When “Lock Her Up!” becomes “Wait Till Later!”

Last month, I did a post noting the legal significance of two paragraphs in Trump’s indictment, one quoting Trump’s promises to protect classified information during the 2016 election, and another quoting Trump’s rationale for (pretending to) strip John Brennan of clearance for using classified information for his own gain.

Here’s the paragraph quoting just some of the times Trump used a promise to protect classified information to beat Hillary Clinton.

22. As a candidate for President of the United States, TRUMP made the following public statements, among others, about classified information:

a. On August 18, 2016, TRUMP stated, “In my administration I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

b. On September 6, 2016, TRUMP stated, “We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. . . . We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified.”

c. On September 7, 2016, TRUMP stated, “[O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.”

d. On September 19, 2016, TRUMP stated, “We also need the best protection of classified information.”

e. On November 3, 2016, TRUMP stated, “Service members here in North Carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country.”

The two paragraphs played a certain role in proving that Trump understands the import of classified information. But they also, I argued, bundled a public integrity component up inside this Espionage Act trial.

That is, they laid out how Trump himself has argued that voters need to know whether you’re going to mishandle classified information before they cast their votes.

Those paragraphs may come in handy as DOJ attempts to respond to Trump’s opposition to the government’s proposed schedule for trial. Because he is now arguing that he’s too busy running for President to take time out to be tried for stealing classified records.

Note that Trump misrepresents what his filing attempts to do (and few journalists are calling him on it). The filing is titled, “Response in Opposition to the Government’s Motion for Continuance and Proposed Revised Scheduling Order” — that is, it claims to be responding only to the government’s pitch for a December trial. But the first paragraph admits that it is also asking Cannon to entirely withdraw her own orders setting trial in August.

The Defendants, President Donald J. Trump and Waltine Nauta, in the above captioned matter, respectfully request that this Court deny the Government’s proposed scheduling order, withdraw the current Order (ECF No. 28), and postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated. [my emphasis]

As we all hold our breath to see how Cannon will respond to this request, understand that Trump has pitched this (smartly, probably), as him against the government, but there’s a tiny chance Cannon will be miffed Trump is downplaying her own authority both here and (as I note below) on picking a jury.

There are many reasonable parts of this filing:

  • Trump argues this case should get complex case designation, leaving a longer time for pretrial proceedings (though he falsely claims the government is asking for an “expedited” trial)
  • Trump states that CIPA is going to take some time
  • Trump claims that this trial will present a number of matters of first impression — or at least matters of first impression for this Circuit (for example, Trump and Paul Manafort, have already lost on Special Counsel authority in DC, but not in the Eleventh Circuit)
  • Trump unsurprisingly calls all the classified designations as “purported,” which reserves the issue for trial
  • Trump describes that jury selection will be onerous (this is one issue on which Cannon has already issued a ruling)
  • While Trump is bullshitting that he’s being tried by his opponent, it is true that there should be as little secret evidence in this case as possible

Much of it is typical defense attorney argument about the need to adequately review the evidence before figuring out where to go next — though this filing pitches what is actually fairly modest discovery, if you ignore the CCTV footage, as a great burden.

The Government anticipates producing discovery in stages due to the sheer volume of documents collected and because of procedural mechanisms necessary to protect against the unlawful production of classified information. The Government produced its “first production of unclassified discovery” on June 21, 2023. 1 That initial production was substantial and voluminous. Therein, the Government produced more than 428,300 records (in excess of 833,450 pages) consisting of approximately 122,650 emails (including attachments) and 305,670 documents gathered from over ninety (90) separate custodians. The initial production also included some 57 terabytes of compressed raw CCTV footage (so far there is approximately nine months of CCTV footage, but the final number is not yet certain).

There’s a hilarious line where the same guy who consented to a discovery vendor to turn some of this very same evidence for a Special Master review before this very same judge less than a year ago now says the use of such vendors will be impossible given the “sensitive and high profile” nature of the case.

Since, unlike most cases, all the discovery materials are sensitive and high-profile, the Defendants are unable to utilize contract or other third-party reviewers to the extent such resources would normally be available.

And Trump pitches a one year investigation as a totally long time — without mentioning that he, with Judge Cannon’s help, caused three months of that duration by demanding a stay in the investigation, to say nothing of his months of obstruction before that.

The Government’s investigation into the matters at issue in the indictment has been ongoing for over a year.

There’s a funny progression where Trump first says his day job running for President doesn’t leave him time to be prosecuted for stealing documents the last time he was President, then admits that he has found time in his busy schedule for two other trials.

President Trump is running for President of the United States and is currently the likely Republican Party nominee. This undertaking requires a tremendous amount of time and energy, and that effort will continue until the election on November 5, 2024. Mr. Nauta’s job requires him to accompany President Trump during most campaign trips around the country. This schedule makes trial preparation with both of the Defendants challenging. Such preparation requires significant planning and time, making the current schedule untenable and counseling in favor of a continuance

[snip]

Finally, previously scheduled trials in other matters for both President Trump and defense counsel make it nearly impossible to prepare for this trial by December 2023. For example, President Trump and Mr. Blanche are preparing for a March 2024 criminal trial in New York Supreme Court; Mr. Kise and President Trump are preparing for a lengthy civil trial in New York Supreme Court commencing October 2, 2023;

[snip]

The pendency of these other proceedings and their collective impact on the ability of defense counsel to prepare effectively for trial also support granting a continuance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) & (iv).

But, given that he got elected the last time by promising he would be more careful with classified information than his opponent, the most remarkable paragraph in the filing is this one, where Trump says there is no exigency to scheduling this trial (as opposed to his hush money or corporate fraud trials) before the election.

While the Government appears to favor an expedited (and therefore cursory) approach to this case, it cannot point to any exigency or urgency requiring a rapid adjudication. There is no ongoing threat to national security interests nor any concern regarding continued criminal activity

I suspect the paragraph is designed to elicit a response to the question, “is there any concern regarding continued criminal activity?” That is, I think it is an attempt to probe for what more the government continues to investigate.

And yes, the government may well respond to this by answering, “funny you should mention ongoing threats to national security because we’re still looking for all the things that disappeared up at Bedminster.”

But the underlying premise is even more remarkable, given how Trump’s got elected the last time.

Trump says that there is no exigency in telling the citizens and voters of the United States whether the last time he was President, all the promises he made to get elected were just bullshit, because in fact he used his position of power to steal the nation’s secrets and store them in his chandeliered bathroom.

There is a lot that is reasonable in this filing.

But at its core, it argues that a guy accused of using the access to the nation’s secrets he got by getting elected President on false promises the last time, should get a shot at accessing those secrets again, without first letting a jury decide whether he had abused his position of power the last time.

Trump promised voters in 2016 that he would protect classified secrets; it’s actually a key part of how he got elected. Now he says voters shouldn’t have a chance to find out whether he broke that promise before going to the polls again.

Update: This post originally suggested current Trump lawyer Todd Blanche was on Paul Manafort’s team when he tried to challenge Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel authority. That’s not the venue in which Blanche represented Manafort.

Update: Judge Cannon has reset the CIPA conference for Tuesday afternoon, as all parties had agreed would work.

image_print
72 replies
  1. David F. Snyder says:

    The only consistency I expect out of Trump is akin to the consistency of the end product of dysentery. I look forward to reading the government’s response.

  2. Patient Observer says:

    I am not a lawyer.

    As a political observer (a patient one!) though, I understand the arguments in his filings to be part and parcel of his campaign.

    His supporters desperately want even thin reeds to butress their sense of righteousness in his cause.

    “Normie” Republicans — the anti-antis– will oblige.

    Question is, will Judge Cannon do her part?

  3. Desidero says:

    The 2 1/2 years Trump’s been pretending he’s still president and the 3+ years he’s running for another term doesn’t leave a lot from the 4 year gap for fru-fru like broken laws and civil suits. Barely enough to set up golf tournaments with Saudis. Gotta feel for the guy.

  4. jecojeco says:

    trump is 77 and not very healthy. He has been able to beat the US legal system his entire life. He’s confident that he’ll be able to delay his trial a long time with a judge like Cannon and then appeal any eventual convictions til he’s gone or too old & sick to face any real penalties.

    • Leu2500 says:

      When, oh when, will the myth that ‘Trump has beaten the US legal system his entire life’ die?

      He pretty much started his career losing to the US legal system when he & his dad entered into a consent decree with DoJ over housing discrimination.

      More recently, he settled Trump U. He settled Trump foundation. He lost 2 NDA lawsuits. He was found liable in E Jean Carrol’s lawsuit. His corporate person was just convicted of 17 counts of tax fraud.

      • LadyHawke says:

        Thanks for the reminder that Trump has never been legally invulnerable, just played every trick power, money and time can provide.
        Also, he has never smoked and supposedly doesn’t drink, is a germophobe and has access to the best medical care. Just because he looks a mess to us, doesn’t seem to have any stamina, etc. doesn’t mean he won’t be around for a very long time.

      • Rwood0808 says:

        I think that depends on your definition of justice.

        Justice, by my own definition anyway, has to include a negative impact on the guilty party’s life. None of the instances where trump has been found guilty have resulted in anything close to that. Whenever he was found guilty he woke up the next day and went on to live his life just as he has every other day.

        He’s suffered monetary damages, but never enough. His wealth was never cut to the point it impacted his lifestyle. He has never been denied his freedom. The various fines and other rulings against him may have slowed the grift machine down a bit, but never for very long. At the most he was mildly inconvenienced.

        So no, I don’t feel he has ever truly been held accountable for anything he has done. He has beaten the system for decades. I hope Smith ends that, but even if he does it will still be too little too late. The damage has been done.

  5. Konny_2022 says:

    Two additional observations related to the Trump and Nauta defense counsels’ filing dealt with in this post:

    (1) “Defense counsel has been working through the arduous process to obtain necessary security clearance (see ECF No. 21) and will update the Court pursuant to its July 6, 2023, Order. (ECF No. 57).”

    There are four persons comprising “defense counsel.” The quoted assertion is not true for at least one of them (Woodward), see https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/07/10/stanley-woodward-tests-judge-aileen-cannons-patience/ (last quote before no. 1 of the seven numbered Woodward complaints: “Perhaps more to the point, as of this writing [July 10, 2023], Mr. Woodward has yet to complete his Form SF-86, which is necessary for him to receive both an interim clearance and final adjudication, despite having been put in contact with the Litigation Security Group on June 12, some three-and-a-half weeks ago.”).

    (2) “The Government’s apparent view that these unprecedented issues should be adjudicated on an expedited basis is simply untenable and ignores the magnitude of this case.”

    When reading this I thought “Wait for the magnitude of the next case to come” and of Marcy’s post of June 10, 2023: “The Mar-a-Lago Indictment is a Tactical Nuke” (https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/10/the-mar-a-lago-indictment-is-a-love-bunny/). So I am like David F. Snyder above curious about the government’s response to this filing (which I expect to come very soon because they very often don’t exhaust the deadline given).

  6. John Rothschild says:

    FYI – Typo in the last sentence. ‘ shouldn’t a chance’ should be ‘ shouldn’t have a chance’.

  7. Joberly1954 says:

    This line in the filing caught my eye: “The authority, vel non, of the Special Counsel to maintain this action likewise presents a potentially dispositive issue of first impression in this Court.”

    I had to look up the meaning of “vel non” (it means “or not”) suggesting that the defendants may make a pre-trial motion challenging the special counsel appointment, perhaps because since 1999, there has been no statute governing such appointments.

    • Konny_2022 says:

      Same here. And then, in para. 13, this:

      “Moreover, also as noted above, the Defendants anticipate pursuing Constitutional and statutory challenges relative to the authority of the Special Counsel to maintain this action (additional issues of first impression for this Court). […] However, any such challenge cannot possibly be evaluated and presented prior to a review of the actual materials at issue.”

      So they are now only sowing doubt … and postpone any substantiation of such a claim to after the review of all materials.

    • Peterr says:

      Congress has written various laws to establish a vehicle of some kind to provide for prosecutors with some degree of independence for highly charged cases in which the investigator needs freedom to act without being shut down by high-ranking executive branch officials. Yes, the last such law expired in 1999, but since then the DOJ has been operating within their own internal structures to provide as much independence as it can absent such a law. There is no prohibition on DOJ structuring itself like this, and the only reason that this “presents a potentially dispositive issue of first impression” is that no competent lawyer has brought such a challenge in the past. And there have been plenty of chances to do so.

      Here’s just one, of particular interest to followers of Marcy’s work: Patrick Fitzgerald, who led the investigation into the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Fitz won a conviction against Scooter Libby, despite furious opposition from conservatives inside and outside government. Bush 43 commuted Libby’s sentence, keeping him out of prison, and Trump ultimately pardoned him completely. But no one on Libby’s highpowered legal team challenged the legality of Fitz’s appointment because it was done under DOJ regulations. All it meant was that Fitz was not as insulated from pressure as some of his predecessors like Lawrence Walsh of Iran-Contra fame.

      IOW, this is not a sign of a great novel new issue, but yet another Hail Mary plea aimed at chewing up the time and energy of the DOJ and the Court.

    • Shadowalker says:

      It was the Independent Counsel that was allowed to expire in 1999, mainly because after the Whitewater probe morphed into the Lewinsky affair, congress critters realized that the same statute could be used against them (imagine having a mini DoJ that has full authority to investigate only you with virtually no oversight). They replaced it with a new set of regulations for a Special Counsel, which was based more in line with the Special Counsel regs that were used to investigate Watergate.

      This order amends the Code of Federal Regulations to provide
      regulations concerning Attorney General appointment of Special Counsel
      to investigate and, when appropriate, to prosecute matters when the
      Attorney General concludes that extraordinary circumstances exist such
      that the public interest would be served by removing a large degree of
      responsibility for a matter from the Department of Justice. These
      regulations replace the procedures for appointment of independent
      counsel pursuant to the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of
      1994.

      EFFECTIVE DATES: July 1, 1999.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        The DOJ order no. 5559-2022 by which Garland appointed Smith has as preamble:

        “By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of certain matters, I hereby order as follows:”

        So there is even a statutory, not only a regulatory basis for the appointment.

  8. Karl M Bunday says:

    Thanks for this latest post. I like to link to a lot of your posts in social media channels, especially social media channels that reach Trump supporters, in the interest of getting them out of their news bubble.

    I see above some confusion about whether you are quoting one paragraph (a single numbered paragraph, with several lettered statements) or more than one paragraph from Trump’s indictment. The quoted text is introduced with “Here’s the paragraph . . . ” and then below the explanation begins with “The two paragraphs played a certain role in . . . ” with further mention of “they” (plural pronoun, referring to more than one paragraph) in the explanation of what the quoted statements mean. I’m very grateful for your close readings of the Trump case documents, which I wish would be emulated by more journalists. But some of the people I post to are so fussy about subject-verb agreement and other fine points of grammar (which I certainly mess up when composing social media posts, even though I know those points of grammar) that I thought I would mention this to you for a possible edit of your post. Your substantive points deserve to be attended to without quibbles about issues like that.

    Keep up the good work.

    • c-i-v-i-l says:

      Re: “I see above some confusion …,” she’s quoting the first of the two paragraphs she refers to in the preceding paragraph: “Last month, I did a post noting the legal significance of two paragraphs in Trump’s indictment, one quoting Trump’s promises to protect classified information during the 2016 election, and another quoting Trump’s rationale for (pretending to) strip John Brennan of clearance for using classified information for his own gain.”

    • Lisboeta says:

      I very much applaud your efforts to educate the MAGAts. I only wish that the corporate-owned MSM was as diligent and persistent. But how do you counter the MAGA arbiters of what is to be believed: “Alternative facts” ~ Kellyanne Conway; “Truth isn’t Truth” ~ Rudy Giuliani?

      Anyway, more power to your elbow!

  9. P’villain says:

    This specious motion looks to be a PR move, not a legal one, and ought to be a very poor way of introducing oneself to the judge. It will be extremely bad news if Judge Cannon gives it any serious consideration whatsoever.

  10. soundgood2 says:

    It’s had to believe we have gotten to the point where it is not simply disqualifying for a candidate to be under so many civil and criminal indictments. The need to defend from this should be a reason not to run not the other way around.

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      Disqualifying in what sense? The Constitution doesn’t have any such provision, and any federal statute that attempted to enact one (short of actually amending the Constitution) would likely be ruled unconstitutional on that basis. The parties, as private entities, could adopt restrictions on the candidates that they’ll advance, but you don’t have to be a party nominee to run for president, and I find it highly unlikely that the current GOP is going to adopt rules that would disqualify the presumptive front-runner for their nomination.

    • Bears7485 says:

      Barring people who are merely under investigation, let alone facing criminal and civil cases, from political candidacy is exactly what Trump and his deplorables were advocating for in 2016 and it’s an insanely dangerous proposition.

      • ButteredToast says:

        The commenter referred to indictments, not investigations. My guess would be that soundgood2 meant “disqualifying” not in the sense of a candidate being barred by law, but rather in the sense of (1) him/her declining to run out of shame, (2) recognition that indictments could interfere with carrying out duties if elected, or (3) primary voters rejecting the candidate in the first place. (And as Rayne wrote below, this last is still possible.)

        • ButteredToast says:

          Not much difference between these senses of “disqualifying” and legally being barred from running? I don’t see them as anywhere near equivalent, unless there is evidence that indictment(s) were brought with the goal of pressuring a candidate to withdraw. My impression was that the original comment was lamenting the willingness (so far) of Republican powerbrokers and primary voters to shrug at Trump facing criminal charges, including those brought in the SDFL. He enjoys the presumption of innocence, of course. But that doesn’t mean voters are obliged to disregard the allegations in evaluating his candidacy.

          Apologies if I misinterpreted your comment.

        • Shadowalker says:

          The only disqualification for holding any federal public office is by impeachment and conviction in the Senate twice, the first must be 2/3 majority for removal from the current term, then a second vote (only a simple majority to convict) is held to disqualify for the future. There are laws disqualifying as well as the 14th Amendment, but as far as I know these have never been tested in any court.

          An interesting side note is Alcee Hastings who was a federal judge convicted and removed by the Senate in 1989, however there was no second vote and Hastings ran for and won a seat in the House four years later, and even voted to impeach President Clinton.

        • timbozone says:

          Can you please provide a ref for where you are getting your bunk about Hastings voting for Clinton’s impeachment? Alcee Hastings voted to impeach several Federal judges but I see no record of him voting to impeach any Clintons…

        • Rayne says:

          Thank you for asking that. I should have read Shadowalker’s comment more closely because they should have been pressed immediately on this error.

          Hastings voted Nay on the two counts to impeach Bill Clinton which passed the House in 1998: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-resolution/611/all-actions?q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D (See roll call votes 543 and 545 in particular)

          Even Wikipedia gets this right in Hastings’ page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings

          Ordinarily I would demand Shadowalker respond but this thread is getting long and Shadowalker may not come back to it. But for any other community members who are making statements which could be verified with Wikipedia and its underlying sources, do it first before commenting.

          I can only assume Shadowalker saw the votes of Hastings from WA and not Hastings of FL, but still, not good when this could be so easily checked.

        • CovariantTensor says:

          “My guess would be that soundgood2 meant “disqualifying” not in the sense of a candidate being barred by law, but rather in the sense of (1) him/her declining to run out of shame…”

          That’s how I read it too: voluntary. It’s pretty unusual, Debs notwithstanding, for a candidate to have the chutzpah to run while under criminal indictment or conviction. But chutzpah is what Trump is all about.

        • abbakadabra says:

          > (1) him/her declining to run out of shame,

          This is precisely the problem in dealing with the Trump cult: they know no shame. In fact, for them the more shameless, the better. It’s a badge of honor. This is one of the bugs in a system that depends on the good-will of all actors.

    • Rayne says:

      It’s important to remember how the party system works. Trump does not yet have the GOP nomination in spite of whatever opinion polls say today, a year before the nomination is final. Nor is it assured he can win the electoral votes necessary should he win his party’s nomination. This isn’t done yet, not by a long chalk. His running now in spite of civil and criminal charges and open investigations may yet backfire if he’s using it to grift and his marks get fed up earlier rather than later.

  11. FL Resister says:

    The Trump attorney presents the argument that there are so many criminal cases against Donald that this one, involving his absconding with and careless handling of sensitive national security documents and presidential records will interfere with his bid to become president again? I cannot believe that any federal judge in her/his right mind would buy into this argument.
    Talk about a Hail Mary…

    • bmaz says:

      Sure, but too may prosecutions, in too many places, is a problem. I have long warned about this, but nobody listens.

      • emptywheel says:

        People listen. Sometimes they find old bmaz, who argued against USG bigfooting local prosecutions, more persuasive. Sometimes they argue that state counts against a federal official really are different. Sometimes they think there is simply a principle of justice involved.

        That people disagree with you does not mean they don’t listen — or would, if you made a more substantive argument.

        • David Brooks says:

          I have to say, after several intrusions trying to get clarity on bmaz’s objections, with the above I finally get it. It helped to have Fani Willis’s name not enter into it this time.

        • bmaz says:

          Well, those arguments are not disparate. And I have been making them forever. Long before I ever knew Emptywheel, in person or blog. About federal bigfooting on state law cases, as well as states usurping federal power. But, hey, what would I know? And thanks for calling me old! That was a nice touch.

        • Baltimark says:

          I inferred “old Bmaz” as referring to, in essence, “Bmaz in previous times,” not “over-the-hill Bmaz.” I suspect most did.

          Not trying to poke the bear at all; I’ve mostly lurked for — I think — six years or so and really appreciate the entirety of the core troika here (and Peterr and Ed et al. but just sayin’).

          Just making a very brief FWIW call from the cheap seats.

        • bmaz says:

          No, I am sorry, I am very much the “same bmaz”. On whatever the side of the hill you are considering. Circumstances have certainly changed, but I have been arguing my posits since I became a lawyer. In fact my L3 thesis was on state versus federal jurisdiction. And have argued this ever since. A LOT of people may be johnny come latelys to this issue, but I am certainly not one of them.

  12. FL Resister says:

    Trump attorney argues there are so many criminal cases against his client that this one, involving his absconding with, careless handling of, and refusal to return sensitive national security documents and presidential records will interfere with his bid to become president again.
    I cannot believe that any federal judge in her/his right mind would buy into this argument. Talk about a Hail Mary…

    • bmaz says:

      I’d sure take it into consideration were I a judge. The stupidity of too many prosecutions everywhere is seriously an issue. But, hey, the avaricious demand for that cannot be quashed apparently.

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        I am interested in knowing more about your opinion on this. Are you saying that the trial has less precedence than the election ? I want to understand.

        • bmaz says:

          No, not whatsoever, I want prosecutions to flow now. And not be mucked up without everything that “could” be prosecuted stringing everything out. And the more things are serially strung out, all over the map, including by small local county prosecutors, it plays straight into Trump’s hand.

          There is more at stake here than just Trump, there is also the health of the criminal justice system overall, both state and federal.

  13. West Coast Castaway(GG) says:

    Trump’s trial on classified documents will get delayed past 2024 election….There are two parties on trial, they’re both going to willfully cause delays, Trump’s Lawyers, Nauta’s lawyers will both cause delays, ….Nauta’s delays will cause Trump to delay even more, they’ll play off each other.
    So, a 2025 trial…..What happens when Trump loses 2024 election? Does he flee the country?

    Once Trump/Nauta secure a 2025 election…..To what length will DJT go to win, to steal the 2024 election…..?

    Trump went batshit crazy after his 2020 election loss and drove his maggots to rage…..Trump was facing no serious lawsuits and serious criminal charges going into the 2020 election, he will be facing many serious criminal charges going into 2024 elex.

    If Trump gets nomination, and, if Trump is losing pre-election polls on the run-up to 2024 election….Look for the ugliest, shit flinging, dirty tricks, illegal tricks and corruption of GOP election officials everywhere….

    The reason I say this…It’s true that Trump is running for president to fend off crimes(and rewrite history)….Which means if he loses his presidential run, he’ll will also lose on criminal charges too…a twofer……Trump will tear everything apart to avoid losing.

    This is gonna get real ugly…..DJT the country divider and destroyer of Democracy will rage at “levels never seen before”

    • bmaz says:

      You are so full of shit, your eyes are brown. Don’t spam this thread with thoughts and opinions of which you know absolutely nothing about.

    • Rayne says:

      You wrote 213 word of opinion adding nothing new to discussion in this thread — zero new facts but plenty of speculative blathering about Trump. Your comment also includes inappropriate 13 ellipses which is a very bad habit you need to shake.

      I don’t care how long you’ve been writing elsewhere including your blog but you’re not going to win fans here if you can’t add new fact-based content, be more concise, and stop abusing ellipses. Take a seat in the shade and note which comments here receive more positive, constructive engagement before you drop another comment.

      • West Coast Castaway(GG) says:

        Spamming? I suggest you look up the meaning of the word spamming Bmaz(one short comment placed on a public website doesn’t qualify as “spamming”, and that’s a FACT)..And you don’t see my comments littered throughout any Empty Wheel threads, or anybody else’s comment threads.

        What is wrong with opinion? Add facts to the thread you say? What facts, we all have the same facts, facts based on what has been filed in court, or been leaked to media or others…NOBODY HAS NEW FACTS TODAY…New facts and details will continue to emerge.
        It boggles the mind why Bmaz n Rayne are so outraged with a 20 second read…whether it be opinion OR fact based comment?.

        When you two see my comment, just jump over it, ignore it.

        It’s obvious to everyone that I don’t write comments at a level of intelligence worthy of Bmaz n Rayne wasting time reading.
        It’s almost like you enjoy harassing certain folk.

        Lastly, personally speaking….in this instance, you are both out of line, …Perhaps it’s the old boys club scenario playing out. Barking dogs and word counters over a little comment isn’t a good look.

        And your both too blind to see it.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Whinging over six paragraphs when two or three sentences would do might be part of the problem.

        • bmaz says:

          Lol, you are barking very much up the wrong tree. Stop. The reason this place exists is because we curb, er, that type of comment. I am trying to be polite. Next time, not so much.

        • SelaSela says:

          Whoa there.Getting a bit carried away, aren’t we? There is only one reason this place exists: Marcy’s insightful and thorough analysis. That’s the only reason this place exist. And the only reason most commenters (including myself) are here. There is nothing in the comment section that would make or break this blog. Even if the comment section would be full of “Make money from home” posts, this place would still be here.

          Now, for whatever reason, Marcy decided to make you a moderator. It’s her blog, so she can choose whoever she want. That’s fine. And you take pleasure in berating commenters. Which is fine too. Everybody deserves a hobby (and TBH, I sometimes enjoy your creative use of language. “You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown”, that’s pure gold). But don’t take credit you don’t deserve.

        • bmaz says:

          No, not getting carried away at all. And you have no clue what I have done here since the day we started. So, get out and mind your own business, we will take of ours.

        • Rayne says:

          Oh honey, you have picked the wrong fight on the wrong site.

          If you do not like how this site operates, leave. There is nothing holding you here.

          If you continue to attack moderation, you will have help finding the exit.

  14. West Coast Castaway(GG) says:

    Typo above…”Once Trump/Nauta secure a 2025 election”……..Should read Once Trump/Nauta secure a 2025 trial….

    • Scott_in_MI says:

      She’s delayed the first pre-trial conference from 7/14 to 7/18. The current trial date of 8/14 is still in place.

    • bmaz says:

      That means nothing. Omitting the weekend, it is really 2 days plus. Weekends don’t really count. Stop fretting over this please.

Comments are closed.