laid out in this post, Mike Flynn got next to nothing out of his his two year attempt to renege on his plea agreement with Robert Mueller.

  • Replaced competent lawyers with incompetent TV grifters
  • Released evidence he lied to his lawyers doing the FARA filing
  • Consented to waive privilege so DOJ could find more proof he lied
  • Debunked a slew of conspiracy theories
  • Got really damning transcripts released
  • Served 708 days of supervised release
  • Joined a gang
  • Got one of his gang members prosecuted for death threats against Judge Sullivan
  • Got a ruling — and, later, a clear statement from DOJ — that no abuse occurred
  • Exposed his son to further prosecution
  • Exposed DOJ to further scrutiny
  • Proved Judge Sullivan’s point about selling the country out

After 18 months of making repeatedly debunked claims that he had been victimized by DOJ, however, he did get the most expansive pardon Trump gave, one pardoning not just his underlying crimes, but also the crimes he committed during the process of performing that victimization.

Given everything that has happened since, it’s worth considering Flynn’s performance as a victim as part of Trump’s reelection campaign.

That became most evident on September 29, 2020. Earlier in the day, in a status hearing, Sidney Powell confessed that weeks earlier, she had spoken to Trump about the case, and asked him not to pardon Flynn.

More curious still, she admitted she had spoken with Trump’s campaign attorney, Jenna Ellis.

THE COURT: Let me ask you this before you get to your other objections since we’re talking about — since I raised the issue about communications and correspondence with the Department of Justice. Have you had discussions with the President about this case?

MS. POWELL: I have not, Your Honor, while the case was pending pre-motion to dismiss or otherwise other than an update as to what happened in it.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I’m not sure I understand your answer. The question is whether you’ve had any discussions at all with the President of the United States about Mr. Flynn and about this case. Yes or no.

MS. POWELL: I’m sorry, Your Honor. I can’t discuss that.

THE COURT: What’s the reason why you can’t discuss that?

MS. POWELL: I would think any conversations that I had with the President would be protected by executive privilege.

THE COURT: Well, you don’t work for the government.

MS. POWELL: I don’t think the executive privilege is limited to people who work for the government.

THE COURT: So you’re purporting to invoke executive privilege not to answer the Court’s question about whether you discussed Mr. Flynn’s case with the President of the United States. Is that correct?

MS. POWELL: Yes. Other than the fact that after the government moved to dismiss or at some point in the last month or so, I provided the White House an update on the overall status of the litigation.

THE COURT: How did you provide that update? Was it in writing?

MS. POWELL: No, sir.

THE COURT: How did you provide that update? Who did you speak with?

MS. POWELL: I provided it in person to counsel for the President.

THE COURT: I mean the White House counsel or a deputy or who did you speak to?

MS. POWELL: Your Honor, I spoke with Jenna [Ellis] and I spoke with the President himself to provide a brief update of the status of the litigation within the last couple of weeks.

THE COURT: And did you make any request of the President?

MS. POWELL: No, sir. Other than he not issue a pardon.

THE COURT: All right. Prior to that discussion with the President — how many discussions with the President have you had about this case?

MS. POWELL: That’s the only one I recall.

THE COURT: So you’re not ruling out other — well, certainly, you would recall a discussion with the President of the United States, wouldn’t you?

MS. POWELL: Well, I’ve had a number of discussions with the President of the United States. I think the New York Times reported I’ve had five. So it seems like they probably have a number better than I know.

THE COURT: Are the New York Times’ representations erroneous?

MS. POWELL: I couldn’t tell you the number of times I’ve actually spoken with the President, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. About this case. But there’s been more than one though.

MS. POWELL: No, sir. I can tell you I spoke with one time to the President about this case to inform him of the general status of the litigation.

THE COURT: And was that within the last two weeks?

MS. POWELL: Time has a way of getting by for me, but it’s certainly well after the government moved to dismiss and probably if I recall correctly after the writ of mandamus was entered.

THE COURT: All right. Did you ever ask the President of the United States to request his Attorney General to appoint more attorneys in this case?

MS. POWELL: Oh, heavens, no.

THE COURT: All right. So very succinctly just so I have a clear understanding, what precisely — during the first time you spoke with the President of the United States, what precisely did you ask him to do in connection with this case? What did you ask him to do in connection with this case?

MS. POWELL: I never discussed this case with the President until recently when I asked him not to issue a pardon and gave him the general update of the status of the litigation. [my emphasis]

On the same day Powell admitted to speaking, some weeks earlier, to Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, Trump delivered a pre-arranged attack against Joe Biden in the first debate.

President Donald J. Trump: (01:02:22)
We’ve caught them all. We’ve got it all on tape. We’ve caught them all. And by the way, you gave the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn. You better take a look at that, because we caught you in a sense, and President Obama was sitting in the office.

This false claim was based off misrepresentations based on altered Peter Strzok notes released as part of Bill Barr’s efforts to reverse the prosecution of Flynn. There were other altered documents released for wider dissemination in this period, as well, including additional Strzok and Page texts that newly violated the Privacy Act, though after DOJ had to confess that they had altered those documents, any further focus on the altered documents were dropped.

And then, Trump pardoned his Agent of Turkey along with the Thanksgiving bird.

At the moment Trump would have informed Sidney Powell of that news, she was at Lin Wood’s plantation plotting ways to steal the election Trump had lost. If Flynn was not already with Powell plotting away at the moment he learned of his pardon, he would join her within 24 hours.

Within weeks, the recently-pardoned retired General and foreign agent that had been plotting away with Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne, someone who had been seduced by an admitted Russian agent, was calling for military intervention. Flynn’s calls for insurrection were reported in real time, but the news was buried and the fact that Trump had just pardoned the man calling for a coup did not make the coverage.

Roger Stone pardon

During the first half of December, Roger Stone was palling around with the accused terrorists who would help physically obstruct the vote certification on January 6.

Days later, one of the Oath Keepers that Stone palled around with, Kelly Meggs, bragged of arranging an alliance with other accused terrorists that Stone also palled around with, the Proud Boys that Trump had told to “Stand Back and Stand By” in that same debate on September 29 where Trump had used a campaign attack packaged up by Sidney Powell.

On December 23, Trump pardoned Stone for the crimes of which he was convicted (but not those that were still under investigation).

On Christmas, Meggs specifically tied protection, almost certainly of Stone, and coordination with a Proud Boy, almost certainly Enrique Tarrio, in the same text.

On December 26, Stone associate Kelly Meggs called this an insurrection (albeit in response to Trump’s order) explicitly.

On December 27, Stone went to Mar-a-Lago to thank Trump for the pardon directly and to discuss how he would “ensure that Donald Trump continues as our president.”

Roger Stone, who received a Christmas week pardon from President Donald Trump, delivered a personal thank you to the president on Sunday at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.

Stone wrote that he counseled the president on how he could “ensure that Donald Trump continues as our president.”


Stone said via text that he deleted the words and images after he was notified the golf club has “a policy of prohibiting photos of club members or guests out of respect for their privacy.” He said he didn’t have any additional comment.

A photo posted and then removed from Roger Stone's Parler social media page shows President Donald Trump, left, Kimberly Guilfoyle, an unidentified man and Roger Stone at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Sunday.
A photo posted and then removed from Roger Stone’s Parler social media page shows President Donald Trump, left, Kimberly Guilfoyle, an unidentified man and Roger Stone at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach on Sunday.

One picture showed four people talking: Trump; Kimberly Guilfoyle, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign and Donald Trump Jr.’s girlfriend; Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of the website and cable channel Newsmax, which is based in Boca Raton; and Stone.

“I thanked President Trump in person tonight for pardoning me,” he wrote. “I also told the president exactly how he can appoint a special counsel with full subpoena power to ensure that those who are attempting to steal the 2020 election through voter fraud are charged and convicted and to ensure that Donald Trump continues as our president #StopTheSteal #rogerstonedidnothingwrong.”

The next day, Stone deleted the pictures of his face-to-face meeting with Trump.

On January 5 and 6, Stone continued to interact closely with the Oath Keepers (and some Proud Boys). The morning of the insurrection, one of the Oath Keepers since charged with sedition, Joshua James, checked in with the operational leader for the Oath Keepers that day every time that someone — almost certainly Stone — moved.

Two days after the insurrection, Kristin Davis tweeted out a picture of Stone signing his pardon paperwork. (h/t gal_suburban)

Stone never hid it: His pardon was directly tied to his efforts to keep Trump in power. Given that Stone’s pardon was not as expansive as Flynn’s, he remains at some legal exposure for prosecution for his later efforts (including his June 2017 efforts to shut down the investigation into Julian Assange), so he had a real incentive to do anything he could to keep Trump in power.

Steve Bannon

Three days after Trump lost the election, Steve Bannon — in planning for an illegal second Trump term — threatened to assassinate Chris Wray and Anthony Fauci. The same day, his very competent lawyer, Bill Burck (the guy who got him through a bunch of serial lies in the Mueller investigation), fired him as a client, even as he was facing fraud charges for cheating Trump’s rubes.

It wasn’t until December 11, well into the plotting for a coup, that Robert Costello — the very same lawyer who dangled a pardon to Michael Cohen over two years earlier — noticed his appearance. Costello’s representation of Bannon also meant that the same lawyer represented both Rudy and Bannon, two of the masterminds in the Willard War Room.

December 11, when Costello formally filed as Bannon’s lawyer, is around the same time, according to Dustin Stockton and Jennifer Lawrence, that Paul Gosar’s Chief of Staff tied a pardon for their own involvement in Bannon’s fraud to their efforts to overturn the election results.

In December 2020, as the tour rolled around the country, Stockton and Lawrence say they got a call from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and his chief of staff, Thomas Van Flein. According to Stockton, Van Flein claimed he and the congressman had just met with Trump, who was considering giving them a “blanket pardon” to address the “We Build the Wall” investigation.

“We were just in the Oval Office speaking about pardons and your names came up,” Van Flein allegedly said. Van Flein did not respond to a request for comment.

Gosar suggested the bus tour was helping Stockton and Lawrence build support for a pardon from the caucus and Trump. “Keep up the good work,” Gosar said, according to Stockton. “Everybody’s seen what you’re doing.”

So it was probably assumed that, so long as Bannon kept helping Trump try to steal the election, he would would get a pardon. That was true even though Roger Stone made it clear after his trial that Bannon had testified in the grand jury against him.

But on the last day, among the very last pardons Trump granted, Trump pardoned Bannon not just for the crimes he had already been charged with, but any others that might arise from the Build the Wall project federally.

Rudy Giuliani left dangling

Almost three years after Rudy started helping Trump out of his legal troubles, in part by shamelessly dangling pardons to (at least) Cohen and Paul Manafort, Rudy got nothing. He got no pardon even though he was represented by Robert Costello, who had started the pardon dangles with him. He got no pardon even after working relentlessly — and exposing himself to further criminal exposure — trying to help Trump steal an election. Rudy got nothing, even though it was known that Barr had failed in his efforts to kill the Ukraine influence peddling investigation into Rudy.

While there had been abundant discussion of pardoning people who weren’t yet charged in early 2021, after Trump’s coup attempt, that plan was scotched.

It might not have happened in any case, given the conclusion Jay Sekulow had come to years earlier, the preemptive pardons make witnesses more likely to testify against Trump.

But because of the insurrection, Pat Cipollone got a lot more involved in pardons. And the insurrection made it virtually impossible to pardon the mastermind of the insurrection, Rudy Giuliani, even while making it all the more important to find a way to keep Rudy silent.

Ten days after (we now know) SDNY first obtained a warrant targeting Rudy Giuliani in the investigation used to justify seizing all his phones, Rudy boasted that he had “very, very good insurance.” Rudy certainly believed Trump would protect him.

But he didn’t.

That’s the angle through which Trump’s latest attempt to dangle pardons should be viewed. Rudy may be the most important person Trump needs to silence. But Trump had a chance to pardon Rudy when he had the authority, and he failed to do so.

Update: Added the SCOTUS decision to the list of things that must have Trump worried. h/t Brian Pillion

Key pardons of January 6 participants

February 18. 2020: Bernie Kerik

November 25, 2020: Mike Flynn

December 22, 2020: George Papadopoulos

December 23, 2020: Roger Stone and Paul Manafort

January 19, 2021: Steve Bannon

181 replies
  1. WilliamOckham says:

    Quick typo alert:
    The next day, Stone deleted the pictures of his face-to-face meeting with Stone.
    Should be:
    The next day, Stone deleted the pictures of his face-to-face meeting with Trump.

    • J R in WV says:

      Second typo alert:

      When you say “This latest pardon dangle comes in the wake of five events, all of which pose a direct threat to Trump:”

      You follow this with a list of SIX bullet points. Not five.

      ETA: Perhaps you added a supreme court ruling to the list without changing the number of items in the list? I see that mentioned at the end of the article.

      I suspect this is a typo…

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    I had not realized that Stone was pushing the special counsel plan a week after the infamous WH meeting.

  3. Al Ostello says:

    For some time I’ve been hopeful that RICO could be used for Trump and his criminal pals for Jan 6 (and other items that rise to a legal ‘slam dunk’ such as the top 5 obstructions out of 10ish Mueller found) by DOJ.

    Business Insider had this interesting article about RICO potentially being used one year ago: “Justice Department could prosecute Capitol rioters under a federal law designed to take down organized crime”

    Hearing that one of the major concerns a the DOJ prosecutor could have is the fact that any jury would need 100% to convict, while about 1 in 3 of our citizens have been brainwashed by Trump.

    Anyone think RICO is a possible future path for DOJ or perhaps a different most likely legal path that could take place in the coming months? TY in advance for your thoughts. :D

    [So as not to clutter this thread any more badly than it is already, I’m leaving this link for you to explain why the hell it is never RICO. Never, ever. Don’t bring it up here unless it’s about the Gambino family. And do us all a favor by not discussing this any further, not even to say thanks. Thread space is valuable. /~Rayne]

    • bmaz says:

      There are NO “slam dunks”, and certainly none emanating out of the Mueller report. None. And, for the millionth time, there is NO RICO. None. People really need to stop with that garbage. Seriously, stop with that tripe. And the Business Insider does not know its ass from a hole in the ground about criminal law, and that article is complete rubbish..

    • Rugger9 says:

      RICO is a four-letter word with bmaz, and it would seem that some of the elements contained in a RICO charge aren’t there yet. However, conspiracy covers most of the same ground and leads to nice long prison sentences plus it is easier to prove.

      Individual-1 needs to rot in prison, but to make sure he gets sent there on the first try the homework must be finished and he needs to be politically isolated. Both of those elements are moving right along.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Is this a test of our new SarcasMeter(tm)?

      Apparently not. It’s never RICO. If a prosecutor can prove the underlying crimes required to prove RICO, adding RICO itself could muddy her case and be counterproductive, as well as an expensive waste of resources.

  4. DaveC says:

    “The next day, Stone deleted the pictures of his face-to-face meeting with Stone.” – presumably should be meeting with TRUMP?

  5. Makeitso says:

    How many more items does Trump have to admit he tried to overthrow the government before Garland does anything?

    • bmaz says:

      What makes you think he is “not” doing anything? The nature of conspiracy investigations has been relentlessly explained here, as well as why it is silly to make statements like that.

      • Makeitso says:

        Yes, I have read her explanations. I am a criminal defense attorney and I have had clients charged with FAR less evidence. The bottom line is that there is a mountain of paper evidence. A trove of video evidence. A stash of online evidence. An abundance of audio evidence.


        Nothing. Nothing at all. Garland is after the worker bees. The queen will survive.

        • P J Evans says:

          They have to go through that mountain of evidence before they can charge the higher-ups. Takes a lot of time and people. And Garland is an administrator, not the guy who goes into the courtroom. Which you should know.

          • Makeitso says:

            The PUBLIC evidence alone is sufficient for a charge. They can add evidence at will. What I see here is what I saw as a PD: deference to the connected white guy.

            • eyesoars says:

              Well, yes. An entitled white guy, who will be able to afford lawyers (at least in theory), and will be able to raise a huge ruckus politically. When you go for the king, you can’t afford to miss. Extensive prosecutions like this one, and it is enormously extensive, take time, and are not done in the public eye.
              Doing this this way, with careful investigation, knocking down all the pins until the kingpin is reached, so that guilt is a foregone conclusion in the public mind, is how it needs to be done. Especially one centered around largely political crimes.

              • Dopey-o says:

                Doing this this way, with careful investigation, knocking down all the pins until the kingpin is reached, so that guilt is a foregone conclusion in the public mind, is how it needs to be done. Especially one centered around largely political crimes.

                IANAL, but to my mind, when 40,000,000 Trump voters feel he is being persecuted, any indictments may set off waves of stochastic terrorism. Trump’s recent speech in Conroe TX is him priming his shock troops.

                These people need to be disabused of their delusions. A quick ‘n dirty indictment will only wind them up for violence. Hopefully the Congressional Jan 6 report in late 2022 can help break their fever. If not, we shall enter very interesting times….

                • xy xy says:

                  Every day since his announcement for candidacy in 2015 and probably even before then, there’s been so much evidence even without a trial, without a J6 report, with a Mueller Report, with impeachments.
                  None of which has broken or will break their fever.
                  Charlottesville, right wingers, Rittenhouse, feds in Portland, Judge McFadden sentencing a $500 fine for one misdemeanor … is already very interesting times.
                  How much more interesting can we get?

              • John Lehman says:

                “ When you go for the king, you can’t afford to miss”

                Amen…that is the mantra here in defense of Garland

            • Peterr says:

              Not a lawyer, but a former juror in multiple cases, and I want evidence sufficient for a CONVICTION.

              If you think Trump is insufferable and dangerous now, imagine what he’d be like if a jury does not convict him.

              • oldoilfieldhand says:

                Is it just me? The DOJ needs to have an air tight case, not just proof beyond reasonable doubt. We’ve all been here before.
                Taking the disgraced, corrupt, twice-impeached former President to public trial when he has convincingly demonstrated his ability to manipulate the media, repeating dog whistle catch phrases that literally control a scary percentage of our adult population. How many jurors does it take to overpower the vaunted “Rule of Law” and create a hung jury?
                My guess is that Kyle Rittenhouse’s treatment would pale in comparison to the RWNJ fame, hero worship and fortune offered to a true believer willing to hang a jury in defense of the aforementioned disgraced, corrupt, twice-impeached former President. If capable of coherent speech, that juror would likely headline a daily Fox News Program; and if not, still be the # 1 draw at every State Fair in “Real America”.

                • Peterr says:

                  “How many jurors does it take to overpower the vaunted “Rule of Law” and create a hung jury?”


                  In the abstract, that IS the Rule of Law, not an overpowering of it. If that one juror is bribed, threatened, or otherwise improperly influenced, then that becomes a new crime for a new jury to deal with.

          • Tom S. says:

            Where Trump was “mentored”…
            “…In the Sixties, he (Roy Cohn) was indicted four times (the first case ended in a mistrial) and always acquitted. He has suffered several judicial reprimands for unethical conduct, had his wrists slapped in civil cases, and been ordered to make restitution. In the Seventies, he has been indicted for violating Illinois banking laws; the Internal Revenue Service has audited his income tax returns for the last nineteen years and seized some of his assets. …All of this has done me a lot of good, there’s no question about it,” admits Cohn. “I’d be a liar if I denied it. It’s given me a reputation for being tough, a reputation for being a winner.” A former assistant U.S. attorney who still believes Roy should be behind bars puts it another way: “He’s the only person I’ve ever known as a prosecutor who enjoyed being indicted. He enjoys the limelight.”…The mere sending of a letter from Roy Cohn has saved us a lot of money,” says builder Donald Trump. “When people know that Roy is involved, they’d rather not get involved in the lawsuits and everything else that’s involved.” ..”

        • Rugger9 says:

          That Individual-1 is feeling the heat is very likely given how he has been lashing out recklessly. That’s an indication of progress. Also to be considered is the political question of who would be willing to save him, which is why we’re seeing more pardon dangles. The firestorm will be there regardless, the foundation of the prosecution to come will determine how much real traction it gets when it starts.

          Anyone that believes Individual-1 this time deserves what they get because as EW noted he had this opportunity in January 6 – 20, 2021 and didn’t do it. That’s pretty typical of his methods for quid pro quo management: he gets his benefits up front and finds ways to dodge his obligations later.

          But I think it might be useful for you as a defense attorney to look at the evidence “from your chair” and posit how Individual-1 would try to beat the rap from what is in the public record now. Then, let us know what you think because every prosecution case will have some holes and it’s worth knowing where those are.

          I’ve served on two juries as foreman, with a 1-1 record in two DUI cases. The successful prosecutor did their homework, anticipated some of the claims and put the driver in the car in that state at that time, no question. This is what has to happen to Individual-1.

          The other prosecutor didn’t do their homework, failed to have the one witness that could prove the driver was in the car at that time because it was too expensive, and spent most of their time engaged in character assassination unrelated to the crime charged. This was for a DUI issued two hours after the alleged driving took place at a backyard where a party was in progress (without the defendant’s wife, thus the character assassination) which would explain the inebriation. When the prosecution rested, we looked at each other in the jury box (no talking, mind you) and we all thought “that’s all they have?” and the verdict was done on the first vote.

          It will be a jury that will decide this and that means they will need to be convinced of guilt. That means the case needs to be pretty well tightened with direct written evidence if the defendant is Individual-1, look what happened in the prosecutions last year when the cases were mostly circumstantial.

          • xy xy says:

            Am I not correct in saying that in a trial all he needs is one juror who would be willing to save him?
            Somehow it was more than one juror that saved Rittenhouse and I don’t think there are 70,000,000 Rittenhouse fans.

            • bmaz says:

              Sure. That is the case in any felony criminal trial (LA and OR used to have non-unanimous criminal juries, but that is thankfully gone now). Rittenhouse is inapplicable, those were unanimous verdicts on every count, not some hung jury situation.

            • Peterr says:

              Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges by a unanimous vote of the jury. As Rugger9 described above in case #2, if the jury looks at the prosecution’s case and doesn’t think the burden of proof was met, the defendant walks. While I am unhappy about that, I don’t blame the jury – that’s on the prosecution.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Any of your clients billionaires, hundred-millionaires, or former presidents? If not, your experience would not seem applicable to a decision to charge Trump.

        • Al Ostello says:

          1) The DOJ took 2 long years of careful investigations (it was not made public for 2 years) before dozens of Nixon’s aides were indicted after the WATERGATE break-in. Many additional months for them to be jailed.

          2) FROM DOJ WEBSITE: “In general, the Department of Justice does not publicly announce investigations or investigative findings. There are several reasons for this policy. Announcing an investigation of some civil or criminal violations could make it more difficult to obtain witness cooperation or gather evidence.”

    • Rayne says:

      Stop it. Really. We get numerous drive-by commenters every day asking the same questions about “when will [X] happen?”

      This contributes nothing to the dialog at the site.

      • Makeitso says:

        Not a drive by. Sorry. I read her every week. I have not really been prompted to say anything but the latest round of incriminating evidence is insane. She is respected by many for her views. How she continues to resist the obvious is amazing. Having worked, you know, IN ACTUAL COURT, and seen what passes for an indictment/charge, the slow walking here is quite remarkable.

          • Makeitso says:

            Really? You are a PD? You see the ridiculous evidence that passes for a charge/indictment? Your read the bs warrant applications and ridiculous police reports that have no basis in reality? You don’t see the bias toward white connected defendants? Then you are not looking.

            • bmaz says:

              Yeah, really. Have for 35 years and, no I am not a fucking PD. As to your whining about warrants and reports, the 1/6 cases are not in some podunk local court. This is the DC District and DC Circuit and the DOJ. They do things a bit different than what you seem to be familiar with. And I see just fine, thanks.

              Oh, and give it a rest with all the whining about “copious amounts of evidence”. The way a large and complex conspiracy is investigated in the federal context is from the ground up, and they do not piecemeal charges out so people like you quit whining. It is a deliberate job, and the way it has gone so far makes perfect sense.

              I do not know where you suddenly appeared from, but you are already annoying and flooding our thread. Take a step back. And given the nature of your comments so far, it seems rather unlikely you have long read here as your claim.

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            Buying popcorn… For someone who reads this site weekly, the commentator seems ill-informed about its posters. But then I assumed that public defenders were not the only members of the criminal defense bar.

              • bmaz says:

                Heh, I get along with most other lawyers (and other people!) quite well for the most part.

                But we are collecting up a serious amount of flotsam and jetsam lately. Sometimes it gets tiring.

        • Rayne says:

          Well, though you claim you’re an attorney who’s worked IN ACTUAL COURT, I doubt you’ve dealt with an investigation of this magnitude.

          Also doubt you’ve had to simultaneously figure out how many of the employees working for you are moles and chaos agents.

          If you have something constructive to add to discussion here, great. If you’re just dropping in to whine as so many concern trolls do, find another site.

          • Makeitso says:

            What is constructive to you? Total agreement? My guess is that the DOJ is afraid of Trump’s cult and what their reaction will be to an indictment. Their are two different justice systems for the elite connected and the poors.

          • obsessed says:

            What you guys (Rayne & bmaz) are doing and do on a regular basis is what I would call bullying. This PD is asking the reasonable questions and making the common sense points that we NALs are very interested in. Even if you guys are right (and so far, you just seem louder and ruder), this debate raises issues that many who read this site daily want to learn about.

            There’s a certain point where the emperor has no clothes. You can defend the way our legal system works and use your vast experience to support your arguments, but any idiot can see that our legal system is horrifically … comically … tragically unfair and broken. We’re here to learn about the law; to learn why RICO can’t be successfully brought; etc. etc.; but the reason we want to learn that is that we’re outraged at the obvious injustice of the American “justice” system. You can school us on the details and scold us for getting things wrong, but you seem to have forgotten that you’re defending the indefensible.

            • bmaz says:

              I honestly do not care in the least what you “call” anything. You do not have one clue in the world what comes at this website every hour of every day, and do not think for a second that you do. We will take care of ourselves here, and have no need whatsoever for your input.

              Secondly, you seem to magically believe this chap is a “PD”. Why? Because he tried to accuse me of that? You do not have a clue about any of that either, nor about how we get relentlessly trolled by, well, trolls.

              “Defending the indefensible”? I deal with courts every day, what the fuck do you do?

            • Rayne says:

              This is not where you get to repeatedly dump emotional baggage. If you’re frustrated, there’s channels to deal with it beginning with your elected officials.

              Perhaps if more Americans made a point of regularly contacting their representatives and senators and telling them how dissatisfied they are with oversight and governance — instead of dumping here while we’re trying to do things like research and write — perhaps things would change. They’re not going to change by persistently dumping here; you’re only pissing off the moderation team.

          • Makeitso says:

            As I posted above, there is copious evidence in the public domain indicating that Trump and his minions conspired to overthrow the election. I would also agree with you that there is most likely copious evidence that the DOJ/House Cmtee both have that is being kept quiet for investigative purposes.

            The problem is that the longer Trump is unindicted the longer he has to corrupt the next election. Clearly, the republican party is preparing to aid him in that task (SEE: takeover of election boards/passing legislation to stop voting/passing legislation to permit rejection of election results, etc….) Indicting Trump puts it all on the table and then the country can choose what it wants to be: a democratic republic or ?

            • WilliamOckham says:

              This right here is what’s wrong with your analysis:

              The problem is that the longer Trump is unindicted the longer he has to corrupt the next election.

              Trump’s not doing this stuff himself. As you point out, it’s a huge group of conspirators who are doing the work. And they won’t stop if Trump is indicted. In fact, chances are, they’ll all work harder. A Trump indictment isn’t a magic bullet. It won’t “put it all on the table” because there’s so much more to this than Trump.

                • WilliamOckham says:

                  So far, it’s just cold (which, in Houston, means mid 30’s). It’s really sad how traumatized people here are by what happened last year. I hope folks remember how this felt come November when Abbott is on the ballot.

                  • bmaz says:

                    Yeah, CNN earlier had a report on how they have a bunch of generators lined up and ready to go, even though the power is still on. The more prepared you are, the less chance it will devolve into hell! So, good luck and let us know. You folks are welcome here if you need to escape!

                    • WilliamOckham says:

                      One of the biggest natural gas pipelines just issued a warning that it’s losing pressure due to low supply from producers in west Texas. That’s … not a good sign.
                      Texas, man… we build the world’s most sophisticated natural gas distribution system… except for when it’s cold in the Panhandle. I can’t even…

                    • Rugger9 says:

                      Time for the Ted Cruz vacation tracker! Let’s suggest some places for him to go…with class, please.

                      Abbott and the TX GQP did this to themselves, because they deliberately kept ERCOT from linking to the rest of the USA and Abbott talked but did nothing to fix his grid.

                      The tell is how he claimed that rolling blackouts by whatever euphemism he’s using couldn’t be completely prevented. Let’s see where they hit.

                    • blueedredcounty says:

                      Maybe we can enlist the guy who’s tracking all the private flights of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc., for assistance on this tracking?

                  • Nord Dakota says:

                    Tell your friends, if it drops much below freezing, turn hot and cold water at a faucet to a trickle. Keeps pipes from freezing if they are not well protected.

              • Rugger9 says:

                The co-conspirator aspect is why my isolation prerequisite is there. This prosecution has to stick the first time it is charged to remove the danger, and while Makeitso might be correct in the charging part (which is why I mentioned my jury service above) there is a risk it wouldn’t impress a jury which may include some MAGA dead-enders.

                So to make sure it sticks I’ve asked Makeitso to look at the case from a PD perspective to see what holes could be poked through. It should also be noted that in the short time since the year rolled around we have had more evidence surface, more admissions by Individual-1 and his minions and until they learn to STFU the more isolated Individual-1 will be when the DoJ comes for him.

              • Leoghann says:

                Not to mention “in the public domain.” Jesus Whiz on a cracker, are we suddenly talking about intellectual property?

                My old friends in Midland and Dallas are posting pictures of light snow and stories of icy roads and very cold temperatures. I’m glad it’s not too bad in Houston (yet). It looks like the real deep freeze swept down into South Texas, instead of the Gulf Coast cities, this time. I’ve read of lower 20’s in the Fredericksburg and Kerrville areas, as well as in SW Texas as far as Del Rio. Of course, they pay for the same utilities, and have the same need for heat. If this turns out nasty, that dogfaced martinet of a governor may very well be finished.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          EW is a journalist, investigative reporter, commentator, and legal analyst, not a prosecutor in charge of an investigation. Your notion that she is “resisting” something – other than agreeing with you that it should be easy to prosecute Trump – is a non sequitur. Capt. Picard would not have such thinking on his bridge.

        • Krisy Gosney says:

          You’ve said “her” twice now. “Her” has a name. Assuming you’re referring to Dr. Marcy Wheeler, the reason why we are all here.

  6. joel fisher says:

    This piece–and so many others like it–struck me as a big part of the reason there are folks out there–me, anyway–who wonder why somebody isn’t arrested for something right this minute. The incredible detail, the who said what to whom, the copies of docs and texts, and the obvious intent of the crooks as demonstrated by this piece all make the reader want to scream for some perp walks. I know the counsel of EW is, “relax, things are in hand”, but so many crimes, so few prosecutions. Anyway, don’t be too hard on us for reading and getting nuts.

    • Rayne says:

      joel, I’m cutting you slack only because you have +400 comments racked up at this site so I’ll put this delicately: don’t police how we moderate, including expectations of better commentary from our community members.

    • John Paul Jones says:

      There are a lot of comments like this every day (just look back upthread!) but there seems to be some confusion. As I understand it the message is not “relax, things are in hand,” but rather – things are proceeding according to the rules, as they have to proceed.

      And that does not (and never will) guarantee the outcome so many people seem to want – the orange-faced Trump in a matching jump suit.

      I would like to see Trump in jail too. He’s been a criminal all his life, pretty much, and it would be nice if a prosecutor, some time, somewhere, could absolutely nail him to the f*****g floor for one of them. But that takes time; and it may never happen, partly because his wealth gives him strategies to exploit that poorer criminals do not have, but partly because, as a hardened criminal, he knows how to reduce his exposure to charges.

      IANAL, but to me it seems more likely that he will face charges for money and tax matters than for plotting to overthrow the government. So even though I share the widespread desire to see him charged with seditious conspiracy, I think I should remain sanguine about that possibility.

      • Makeitso says:

        I tend to agree. His tax problems are most likely to nail him. Funny that he and Capone will share a meme….

        • Bay State Librul says:

          I occasionally deal with the IRS.
          They are so short staffed — so I would not count on the Feds.
          Are you talking State Taxes?
          If so, yes, they should be able to nail him.

          • bmaz says:

            Do note that in NY, the AG has no inherent power to file criminal charges unless specifically tasked by the Governor on a case. That is kind of weird, but it is their law. Which is why Vance, and now Bragg, was so front and center. Hochul may be more willing to let the AG loose than Cuomo was, we will see. Frankly, I do not think that much of James, she is better at PR than lawyering to my eye.

          • blueedredcounty says:

            On the bright side with the State tax boards, Trump does have at least that one California golf course. I believe I saw James was requesting info from California. If he screwed with the California Franchise Tax Board, he may end up wishing for death.

          • Peterr says:

            It’s the combination of state/local tax fraud and bank fraud that is hanging over Trump. When you tell the tax authorities your property is worth X and the bank you want to accept your property as collateral Y (with Y being a nontrivial *multiple* of X), you are going to get not only tax folks angry at you but also bankers.

            That’s not a nice combination.

            • Rayne says:

              Unless the bankers were also committing some sort of fraud with the loans. There’s also insurers who may/may not be the same as the bankers and may/may not be involved in the fraud.

      • Doctor My Eyes says:

        I think it not applicable these days, when discussing why Trump still walks free, to bring in the institutional racism of the US “justice” system and its even greater bias in favor of the rich (see OJ). But taking Trump’s career of crime as a whole, going back to New York days, Trump absolutely is an example of white gangsters being ignored by a system that kills black people in their beds for absolutely no reason. Even the horrendous crimes of the likes of Epstein are tolerated until some reason arises which make them not tolerated. Trump running for president should have been a nauseating joke, but too few people knew that he was just a two-bit hustler son of a gangster.

        I think this is a source of confusion for idealists. Before he was president, Trump’s crimes were ignored for the usual disgusting reason. When he became president, nothing was usual any more. As far as I know, despite many crooks and bastards having lived in the White House, the US has never before had to deal with a mob boss as president, one who has zero respect for the rule of law and the things that define America. I believe it is downright silly to compare this situation to any other historical situation. The case of Trump transcends even the obvious racial and class biases of the justice system.

        Many good and well-meaning people would like to see the US system cure itself of its glaring flaws. It is foolhardy in the extreme to imagine the case against Trump to be a suitable time for the justice system to find Jesus. Workaday biases and injustices don’t even apply here. Trump is not walking free because he is white, nor even because he is (seemingly) wealthy. The former president has millions of rabid followers, black money support, and the backing of skilled foreign shit stirrers, not to mention saboteurs throughout government. The crimes for which we want to see him imprisoned are on a national scale. It is just plain stupid to think that, for the first time in human history, a system of justice would treat a powerful person who came close to taking down the government the same as it would treat an impoverished, unknown, African American shoplifter.

        Idealism makes people blind.

        • rip says:

          Thank you so much for this well-thought comment. I agree that we are not treating this particular person and his haphazard involvement with government as what it is – an aberration of an extreme never seen here (US) and rarely elsewhere.

  7. Rita says:

    Had Trump issued a blanket pardon for the Jan 6th rioters, he may well have not been acquitted by the Senate.

    And his pals would have lost their 5th Amendment rights.

    Ordinary politicians promise voters infrastructure, jobs, tax relief, etc. Trump promises pardons.

    But, as with most things the great Conniver does, the group pardon talk serves more than one purpose, the most dangerous of which is to perpetuate another set of Big Lies -that the rioters are being treated unfairly by the Deep State and that they were patriots. The responsible news media could debunk the unfairness Big Lie fairly quickly by reporting on what is actually happening in the court cases.

    • Rayne says:

      That brings up a very interesting question I hope the House J6 Committee has/will ask: did Trump ask any of his lawyers and/or White House counsel and/or members of Congress and/or elected/nominated officials about pardons related in any way to the criminal acts related to January 6?

      Specifically, was Trump told that pardons before Biden’s inauguration would affect his supporters’ 5th Amendment rights?

      • Rita says:

        Sen. Graham went on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox the week after the riot and said that the pardons would ruin Trump. So maybe the Committee should start with him.

        • Rayne says:

          There was likely another person or more who persuaded Trump to avoid pardons apart from Graham on TV, assuming Trump just didn’t ignore the premise altogether given his narcissism. Think about it: would Trump ever take advice from Graham who caved like a broken lawn chair to Trump after a single golf game?

            • Rayne says:

              That’s what I’m thinking, had to be somebody who’d put up with Trump’s narcissistic bluster. But there may have been others besides these two.

                • Rayne says:

                  Yeah, he was there until the last.

                  ADDER: I want to add that I think there was more than one influence. Cippolone likely hung on right to the end to prevent this kind of crazy, but Trump’s malignant narcissism and his opposition defiance disorder are so intense, it feels like there’d have to be more than one person who could convince him it was in his personal best interests to let go of pardons as a tactic and rely instead on other measures.

                  ADDER-2: And then there was this crap going on in the background —

                • BobCon says:

                  Maybe Murdoch or McCain. I don’t think he trusted or liked either one, but I think he knew he hadn’t broken them the way he had broken most others in the GOP, and he had to have grudgingly respected their calculations of which way the winds were blowing..

            • Rugger9 says:

              I think both McGahn and Barr were in Individual-1’s doghouse for not staying the course with him, but I may be wrong. Not a lot of other respectable options.

      • Nord Dakota says:

        Well, not in connection with Jan 6 pardons, but Powell did counsel him with regard to other pardons and people losing 5th Amendment protections.

        • Rayne says:

          Did he respect her enough to pay heed to what she said? Was it the weight of both Powell and Cippolone together giving that advice?

          Just feels like something is missing, he’s just too pigheaded.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Trump made at least three (phone, I believe) outreaches seeking advice re: pardons for 1/6 terrorists (asking things like how they should be chosen, such as “those carrying Trump flags,” which just seems so on brand).

        I wish I could remember where I heard/read this, but it’s been almost a day. These days detail accumulates like pet fur under the sofa, while the years pass like tired cliches. Blink of the proverbial eye.

  8. harpie says:

    This post is VERY much appreciated, and
    that list of the dates of Key Pardons [with links] is great to have, Marcy. THANK YOU!

    • harpie says:

      The timing of the Bernie KERIK [GIULIANI’s “investigator”] pardon 2/18/20 might prove to be pretty interesting.

    • Savage Librarian says:

      Yes, and as the father of her host family in France (where Marcy stayed as a student) might say, “Marcy butt-kicks!” Or, “Marcy abuts-coups!”

      Merci beaucoup!

  9. Jenny says:

    Thank you Dr. Marcy. Again, you put the puzzle pieces together with ease.

    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont asked during Barr’s January 2019 confirmation hearing. “Do you believe a president can lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipient’s promise to not incriminate him?”

    “No, that would be a crime,” Barr said in response.

  10. Alan Charbonneau says:

    Tomi T Ahonen says in a Twitter thread that Rudy’s insurance is of no value because the Feds have everything and they tapped Rudy’s phone, so he is screwed. Some of this analysis seems reasonable, but I am not sure how many of his claims in this thread are well-informed—there’s a certain level of bloviating.

    Do you have an opinion on this?

    [FYI — Twitter link edited to remove tracking. /~Rayne]

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Speaking of power and language, the lazy lying clownish Boris Johnson continues to perform as Donald Trump. He substitutes word play, chaos, and absurdity for governance, in hopes that he can continue in office, so that no one but oligarchs can govern.

    UK government says devolved authorities [e.g., the Scottish govt] do not have to follow international law. An extraordinary statement.

    One of the many reasons this statement is word vomit is that for most purposes, international law takes effect by being incorporated into domestic legislation. This formulation would appear to say devolved authorities can ignore domestic law, which must make the ghost of Robert the Bruce very happy.

    For another, while subsidiary entities within states are not normal actors in a public international law sense, they are constituent parts of the states that are. It is the state’s responsibility to impose compliance with its international obligations within its borders, something Boris Johnson refuses to do. It would require work – anathema to Johnson – the expenditure of political capital – Johnson has none – and might offend his patrons.

    This absurdist formulation suggests that Johnson is using the same playbook and people who crafted Texas’s anti-abortion statute, SB 8. Fascism is a global game.

    • Rugger9 says:

      I do not know the specifics on that topic for the UK, but if one defines “international law” as the nation’s treaty obligations that were ratified it would be in the USA. The International Criminal Court and UNCLOS (“Law of the Sea”) have not been which is why we take exceptions to their consequences. But, the Geneva Conventions, NATO, etc., all have the same force as the US Constitution according to the US Constitution.

      The UK’s constitution is as yet unwritten beyond the Magna Carta and subsequent precedents established by the Crown or courts.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        In the UK, it means public international law, the law of relations between states. That also includes obligations such as enforcing standards of human rights (e.g., the ECHR). Avoiding such obligations is one reason Johnson and his patrons wanted so desperately out of the EU. (They restrain profit-taking.) But here, I think he had Brexit obligations in mind, which he personally torches any chance he gets, especially when he agreed to them.

        [The top comment was supposed to be deleted. I reposted it in Ed’s earlier post.]

        • Rugger9 says:

          I do check in with PMQs every week to see how Starmer and Blackford are skewering BoJo. Lots of good rhetorical ideas there.

          BoJo is in serious trouble over his Partygate scandal, as opposed to his litany of policy failures and lying on other topics. I think it likely that he goes and will guess that Theresa May will lead a caretaker until elections are held.

    • Tom says:

      “There are no disasters, only opportunities. And, indeed, opportunities for fresh disasters.”
      — Boris Johnson

      As quoted by Lara Prendergast in her article, “Keeping up with the Johnsons”, in the November 2021 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

  12. The Old Redneck says:

    If you are going to hit someone in court, figuratively speaking, you should hit so they can’t get up (see the advice given by Robert Duvall in the movie “A Civil Action”). The Jan. 6th prosecutions are among the most politically charged in history Given that, I think Garland is right to make sure he has overwhelming evidence. This is particularly true for any potential charge against a former President.
    It’s frustrating, of course. But I agree with many others here that it’s the only way to do it right.

  13. WilliamOckham says:

    For everyone asking the question “Why hasn’t Trump been arrested/indicted/perp walked?”, I have a question for you: And then, what?

    Even if Trump gets convicted, do you think that would be the end of Trump and Trumpism? I don’t.

    The DOJ can’t stop the coup (which is on-going). It can potentially disrupt it by going after the consiglieres and caporegimes. I’m not just talking about Guiliani, Stone, Flynn, Powell, and Meadows. I’m also talking about Cleta Mitchell, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, Jena Ellis, Jason Miller, and others (known and unknown, as they say).

    Taking down an organized crime syndicate is difficult. In this case, made more difficult by the fact that it’s supported by vast network of wealthy, influential, and powerful people.

    Finally, whether or not the DOJ can or is willing to pursue this, it’s up to us to stop the coup. Right now, shining the light on what happened is one of the most effective things we can do.

    • Rita says:

      Successfully going after some of the enablers might do more good for the country than putting Trump behind bars.

      There were a lot of crazies, like Lindell and Byrne, egging Trump on. But there were others involved who weren’t crazy – Cleta Mitchell, Flynn, Giuliani, Eastman, Powell, all of whom knew that the election fraud was a pretext for keeping Trump in power. Those are some bad actors with knowledge of how to work the levers of the federal government.

      • John B. says:

        Also, let’s say TFG is convicted in Georgia for election tampering or whatever eventual charges might come, and also in New York with both the civil and criminal tax and financial trials, and then again at the federal level for whatever charges can be brought by the DoJ for the myriad of crimes committed, and all those charges and trials take let’s say 1-2 years, and then (since we are on a ferris wheel ride anyway)
        , let’s say the next president elected is a Republican and one of DeSantis’ first acts is to pardon TFG of all those convictions…what then? My wild @$$ guess is the next republican president does just that…now how do we all feel…yes, I want to see him in jail, but more than that I probably want to see the shuffling off of the mortal coil just so we can be done with him personally, but the real goal has to be to stop the movement towards the end of our democracy and the encroaching storm of authoritarian government or outright fascism…

          • John B. says:

            Yes, bmaz, that’s right, of course…that’s a good reminder that in many ways the state charges are more important for taking TFG off the street than whatever AG Garland can do at the Federal level…I say this only to those who are impatient…I get that, but the many reminders from the hosts to be patient is really a good thing. And remember, whatever comes of all this once the R’s are back in power they will amplify every act against the current president or future Democratic presidents. It’s a dangerous thing to take down a president, even one so clearly a criminal and a threat to our democracy.

            • bmaz says:

              Wish there were better answers to it all. Even when really over, it likely will still be unsatisfying. But if we all keep an even keel, it will maybe at least keep sanity.

            • Marinela says:

              Yes, I am concerned about republicans doing fake prosecutions when they are in power and have the DOJ at their disposal with a corrupt AG.
              Also concerned that the next Trump like president is going to be a competent one.
              Also concerned on the next GOP attempt to steal the elections, when they say the Vice-President role is ceremonial, but at state levels, the GOP controlled legislature is overruling the voters.

              For Trump, to me, justice is to make him irrelevant. And make him pay, from his own money, for the damages inflicted to the Capitol. If the rioters are charged for the damages, when conspiracy reaches him, he should be on hook literarily for the damages, in addition to criminal exposures.

        • RWood says:

          If the next guy were to pardon them he would then have to compete with them the next day.

          That’s not the cloth men like him are cut from. The modern GQP cult leader gives power to no one but themselves.

          The next “trump” will emulate him, but only to a point. He’ll keep all the traits needed to gain/hold power and jettison the rest. His team of crazies will appear not crazy at all and his funding will be carefully packaged. TV lawyers will be kept far away and any public appearances will be well scripted.

          Whomever he is he’s learning to fill that position a little more every day.

        • Rita says:

          I wanted to add a bit here. Lindell and Byrne were and are marks because they (I think) really believe Trump won and was cheated out of his second term.

          Maybe Rudy and Bernie Kerik also sincerely believe this.

          The others, I don’t think so. The Washington Post got a hold of a memo circulated to some Members of Congress on Jan. 4. 2021. The memo suggested seizing raw NSA data to look for signs of foreign interference in the voting machines. In one section, it says, “…support next steps to defend the Constitution in a manner superior to current civilian only judicial remedies…”. The author wanted to stomp on the Constitution to protect it, I guess.

          • WilliamOckham says:

            I consider Lindell and Byrne to be marks because they were convinced to spend their own money on to promote the baseless conspiracy theory. All the rest of the named players were in on the con.

          • pdaly says:

            Oath Keeper Rhodes similarly seems to treat Trump as a means to an end, both during the 01/06/21 insurrection (“Trump better do his damn duty”) and after.


Just Security reviews the Oath Keeper podcasts “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock” that are mentioned in the recent DOJ filings about the Oath Keepers. 



On the 01/15/2021 podcast [Elmer] Stewart Rhodes is Hancock’s guest. During a break, Hancock asks Rhodes what Trump is going to do now that he is out of office:

            Rhodes: Trump is the, Trump is the giant vagina. That’s what I think. I think Trump is a blowhard. He just wanted to be president and he ain’t gonna do shit. Just between you and me. He’s not doing a damn thing… (unintelligible) steal the election.

            Hancock: We’re recording. So don’t be…

            Rhodes: Oh, I thought you said we were on break.

            Hancock: We are. But that doesn’t mean we don’t record…

            Rhodes: Oh for crying…. You’re worse than the fucking NSA, Ernie.


            Rhodes: [snip] Screw Trump. He didn’t do what he was supposed to do. He, he could do a massive, we should talk about this when we come off break. He could still do the right thing and do a massive declassification and data dump and expose the deep state, expose all of the corruption [snip]

            [Back from the break}


            Hancock: Now you looking, are you preparing for, are you anticipating, uh, civil unrest with guns?

            Rhodes: I think there’s, there’s, it’s too late to avoid it at this point. Trump had the last chance, or still does, if he ever actually mans up, to avoid it right now, by doing that mass declassification.



So, you know, if you wanna set aside and not use the Insurrection Act, great, but at least do the mass declassification and data dump, do it right now. That’s what he has to do and not bureaucratic style. I mean go seize the data, go order the loyal humans still in the military, go seize the damn CIA databases and just dump ’em all, you know, Wikileaks style, Julian Assange style, or Snowden style… that’s what Trump can and should do. And no excuses.

            “Dump’em all”? 
If this were a Hollywood movie, I expect this would be the moment when the Bug (or Putin) tears away the flesh and emerges from the ‘Elmer Suit.’

            • William Bennett says:

              Hilarious how it never occurs to them that the fact TFG doesn’t “do the mass declassification and data dump” to expose the Deep State is the best possible evidence that no such data exists.

    • Peterr says:

      During Watergate, part of what ramped up the pressure on GOP members of the House Judiciary Committee was the fact that courts had found various Nixon underlings and henchmen guilty of various crimes. That could not be easily dismissed, and GOP members of the Senate knew it. They went to Nixon, told him the blunt truth, and he resigned rather than face impeachment.

      John Dean flipped and cooperated, as did James McCord and Jeb Magruder. Haldeman, Ehrlichmann, and a bunch of the others did not. A lot of them were indicted prior to Nixon’s resignation, and a few were convicted before that happened. All these guilty pleas, indictments, and convictions drew the net closer and closer to Nixon, such that he finally realized he could not not escape.

      DOJ knows this, and so does the Jan 6 Select Committee. I am convinced that this is the overall approach they are taking.

      • Rita says:

        You are probably right. The one difficulty is that some Republican Members of Congress may have been complicit in the Jan. 6th attack and even more may have been complicit in the attempted coup. I think the Jan. 6th Committee is trying to give Members an opportunity to come clean and get ahead of the story politically.

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          THIS is a very important point. There are a lot of crazy and desperate people in Congress right now. They are already boxed into a corner, knowing the rabid nature of their constituents and the degree of their own complicity.

          They are like the Lady riding the Tiger.

          • timbo says:

            This. In fact, look at the censure just issued by the RNC against Cheney and Kinzinger…basically it smells like conspiracy to obstruct on its face.

  14. Bay State Librul says:

    Give it your best shot
    Hard to clean up the mess when dealing with 71 Million Morons.
    Hard to find another Sheriff in town.

    “I Apologize To All The Friendly Folk Who Are Listenin’. Now Hear This, You Thick Turd. I’m Gonna Get You.”
    Sheriff Buford T. Justice a/ka Jackie Gleason

  15. joberly says:

    Thank you, EW, for this analysis, and for reminding us of the importance of pardons and pardon dangles during the Trump Administration. Attorney Robert Costello, prominent in this story for more than two years, continues to represent Giuliani and may have been the source in Tuesday’s *NYT* in the story that makes Giuliani the hero in resisting the ask of the DoD to seize voting machines.
    In the days between Nov 7 when the networks called PA for Biden-Harris and Jan 20 there was a tension in the White House Counsel’s Office between keeping Trump from being impeached again (failure, after Jan 6) and keeping the pardon transmission belt running for Charlie Kushner, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort (Dec 23 pardons), Steve Bannon and Elliot Broidy (Jan 19 pardons) and Albert Pirro, ex-spouse to Judge Jeannine (Jan 20 pardon, right before AF1 went wheels-up to Mar-a-Lago).

    • William Bennett says:

      > may have been the source in Tuesday’s *NYT* in the story that makes Giuliani the hero in resisting the ask of the DoD to seize voting machines

      Late to the party as always, but I’ve been slightly obsessed with this particular detail, having recently followed a link to the Axios report about the Dec. 18 meeting, and was shocked to notice the date stamp on that report is from Feb. 2021 because it meshes so well with what’s been coming out since the Archives release. What’s remarkable to me about that report is how it illuminates the infighting behind the coup plan. From the insider p.o.v. it looks like an insurgency by Powell, Flynn and Pillow Guy to displace the inner circle and install themselves at the core of the junta by means of the plan that Rudy supposedly objected to. The momentum for that is building when Rudy belatedly enters the conversation, and there’s a shrewd bit of bureaucratic maneuvering by Herschman to put a wall between him and the Kraken Konspirators:

      >Herschmann was primed to brawl and ready to dump on Powell. It had been a long day.

      >”Rudy,” he said, turning to Giuliani, “Sidney was just in the Oval telling the president you don’t know what the fuck you’re doing. Right, Sidney?” He turned to Powell: “Why don’t you tell Rudy to his face?”

      >”Eric, really it’s not appropriate,” Trump replied curtly.

      >”What’s not appropriate?” Herschmann shot back. Turning to Powell, he said, “Why don’t you repeat to Rudy what you just told the president in the Oval Office — that he has no idea about the case and that he only just began to understand it a few hours ago.”

      >Three days later, Giuliani would publicly distance himself from Powell, telling Newsmax that Powell did not represent the president, and that “whatever she’s talking about, it’s her own opinions.”

      That bit really rang true. The Krakpots had neglected to loop Rudy into their coup-within-a-coup, and Herschmann exploited that hole in the plan. It wasn’t about Rudy objecting to the seizure of voting machines, it was about not endorsing a plan that was going to leave him as a fifth wheel while Powell and Flynn got installed as the guys who orchestrated the steall and had power-behind-the-throne status in the ensuing authoritarian junta.

  16. JohnJ says:

    I have been waiting forever for someone to mention convicting Trump of a felony. (Apologies if I have missed it). Doesn’t that disqualify him from running and possibly throw the whole cult into confusion? He’d be written-in by his Orc followers anyway, which carries its own problems.

    As RWood says above, it would be counter to the powerful’s self interest, their all powerful driving force, for someone who still has power to restore Trump’s. Would desantos pardon Trump when not pardoning him removes him as a rival?

    I hope there is a major flaw in my scenario, because gaming it out looks like chaos.

  17. Eureka says:

    Rut roh — Ollie North Philly?

    Marcy at Nite, on Zoe Lofgren saying J6 Committee are mulling use immunity for Jeffrey Bossert Clark’s testimony:

    “I’ve been asked a lot about this. Before you comment abt the wisdom of this, first lay out, what crime do you think Clark committed? [QRT]”

    “Also consider the possibility that Clark is the DOJ official that dodged a DOJ IG interview by quitting.”

    “To explain: Thus far, the vast majority of what Clark has been described to have done is not illegal (in part bc he was a Senate-confirmed official working on orders of POTUS). **If** that’s true, then immunity doesn’t do damage.”
    12:58 AM · Feb 4, 2022

    [Technically Clark’s from NE Philly — and I will never forget that he took time in his DOJ bio (see an archived version) to explain how and when his Tacony section had been *annexed* by Philadelphia but and it was the Tacony Iron works that produced the Philadelphia City Hall dome and William Penn statue atop it (I believe this was all peri-/starting pre-annexation or something was his point, maybe…whatever) — but I could not resist. When Ryan J. Reilly dunked on Clark for naming his Catholic high school in said bio, he buried the mishegas lede.]

    • harpie says:

      Clark would have quite a bit of inside information.

      If immunity is granted, what happens if incomplete/untrue testimony is discovered?

      • Eureka says:

        Yeah I was puzzling over the N-dimensional chess as to how much he’s boxed in to (hypothetically) giving truthful testimony and had concerns over some space left for “incomplete/untrue” as you say (even w/J6 having some Meadows & correspondents’ comms, e.g.). But then I realized there’s no way J6 would put Clark on TV (at least initially, and surely quite tactically, if ever); his hypothetical testimony would be behind closed doors, so J6 could avoid any repeat of history.

        Kyle Cheney this morning basically said the same thing but fancier:

        “One caveat: Some experts told me that one reason North’s testimony was fatal to the case is that he testified in public, so it was harder to claim witnesses weren’t influenced. Clark could theoretically testify in private and limit other witnesses’ exposure to his testimony.” [end thread]
        8:09 AM · Feb 4, 2022

        So any Ollie Northeast Philly would go down very differently, to the advantage of justice.

        • Eureka says:

          Meant to add, another way Clark (or anyone) could ratfuck such a scenario would be by releasing (pre-) testimony in written form; doing media interviews, etc. — and I can’t think of how J6 could preclude one from doing do (maybe in a very limited way/re limited topics for other reasons/extrinsics, but still…).

  18. harpie says:

    I don’t know if Marcy will UPDATE again, so I’d like to get this info from her here:
    6:51 AM · Feb 4, 2022

    This Robert Draper piece on Mike Flynn has some key details about when the conspiracy between Sidney and Rudy started. [screenshot]

    It confirms that Flynn was at Lin Wood’s plantation scheming to provide Trump a thing of value when he got his pardon–and for perhaps 10 days before that.

    Paul Valelly is almost certainly the Fox General who was brokering meetings about Russia before the 2016 election with Flynn. [screenshot]

    I argued yesterday that Flynn’s performed victimhood was actually part of Trump’s reelection strategy. [Links to THIS post.]

    Michael Flynn Is Still at War The general tried to persuade Donald Trump to use the military to overturn the 2020 election. A year later, he and his followers are fighting the same battle by other means.
    Robert Draper Feb. 4, 2022

    • Rita says:

      Trump’s Flynn pardon also saved Barr and Powell from a potentially embarrassing court loss. Trump often seems to do things with many purposes (most of them corrupt) in mind.

      Having read The NY Times article, I was struck by the notions than the conspiracy started around Thanksgiving, that all of the various ex-military intelligence people just happened to come together, that Sydney Powell had the various Executive Orders and gave them to Trump, and that Ezra Cohen is a good guy. All of the above could be true.

  19. DAT says:

    Having read the 100+ comments on this post, I understand people’s anxiety that Trump is not currently charged with anything. I understand the anxiety for our democracy as long as he waddles free. Few of us reading this can directly effect these questions. BUT. let’s turn and take a look at what we can do now. Are you protecting our school board members? are you fighting to block book banners? are you working to protect our election supervisors? Are you making sure your state’s certification of elections is nonpartisan? Are you fighting gerrymandering in your state’s legislature? Are you working so all Americans can vote easily and surely? (Are you making sure that the term “Americans” is not unnaturally restricted, proscribed or hemmed in?) If TFG is gathered bodily to Valhalla this morning all of these fights will continue. If we loose them, with or without Trump in our politics, we’ll be watching the light of our democracy flicker fainter and fainter.

    • Eureka says:

      Right, everyone must be constantly reminded to channel their anxieties to real works instead of fretting for some Dateline-ification of democracy.

      It’s like people have watched too many crime shows and have writ large the idea that we can rest and heal once the bad guy(s) gets taken away. What’s going on here is so much bigger than that isolative fantasy suggests. [And there will be no “closure” except via some cyclical forgetting by future generations should we succeed in turning these tides.]

      DOJ, J6 Committee, Sedition Hunters et al. are doing their jobs and there are plenty of others to work on as you note.

  20. Savage Librarian says:

    Donald Dangles

    Hoping to secure with each dangle
    a richer life with more jingle jangle,
    Words that he’ll consistently mangle
    twist our democracy in a tangle.

    Adding that garish way he’ll wangle
    chaos through each awkward angle,
    He swindles saps with his spangle,
    A sadist had by his thirst to strangle.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      A Poetry Teacher on SL’s Rhyme Scheme (plus a grade for the semester):


      a … +!!!

      • Savage Librarian says:

        Ha, ha. Thanks, Ginevra. I’d say more like a+ for anal retentive. That’s how bad DJT messed up my mind. Or maybe he just triggered all those times I used to play Word Ladder…

  21. Troutwaxer says:

    To the tune of Barry Manilow’s “Copacabana”

    They’ll be no RICO
    It’s clear as diamond
    The judge was sitting in his chair, the prosecutor took the dare
    And he charged RICO, the jury freak-ohed
    So the goniff he got off
    The DA called before the bar
    The accusations flew, his ideas weren’t new
    The newbie troll was gutshot
    How ’bout treason too?

  22. harpie says:

    Marcy, this morning, about COSTELLO:
    2:34 AM · Feb 5, 2022

    Less than 48 hours before Bannon filed something claiming prosecutorial misconduct bc DOJ had obtained his attorney’s call records, I showed that the attorney in question [COSTELLO] was at the center of at least 3 pardon dangles tied to obstruction. [links to this post]

    If you report Bannon’s filing w/o referencing this history, including what appears to be a criminal referral out of the Mueller Report, you’re really just running propaganda for Bannon.

    Plus, much of Bannon’s filing is legal hogwash.

    Gonna have a lot more to say about how Robert Costello’s representations to USAO made the subpoena likely. But this claim in his 302 is not going to sit well with the judge in the case, Carl Nichols, who was involved in (may have written) the OLC memo. [screenshot]

    From that screenshot]:

    Costello stated he knew, once before, the Office of Legal Counsel said this was illegal. The Select Committee did not consider the Office of Legal Counsel opinion. He told Bannon he did not believe Bannon had to go, and, as such, they were not going to appear.

    …looking forward to reading what Marcy has to say about that!

    • Rayne says:

      Hey harpie — Remember Hans von Spakovsky? His (misspelled) name came up in an article which suggests the conspiracy to invalidate the election goes back to 2019. Cleta Mitchell is mentioned, too.

      So is ALEC. ~raised eyebrows~

    • harpie says:

      Thanks Rayne! I was [even more than usual] not able to keep up with things [pulling my hair out emoji here] since I posted the above comment. There IS much more surfacing about 2019.
      I’ll try to get my act together today, but here’s the note I made to myself before that:

      Look up in DOCS: Spakovsky / Republican National Lawyers Association

      Justin R. CLARK

      Clark is also Senior Counsel to the President’s re-election campaign focused on compliance and election day operations.[18]

      fn18 leads to: 2019 National Election Law Seminar (Day 1 of 2) [8/2 and 8/3/2019]

      • harpie says:

        Republican National Lawyers Association:

        [This is an excerpt of “History”, but read the whole thing]
        > About:

        […] In the months before the 2000 election, the RNLA hosted receptions for lawyers in Florida. Many of the attendees would play important roles on the ground in the effort to confirm President George W. Bush’s 2000 Election victory. Not just Florida members but many current and former RNLA members played crucial roles, such as Ted Olson and George Terwilliger.

        As a result of the 2000 Florida recount, everyone on all sides saw the need for lawyers to ensure open, fair, and honest elections. The RNLA hired Michael Thielen as its Executive Director and in 2002 he became RNLA’s first full-time employee. The RNLA grew twentyfold in size and became a leader in ensuring open, fair, and honest elections. […]

        When I checked, this was the last thing on their “News” page:

        • harpie says:

          [As I’ve said before, for me, ANY mention of the 2000 election makes the lights flash red and the sirens blare: ROGER STONE.]

          Just a little more “history”, to get this documented here:

          […] In 2015, the RNLA created its ballot access project and welcomed future White House Counsel Don McGahn to its Board of Governors.

          In 2016, the RNLA helped to organize and train hundreds of lawyers in key states across the country who held ensure that the election with President Trump’s historic victory was open, fair, and honest.

          In 2017, former RNLA Judicial Affairs Committee Chair Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. […]

          • Rayne says:

            I’ve scratched an earlier attempt at replying, opting instead to go with my initial gut response about the RNLA.

            I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like between Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) and Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).

            Sure, RAGA members are likely all licensed attorneys, but not all GOP-voting attorneys are members of RNLA.

Comments are closed.