Trump Can’t Even Weaponize DOJ Competently

It is, no doubt, terrible that EDVA US Attorney Erik Siebert was forced out yesterday because he refused to charge Tish James with fraud when there’s little evidence she engaged in mortgage fraud.

But there are aspects of the firing that make it epically incompetent and, like the quid pro quo with Eric Adams and the effort to send hundreds of men to a concentration camp beforehand, may backfire going forward.

ABC, which was the first to report on the firing, confirms that Seibert received notice that Trump wanted to fire him on Thursday, which presumably is how both ABC and NBC reported he was expected to be fired in advance of that happening.

Siebert was notified of the president’s intention to fire him Thursday, sources said, and Trump said Friday afternoon in the Oval Office that he wanted Siebert “out” of his position.

That meant that the reason for the firing — the refuse to indict James — was public before it happened.

And even though Trump has reversed engineered a different reason for the firing — it’s not that he’s firing Siebert because Siebert won’t prosecute Tish James, it’s that he was backed by both Virginia’s Democratic Senators, which was true and apparent when Trump nominated Siebert — in the same breath he insisted that Seibert had not quit, but instead Trump had fired him.

Today I withdrew the Nomination of Erik Siebert as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, when I was informed that he received the UNUSUALLY STRONG support of the two absolutely terrible, sleazebag Democrat Senators, from the Great State of Virginia. He didn’t quit, I fired him! Next time let him go in as a Democrat, not a Republican.

Particularly given ABC’s report that Siebert would like to stay on at EDVA as an AUSA, this text, demanding credit for firing Siebert, changes Siebert’s legal options going forward, and the impact of the firing on cases Siebert wouldn’t charge.

Both NYT and WaPo report that Todd Blanche (and Pam Bondi, NYT adds) tried to save Siebert’s job.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general who runs the day-to-day operations of the Justice Department, had privately defended Mr. Siebert against officials, including William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who had urged that he be fired and replaced with a prosecutor who would push the cases forward, according to a senior law enforcement official.

​Mr. Pulte’s power far outstrips his role as the head of an obscure housing agency. He has gained Mr. Trump’s favor by pushing mortgage fraud allegations against perceived adversaries of the White House, including Ms. James; a Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook; and Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California.

Mr. Pulte has made use of his influence and access to a president who prefers advisers who are willing to push boundaries. He had told Mr. Trump directly that he believed Mr. Siebert could be doing more, according to several officials with knowledge of the matter.

But Mr. Blanche, like Mr. Siebert, questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against Ms. James, according to current and former department officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about internal discussions.

WaPo added the unsurprising bit that Ed Martin, who works for Bondi and Blanche, also weighed in to get Siebert fired.

They added that Ed Martin, the Justice Department official who is overseeing criminal investigations based on Pulte’s allegations, also pushed for Siebert to be removed.

Todd Blanche is Trump’s fixer, neck deep in an effort to make Trump’s sex-trafficking problems go away. He has not shied, at all, from enacting Trump’s campaign of revenge. And yet somehow it got reported that Blanche, “questioned the legal viability of bringing charges against Ms. James.”

The firing creates all sorts of headaches for Blanche. All of DOJ knows that Eagle Ed, along with Bill Pulte (who is not a lawyer and whose primary career skill has been benefitting from nepotism) got Siebert removed over Blanche’s objections. But it’s also public that even Blanche agrees there’s no case against James. Who is in charge of DOJ if Eagle Ed, never a prosecutor and prone to embarrassing gaffes when he tries to play lawyer more generally, can override Blanche’s personnel and prosecutorial decisions?

And it’s not just the James prosecution that will be difficult to charge in EDVA, though I can imagine judges there will be very skeptical of this investigation going forward. NYT also reports that Dan Richman, whose testimony prosecutors obtained in an effort to charge Jim Comey for statements he made four years and 355 days ago (meaning the statute of limitation expires in coming weeks), didn’t tell them what they wanted him to.

Mr. Richman’s statements to prosecutors were not helpful in their efforts to build a case against Mr. Comey, according to two people familiar with the matter.

It’s not clear that firing Siebert will achieve the ostensible objective — to install someone who will charge James and Comey, in spite of the evidence. If that were to happen, it might well blow up in epic fashion.

And whatever happens, this badly undermines Blanche’s hold on DOJ (even as various MAGAts have it in for Bondi and/or Kash).

Plus, some Republicans in Congress were already uncomfortable (anonymously) with Pulte’s tantrums.

“I think he’s a nut,” one House Republican said of Pulte. (Like others in this story, the lawmaker was granted anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive dynamics within the Trump administration.)

“The guy’s just a little too big for his britches,” said a second GOP lawmaker, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees housing policy and the FHFA. “I’ve got great respect for Bessent for taking him on.”

Partly that’s concern for the Fed, but it cannot have escaped their notice how easy it is to claim people engaged in mortgage fraud, not to mention the way such concerns could influence Ken Paxton’s challenge to John Cornyn in the Texas Senate primary.

None of that mitigates the dangers of this kind of weaponization. They just make it more likely that efforts to weaponize DOJ will create larger and larger problems for Blanche and possibly even for Trump.

Update: Reuters reports that a woman once investigated, but not charged, for involvement in January 6 has been appointed Acting US Attorney.

A former federal prosecutor who once claimed former President Joe Biden’s administration targeted her for being conservative told colleagues in an email on Saturday that she has been named to replace a top prosecutor who resigned on Friday after President Donald Trump had said he wanted him out.
In an internal email seen by Reuters, Mary “Maggie” Cleary told attorneys she has been “unexpectedly” tapped to be acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She did not immediately respond to an email from Reuters seeking comment.

Update: Trump has sent (two times, I think) a post berating Pam Bondi for not prosecuting his enemies, and then announced he’ll nominate Lindsey Halligan, the insurance lawyer who served as local counsel in ihs Florida case.

image_print
Share this entry
99 replies
  1. Frank Probst says:

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding the legal meaning of “mortgage fraud” here, but it sounds like the kind of thing that would be a “documents case”: You’ve either got two mortgage applications that conflict with each other, or you don’t. If you’ve got the documents, you could probably even attach them to the indictment so that everyone can the evidence for themselves. And nobody at the DOJ has been willing to do this. Is that a fair layman’s assessment of what’s happening here?

    • P J Evans says:

      IIRC, it was a paperwork error that was fixed. So they really have no case. Unlike, say, the various congrsscritters and officials who have two or three “principal residences” in two or three states.

      • posaune says:

        I’d like to know which congress members claim the DC homestead exemption (for lower taxes). I’ll bet it’s not zero.

    • xyxyxyxy says:

      Since when does the government get to go into someone’s mortgage application docs?
      Prior to the 2008 economy collapse, people were lying about their earnings as there were no-doc loans, etc. yet financial institutions nor the government investigated them, did they?
      Three members of Trump’s cabinet have multiple first home loans.

    • greengiant says:

      As a consumer it was explained to me a long time ago. You get a mortgage or refi on your principal residence. 6 months later you buy another house and get a mortgage with that as your principal residence. If doing a refi of a non principal residence the mortgage broker can make the mistake.
      The same industry where brokers slammed good borrowers into sub prime loans because the commissions were 7 times higher due to the demand for derivatives.

  2. I Never Lie and am Always Right says:

    From a layperson’s standpoint, Federal loan fraud involves knowingly providing a materially false loan application to a federally insured lender. Technically the lender is not required to rely on the false statement. In the real world, prosecution of loan fraud normally does not occur unless the loan becomes non-performing. Something to do with juries not likely to convict in the absence of harm to the lender.

    You don’t necessarily need multiple loan applications to prove the crime. Stating that you intend to use a home as a primary residence when you don’t intend to use it as a primary residence can be materially false because it affects the interest rate on the loan (i.e., the risk to the lender).

    Years ago lenders would require prospective individual borrowers to give them copies of their personal income tax returns. I saw situations where there were multiple loan apps given to different lenders, each app with a different “version” of the person’s tax return. Today you sign a document that allows the lender to obtain information directly from the IRS.

    • Frank Anon says:

      If I recall, the “no harm to the lender” defense was the core of the Trump defense in the New York fraud case

  3. Cheez Whiz says:

    Its useful to remember that for Trump whether a prosecution is winnable or even plausible is secondary. What he wants is the media spectacle of the charge and trial, the harrassment of forcing the plantiff to defend herself. Any conviction is gravy. “Just announce the investigation, we’ll take it from there”. The only real job for his lawyers is to avoid discovery or a deposition under oath.

    • wa_rickf says:

      Agreed. Trump wants the spectacle He did that with Zelenskyy to find dirt on ol’ Joe. It didn’t have to be true, Trump would take it from there.

      Trump files lawsuits for the media spectacle of it. Trump hires incompetent cabinet members for the spectacle of it. Trump loves innuendo, gossip, and drama – because he is so alpha. Cabinet members agreeing in advance to do Trump’s dirty work guarantees a job in Trump 2.0 as well.

      • P J Evans says:

        He isn’t “alpha” (which is pop psychology, not an actual thing). He’s a *bully*, and a narcissist, and needs to be at the center of attention all the time.

        • wa_rickf says:

          I was being facetious in using the term alpha with Trump. Trump is anything BUT alpha. In my community we use the term “butch.”

          That MAGAts think Trump is alpha is laughable. MAGAts use the term to infer hyper-masculinity. That is why they like masculine tropes like cops, military guys and cowboys – basically what Jacques Morali did with the Village People. MAGAts love a man in uniform – this is especially true of male MAGAts – and they want to take an order from such a hyper masculine man and it’s all so very homoerotic.

          Clearly MAGAts have no concept of what hyper-masculinity when they refer to a make-up wearing, namby pamby like Trump and his side kick eye liner and mascara wearing smokey eye Vance.

        • wa_rickf says:

          “…MAGAts love a man in uniform – this is especially true of male MAGAts – and they want to take an order from such a hyper masculine man and it’s all so very homoerotic….”

          SEE: Karl Rove and “Bulldog” Jeff Gannon

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        It can’t be that “Trump hires incompetent cabinet members for the spectacle of it.”
        It has to be for a deeper motive, like wreck the US for benefit of some foreign country and/or individual.
        Nobody would hire worthless shits like Hegseth and Gabbard and Noem and Bondi to run the military and intelligence and homeland security and law enforcement unless the purpose is to destroy the US.

        • john paul jones says:

          Not everything humans do is rational. Trump does things to maintain his narcissistic supply, so rationality, except in a limited sense (money) is off the table, as is the notion of consequences.

        • phichi174 says:

          total. the felon’s handlers have big plans for restructuring the federal government to service the financial sector: Department of War sells weapons to NATO, the DNI’s Bride of Putinstein outs malcontents who believe in the nation, DHS has $15 billion to roundup whoever gets in their way and the Department of Justice is making sure that white collar crimes are unheard of by deep-sixing all the legal cases, e.g., JPMorgan et al’s involvement in child sex trafficking and prostitution; you know, bank stuff

        • SotekPrime says:

          It’s because they’re beholden to him.

          In Trump I he was regularly stymied by his own appointees who were far-right ideologues but also competent at their jobs telling him he was trying to do illegal or impossible things.

          So now, he appoints corrupt incompetents who know that without him they would be nothing and tells them to do whatever asinine bullshit he wants done, and incompetence is a selling point because it means they will never try to stymie him just because he told them to do the impossible.

          IOW, it’s coup-proofing for the bureaucracy.

        • BrrGrrDelux says:

          I’m not sure Trump has the attention span to hatch a scheme whose purpose was to destroy the US, although I’m sure he’d be happy if he could bring it down with him when he goes. Trump hires people he saw on TV. I don’t think there’s much more to it.

          [Welcome back to emptywheel. **FOURTH AND FINAL REQUEST**: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “Justice Phrall” triggering auto-moderation; it has been edited to reflect your established username. Please check your browser’s cache and autofill. **You are at risk of banning from comments if your username does not match on future comments.** /~Rayne]

        • xyxyxyxy says:

          re-BrrGrrDelux September 21, 2025 6:59 pm
          Why does anyone need Trump to hatch a scheme?
          The scheme is Project 2025 which has nothing to do with him after he won the election.
          It’s all by “friends “ of Putin. Trump doesn’t know his ass from…
          As far as “ Trump hires people he saw on TV. I don’t think there’s much more to it.”
          There sure as hell is, to destroy the US.
          OPEN YOUR EYES.

      • HorsewomaninPA says:

        People with Trump’s mental disorder are deeply delusional. They see the world as truly dog eat dog, everyone is corrupt and if you view your environment as a daily Hunger Games, then it justifies your aggressive and retaliatory actions. When he gets caught at doing something illegal, he retaliates with the strong, delusional belief that everyone is doing it, therefore, any punishment is “unfair”. It is an illness devoid of any trust of anyone else. Even the people who may be on the inside now, are subject to getting kicked out at the slightest hint of betrayal. When you view everything and everyone as corrupt, every accusation of people you view as opponents is accurate. It is an incredibly dangerous disorder because the people with it are completely delusional and unretreivable.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      That might be a workable system of intimidation if the case isn’t summarily dismissed out of hand — thus Trump’s summary firing.

  4. BRUCE F COLE says:

    I’m wondering when the 25th Amendment might come into play because the Cabinet realizes that he’s incapable of not fucking up their game-plan on a routine basis, even more-so than normal for him? At some point don’t they have to acknowledge that their emperor is bare-ass naked?

    “Well, he didn’t try to cop a feel from Kate Middleton at the royal dinner, so there’s that,” might not end up being enough — at some point.

    Otoh, underestimating their disdain for civilized behavior hasn’t worked out so well, thus far…

    • gruntfuttock says:

      Come now, J D ‘childless cat ladies’ Vance is all for ‘civility’:

      The BBC report that, standing in for the late Charlie Kirk, he said: ‘We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.’

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0r5y33pj5o

      If there is such a thing as an irony scale, it needs a whole new setting way beyond eleven.

  5. Brad Cole says:

    Trump seems to “think” that getting his buttboys to convict James on loan fraud will negate (in someone’s mind) the 39 convictions she got him on for loan fraud related crimes.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      “…loan fraud related crimes” completely misses the mark that James nailed him for 34 counts on. He was convicted of falsifying business records for the purposes of committing election fraud.

      Your framing of it sounds like you’re conflating it with his Manhattan civil court conviction for loan fraud, the monetary portion of which was tossed out by the appeals court, while the other judgements remain –so far.

      As to your assumption that like-for-like vengeance is his motive in ordering his DOJ to bogusly pursue James for tax fraud, that’s a self-evident given.

  6. phichi174 says:

    if you’ve ever taken the time to read any of the pedophile-in-chief’s legal motions, you are immediately struck by how devoid of law or facts that make up these woefully indulgent displays of contempt of our legal system (see for example the latest tripe in the $15B suit against the NYTs that was thrown out by the court). clearly, what the traitor-in-chief relies upon is not just trashing the judicial (and every other) system everyday, but that all the legal twaddle his “lawyers” traffic in will all come out in the wash once the case reaches the supreme felons and their magical shadow system of right-wing constitutionality. perverting the legal system is the goal

  7. TooLoose LeTruck says:

    “If that were to happen, it might well blow up in epic fashion.”

    Might well blow up in epic fashion?

    With the insane clown posse Trump’s surrounded himself with, yet another epic blow up is pretty much assured…

    I constantly feel like I’m watching a Road Runner cartoon, with Wiley Coyote firing off that infamous shotgun with bent barrels that always comes back to hit him in the butt…

  8. harpie says:

    https://bsky.app/profile/mcbridetd.bsky.social/post/3lzc6usm5ys2s
    September 20, 2025 at 4:12 PM

    Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump’s DOJ shut it down.

    The FBI and Justice officials closed the investigation, which a Justice Department appointee had called a “deep state” probe in early 2025.
    [MSNBC Link]

    2] https://bsky.app/profile/noahshachtman.bsky.social/post/3lzc7b5tsmc27
    September 20, 2025 at 4:19 PM

    More than that. “The FBI ***recorded*** Tom Homan taking the money “after indicating he could help the agents — who were posing as business executives — win government contracts in a second Trump administration.”

    He allegedly accepted the money ***in cash*** “On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources.”

    Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump’s DOJ shut it down. The FBI and Justice officials closed the investigation, which a Justice Department appointee had called a “deep state” probe in early 2025.
    https[:]//www.msnbc.com/msnbc/news/tom-homan-cash-contracts-trump-doj-investigation-rcna232568 [< broken link]
    Sept. 20, 2025, 3:45 PM EDT Carol Leonnig and Ken Dilanian

    • harpie says:

      From the article:

      […] Undercover FBI agents posing as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to Homan, and with Homan himself, who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office, according to documents and the people familiar with the case.

      On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources. […]

      […] “If someone who is not yet a public official, but expects to be, takes bribes in exchange for agreeing to take official acts after they are appointed, they can’t be charged with bribery,” said Randall Eliason, the former chief of public corruption prosecutions in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. and former white-collar law professor. “But they can be charged with conspiracy to commit bribery. In a conspiracy charge, the crime is the agreement to commit a criminal act in the future.” […]

    • harpie says:

      Marcy’s reaction:

      https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3lzdpmdhlak26
      September 21, 2025 at 6:44 AM

      A few Qs in this week’s Kash hearings that ring differently know that we know Tom Homan took a bribe.

      1) Kash was asked how many people triggered CI concerns in background checks. Homan investigation was a CI investigation.
      2) Kash was asked WHY background checks were halted until he was confirmed.

      That said, the record is still open on both hearings. So
      @durbin.senate.gov @raskin.house.gov and others can submit a whole slew of QFRs about why Kash allowed Homan get away with bribery.

      I seem to recall KA$H also being asked if anyone who
      failed a polygraph was still employed.

      • harpie says:

        Here it is: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lyxk4ie7mi23
        September 16, 2025 at 10:34 AM

        DURBIN: Did you or Attorney General Bondi provide any individual with a waiver so they can remain employed after they received disqualifying alerts on their polygraphs?
        KASH PATEL: I’ll have to get back to you on that
        DURBIN: You don’t remember that?
        PATEL: No sir [VIDEO]

        Also: https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lyxopwax6a2n
        September 16, 2025 at 11:57 AM

        [HIRONO: Since President Trump’s innauguration, the Executive Assistant Director in charge of the criminal and cyber branch and the head of the FBI cyber division have both left the FBI.]
        HIRONO: What are the names of the people who replaced them in those positions?
        PATEL: The cyber branch is one of the most important at the FBI
        HIRONO: Who has those positions?
        PATEL: Supremely qualified individuals [< lol!]
        HIRONO: Names?
        PATEL You're not getting them
        HIRONO: You don't know [VIDEO]

  9. earthworm says:

    it’s zany, hilarious, and dread-making, all at the same time.
    How many times a day or week one finds oneself thinking or saying, this cant be happening. Or can it?
    Even here at EW, commenters allege, he [the lying perv that is our fearful leader] is dumb.
    not so; cant go along with that. devious yes, cunning yes, some kind of POA in there, in addition to the obvious Rumpelstiltskin-ish crazed obsession with the geld.
    tend to agree with poster xyxyxyxy. what kind of American leader is so comfortable with putin’s irredentism? yeah, maybe even Alaska.

  10. earthworm says:

    and just for kicks and giggles, how about dutch satirist Arjen Lubach ‘s send up of Disney over jimmy kimmel?
    not linking, go find it yourself.

  11. Amateur Lawyer at Work says:

    There’s a declination memo to file, a bunch of saved emails, and several memos to file of meetings and calls that do not have official transcripts. You don’t do what Siebert did without first extensively papering the file, making back-ups and sending it onward to various others.

  12. Thequickbrownfox says:

    All of this stuff is true. It is really happening.

    But, nobody has yet found a way that stops it. If the legislative branch is on the side of autocracy, and if the next election doesn’t change the House, and there is obviously a coordinated effort to make certain that it doesn’t, then what next? What happens when resistance hits the streets and the executive invokes the Insurrection Act? How far has this been gamed out by the Reich Wing? I’m thinking way out, and they are already far ahead of any resistance. They already have road maps to successful autocracies. What are the successful roadmaps to resistance that haven’t already been gamed by the autocracy? That is the problem we have here. THEY learn from history too, and develop counters to what has been successful resistance in the past. This is a very dangerous time, and the problem is world-wide, not only here in the U.S. And, THEY now have the databases (thanks to DOGE), and they have the ability to cross-reference every item in those databases. That’s not to mention the hundreds (probably thousands) of connected license plate readers that can track anyone on the roads almost anywhere, at any time, including historically. Think about that……

    Brave New World, indeed

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      1. We need to look past Trump. He is not the one making plans, just the old dementing narcissist blarbling about his power. The ones laying plans are not dementing (they may be narcissists) and they have gained access to far to much data and too many systems.

      2. Keep our eyes on elections. They are trying to steal them right now. We can’t let that happen now because next year will be too late. Trump WILL start a war to “justify” seizing control of whatever he can. They are paving the way in Congress now. Now is the time to stop them.

      Does this require putting blinders on, ignoring travesties you would rail against any other time? Yes. Yes it does.

  13. xyxyxyxy says:

    Kilmeade’s kill the POOR along with Russian style rosy picture propaganda put in place
    “After cuts to food stamps, Trump administration ends government’s annual report on hunger in America
    [T]wo and a half months after President Donald Trump signed legislation sharply reducing food aid to the poor. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the tax and spending cuts …means 3 million people would not qualify for food stamps, also known as SNAP benefits.” leads to THE DECISION TO SCRAP the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Household Food Security Report was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
    https://apnews.com/article/trump-ending-america-hunger-report-snap-cuts-750f90757f50ab2d8bc97dfca5a917dd

  14. harpie says:

    Re: the second UPDATE, and PJ’s comment above at September 21, 2025 at 12:30 am:

    ‘We can’t delay any longer’: Trump urges Bondi to prosecute his rivals
    In a Truth Social post Saturday, the president specifically called out Sen. Adam Schiff, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James for prosecution.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/20/trump-bondi-truth-social-00574380
    Kyle Cheney 09/20/2025 07:44 PM EDT // Updated: 09/20/2025 09:18 PM EDT

    • harpie says:

      Cheney’s THREAD about it is here:

      https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3lzch4tiwwr2k
      September 20, 2025 at 6:40 PM

      Trump criticizes Pam Bondi for not charging his adversaries quickly enough, in a Truth Social post that looks a lot like a DM. [Link][screenshot]
      [THREAD]
      September 20, 2025 at 9:07 PM
      MORE: Trump amplified his message Saturday night in a gaggle with reporters, saying he didn’t intend his post as a criticism of Bondi but that “We have to act fast.”

      “We have to do it now,” he said. [LINK]

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        So we know that Trump’s exhortation for haste was related to statute of limitations expirations?

        When I heard him saying it, I got the distinct impression that he had felt death’s hot breath on his neck–and *that* was the cause for the rush.

        Actually…Trump doesn’t have a neck anymore. MAGAts’ heads seem to sink into their shoulders. Perhaps he heard time’s winged chariot pulling up to his curb.

    • harpie says:

      And Marcy notes:

      https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3lzcpkylbk22t
      September 20, 2025 at 9:11 PM

      Note: One reason Trump may be saying “we have to act fast.”

      The comments Jim Comey made to Congress they want to prosecute were made on September 30, 2020.

      They’ve got 8 days to charge it.

      Also note: Preet Bharara says that statute of limitation has ALREADY expired on Adam Schiff’s imagined fraud.
      [screenshot][LA Times link]

      TRUMP sounds REALLY desperate…LOL!

  15. Magnet48 says:

    I wonder if they’re stupid enough to have mistaken Eric Seibert for Professor Eric A. Seibert thinking it was ok to keep him on?

  16. harpie says:

    Jack Smith gave a talk at George Mason University this week.

    1] Allison Gill wrote about it here [Andrew McCabe was there]:
    Jack Smith: “The Department of Justice Was My Home…That Home is Now On Fire.”
    Former Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered remarks at George Mason University this week, warning of the weaponization of the Justice Department under the Trump administration.
    https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/new-jack-smith-the-department-of
    Allison Gill Sep 20, 2025

    […] He concluded by warning against cynicism. Disillusioned people don’t lead interesting lives. They don’t get things done. And they don’t make the world a better place. He encouraged everyone to speak up, tell the truth, and embrace the opportunity to stand up for what you believe in. “Stand up to powerful people, and stand up for vulnerable people. Wherever and whenever you can.

    “As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, the arc of the moral universe is long,
    but it bends towards justice. But that arc doesn’t bend on its own.
    We need to make that happen.” […]

    2] Here’s a write-up from the school:
    Jack Smith’s Wilkins Lecture Makes the Case for Saving the Rule of Law
    https://content.sitemasonry.gmu.edu/news/2025-09/jack-smiths-wilkins-lecture-makes-case-saving-rule-law Buzz McClain September 18, 2025

    Veteran corruption prosecutor Jack Smith, speaking September 16 at George Mason University’s annual Wilkins Lecture, presented overwhelming evidence that the rule of law in the United States is under serious threat. The former Department of Justice special counsel worked the Harris Theatre auditorium like a courtroom of 450 jurors, defining legal terms, citing testimony, identifying culprits, and presenting possible remedies.

    The verdict was a standing ovation. […]

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      How did he get in and out without getting arrested? Or worse? Had to be off MAGA’s radar.

      Many of us still love you, Mr. Smith.

  17. harpie says:

    Trump Officials Didn’t Know If His Order To Prosecute Foes Was Meant To Be Secret The president’s social media posts urging Pam Bondi to promptly charge his political foes blindsided top officials in his administration https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-bondi-order-prosecute-enemies-james-schiff-comey-1235432027/
    Rolling Stone Asawin Suebsaeng, Andrew Perez September 21, 2025

    […] “Yeah, he texts like that,” one Trump adviser says. “It’s a lot like what the president writes online.”

    Some administration officials, the sources say, determined that even though it was likely this was another instance of the president accidentally posting a private message publicly, it was best to just carry on, and act like it was a written demand that was always meant for public consumption. […]

    I got the excerpt from a Mike Masnick screenshot provided here:
    https[:]//bsky.app/profile/mmasnick.bsky.social/post/3lzeutblcz22v
    September 21, 2025 at 5:50 PM

    • harpie says:

      BUT also, here’s Steve Vladeck:

      179. Whither the Birthright Citizenship Cases? Notwithstanding the Court’s June ruling, President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order remains blocked—a broader lesson on the risks of paying attention to only one part of the news cycle. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/179-whither-the-birthright-citizenship
      Steve Vladeck Sep 22, 2025

      […] For all of the attention that is (understandably) being paid to the unprecedented number of cases the Trump administration is rushing to the Supreme Court (we’re up to 28 [link]), and to the Court’s (troubling) behavior in those cases [link], they represent only a small subset of the broader universe of legal challenges to Trump administration behavior. In the majority of cases in which the government is losing in the lower courts, it is (1) not seeking emergency or expedited intervention from above; and (2) otherwise complying with the adverse rulings while the cases move (very slowly) ahead. […] [italics original]

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        Vladeck is a national treasure. If only the MSM paid one-tenth of the attention to these reversals that it does to Charlie Kirk anything.

    • harpie says:

      Here’s SHIRLEY’s bio at NEWSMAX:
      https://www.newsmax.com/Insiders/CraigShirley/bio-310/

      An excerpt from his latest
      [Charlie Kirk’s Murder Confirms Our Descent to Hell 16 September 2025]:

      […] They tried twice to assassinate Donald Trump.

      But the left’s response is to either yawn or cheer the assassins on.

      Charlie Kirk.

      He was killed because he dared to utter words and ideas the left can’t bear to hear . . . ever.

      And when a prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family was offered on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats hooted, yelled, and shouted it down.

      They hate prayer and any reverence for Charlie Kirk.

      Yes, it’s come to this. […]

      This is the NYT article:
      In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates
      The president’s complaints about negative coverage
      undermine the rationales offered by his own officials. https[:]//www.nytimes.com/2025/09/21/us/politics/trump-free-speech.html
      Peter Baker Sept. 21, 2025

    • harpie says:

      Good morning, Rayne! I don’t know if I messed something up or if my comment is in the pokey…Could you let me know, because I don’t want to reiterate. THANKS!

      [Just freed it up, sorry about that. No idea what triggered auto-mod except for the link. /~Rayne]

    • harpie says:

      [THANK YOU, Rayne! :-)]

      Here’s HISTORIAN Kevin Kruse on 9/15/25:
      https://app.staging.bsky.dev/profile/kevinmkruse.bsky.social/post/3lyv6h4elv224
      September 15, 2025 at 12:00 PM [emphasis added]

      I spoke with the NYT Magazine a while ago but have now heard that an editor said they can’t quote me
      because I’m “too liberal” to be a trusted source
      .

      You know what’s always the first example conservatives use to claim I’m “too liberal”?

      My work in the 1619 Project, organized by the NYT Magazine.

    • harpie says:

      AND…while I’m on this:

      Law Professor Heidi Kitrosser [focusing on constitutional law, especially free speech, the separation of powers, and government secrecy]:

      https://bsky.app/profile/heidikitrosser.bsky.social/post/3lz4qhe2oic2i
      September 18, 2025 at 12:11 PM

      I find this extremely chilling:
      I spoke w a reporter this morning about Kimmel. (Reporter was / is great) They got back to me a short while ago to say they sought White House comment & WH demands to know first which experts they spoke with. I told reporter I’m happy to be quoted IN THE STORY but 1/x

      not okay w WH trying to intimidate me or others behind the scenes which this seems to be about. Why else does WH need to know which law professors spoke to the press before a story is published? The WH was asked a question about the law (as were we), not asked about personal or factual issues. 2/2

      • harpie says:

        AND NPR correspondent Shannon Bond:

        https://bsky.app/profile/shannonbond.bsky.social/post/3lz5ahcesoc2e
        September 18, 2025 at 4:57 PM

        we wrote about this WH tactic recently. they’re asking journalists for expert source names and then using them to look up political donations in FEC records to try to discredit those sources as biased. [Link]

        to be clear, the WH is also attacking sources on same grounds once they’re named in published stories.

        Links to:
        What’s behind the Trump administration’s immigration memes?
        Heard on All Things Considered August 18, 20255:48 AM ET
        Jude Joffe-Block /Shannon Bond

    • harpie says:

      NYT Charlie Savage responds to Shannon Bond:

      https://bsky.app/profile/charliesavage.bsky.social/post/3lz6zerci5k2p
      September 19, 2025 at 9:56 AM

      I experienced this last week & refused, saying I had never before been asked to provide the names of any analysts I was planning to quote to get a comment. Spox replied that maybe they were D donors. (In that case, it was 3 retired top military JAG officers.)
      I guess that was not a weird oneoff.

      And “Climate scientist-communicator” Daniel Swain, responds to Savage:

      https[:]//bsky[.]app/profile/weatherwest[.]bsky.social/post/3lz7egiscb22s
      September 19, 2025 at 1:14 PM

      I can confirm, as a scientific source in the news media, that
      this is definitely not an isolated incident as the White House has made formal comments regarding my personal political contribution history when asked for comment re: my quotes on weather, climate, and wildfire-related issues.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        harpie, thank you SO much for tracking these abominations. These incursions on press freedom (and the ways outlets are complying with them, softly) actually threaten us far more than the cancellation of Colbert or Kimmel.

        Trump (and his Goebbels, Miller) want more than anything to discredit and disappear true expertise. Experts generally possess command of facts and verifiable history, and nothing threatens MAGA hegemony more than that…what we used to call “truth.”

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Did Shirley write “sensor”? Or was that the product of some AI transcription?

      It doesn’t matter. The image it conjured in my mind remains indelible!

  18. harpie says:

    New in HOMAN TODAY

    https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lzgwx4gpad23
    September 22, 2025 at 1:34 PM

    Q: Did the president ask the DOJ to close the Homan investigation
    and does he have to return the $50,000

    LEAVITT: Mr. Homan never took the $50,000, so you should get your facts straight [LOL!] … you had FBI agents going undercover to try and entrap one of the president’s top allies and supporters [VIDEO]

Comments are closed.