Showing posts with label indicted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label indicted. Show all posts

Saturday, October 11, 2025

NY AG Letitia James Is Indicted On Donald Trump's Orders

 

The U.S. Department of Retribution (formerly the Department of Justice) has gotten another Trump-ordered indictment. After indicting James Comey a few days ago, it has now indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James. As with the Comey case, the James case is very flimsy and unlikely to be successful. But it makes Trump happy to attack his critics and political opponents, and that's the only thing that seems to matter to sycophant Pam Bondi. We can expect more of these political indictments in the future.

Molly Roberts at Lawfare explains how weak the case is against AG James:


Sunday, September 28, 2025

Comey Responds To The Ridiculous DOJ Indictment

Former FBI director James Comey responded to his indictment by Trump's Justice Department.

From ABC News:

"My heart is broken for the Department of Justice. I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I am innocent, so let's have a trial, and keep the faith. My family and I have known for years that there are costs for standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees and you shouldn't either. Somebody that I love dearly (his daughter) recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant and she is right. But I am not afraid, and I hope you are not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does."

Saturday, September 27, 2025

The Department Of Retribution (Formerly The DOJ) Gets A Comey Indictment

Donald Trump took a giant step toward the furtherance of his authoritarian power yesterday with the indictment of James Comey. Here is how Alan Feuer, Jonah E. Bromwich, and Maggie Haberman describe it in The New York Times:

The clearest way to understand the extraordinary nature of the indictment on Thursday of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, is to offer up a simple recitation of the facts.

An inexperienced prosecutor loyal to President Trump, in the job for less than a week, filed criminal charges against one of her boss’s most-reviled opponents. She did so not only at Mr. Trump’s direct command, but also against the urging of both her own subordinates and her predecessor, who had just been fired for raising concerns that there was insufficient evidence to indict.

The charges, which were filed around 7 p.m. in Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., thrust the Justice Department into perilous new territory. The push for the indictment trampled over the agency’s long tradition of maintaining distance from the White House and resisting political pressure, and it raised the prospect of further arbitrary prosecutions pushed by Mr. Trump against his enemies.

Heightening the break-glass moment, the felony charges against Mr. Comey, who stands accused of making false statements and obstructing justice, were rushed into court as Mr. Trump’s handpicked prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, hurried to beat the quickly approaching statute of limitations on Mr. Comey’s purported crimes.

The rush to prosecute Mr. Comey was the clearest example yet of how the normal process of justice has been reversed under Mr. Trump, showing how the president came into his second term with targets already in mind and ultimately pressured the Justice Department, over a degree of internal resistance, into finding a way to charge a former director of the F.B.I.

Ms. Halligan, who had been working as a top official in the White House staff secretary’s office and had previously served as a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump, had until now never prosecuted a single case in her career.

Mr. Trump nevertheless appointed her as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Monday afternoon, after publicly berating Attorney General Pam Bondi on Saturday night for not moving more aggressively to prosecute Mr. Comey and two other figures who are longtime targets of his retribution campaign, Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, and Senator Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California. . . .

In voting to indict, the grand jury judged that the evidence it heard indicated that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Comey might have committed a crime. But prosecutors have expansive sway over grand juries, and it remains unclear, given the secretive nature of such bodies, how much the grand jurors were aware of the broader circumstances of the case. . . .

That Mr. Trump could successfully initiate such a case also increases the potential costs of opposing him, an expansion of presidential power that could chill public dissent across the country.


Thursday, August 24, 2023

Most Approve Of The Indictment Of Trump In Georgia

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll --  done between August 19th and 22nd of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,309 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 3.2 points, and for registered voters is 3.1 points.

Wednesday, August 16, 2023

Trump And 18 Allies Are Indicted By Georgia Grand Jury

The Georgia Grand Jury has indicted Donald Trump for 13 crimes. That makes a total of 91 crimes that he has been indicted for between four different Grand Juries. Georgia also indicted 18 of Trump's allies (co-conspirators) for helping Trump try to subvert Georgia law after the 2020 election.

Here, from The New York Times, are the 19 people indicted: 















Monday, August 07, 2023

Friday, August 04, 2023

Trump's Defenses Are Just More Lies/Revisionist History


The following post is by Samantha Putterman and Maria Ramirez Uribe at PolitiFact.com:

After a grand jury voted Aug. 1 to indict former President Donald Trump — his third indictment, this one related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election — he and his team shifted into defense mode. 

In a campaign statement, fundraising email and Truth Social posts, Trump downplayed his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, compared the indictment with Nazi Germany and highlighted instances when Democrats objected to past elections. 

We fact-checked four of Trump’s claims, which include inaccuracies and revisionist history. 

"As you know, I did nothing wrong. It’s well-documented that I told Americans to act ‘PEACEFULLY’ and discouraged the use of any violence" on Jan. 6, 2021. — Aug. 1 Trump campaign fundraising email 

Trump’s words and actions before and during the Jan. 6 riot paint a different picture. 

In December, Trump repeatedly encouraged his supporters to fightthe election results and gather at the Capitol. At a Jan. 4 rally in Georgia, Trump repeated his grievances and told the crowd that Democrats weren’t going to take the White House and that "we’re going to fight like hell" and "take it back." 

On Jan. 6, Trump used his "Save America" rally to repeat inaccurate claims that he won the election. He continually urged the crowd to "fight" before inviting them to march to the Capitol. "Our country has had enough," Trump said. "We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about. To use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal." The crowd later chanted: "Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!"

He used the word "peacefully" once during the speech: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

By the time Trump finished speaking, crowds had already started gathering outside the Capitol. After the mob had shattered windows as they pushed inside the building, and evacuations of lawmakers had begun, Trump tweeted at 2:38 p.m., "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" 

Hours after rioters first breached the Capitol, Trump released a video statement that repeated his false claims about a fraudulent election and said, "We have to have peace. So, go home. We love you. You’re very special."

"The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union, and other authoritarian, dictatorial regimes." — Aug. 1 Trump campaign statement

This is inaccurate. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany orchestrated the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of political dissenters and millions of European Jews. The Soviet Union instituted forced labor camp systems and executed dissidents.

By comparison, the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee the investigation into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power. The indictment cites evidence gathered from witness testimony, social media and phone records.

Leaders of other democratic governments have been prosecutedwhile in and out of office. These prosecutions are not exclusive to dictatorships or authoritarian nations.

Jeffrey Herf, a University of Maryland emeritus history professor who specializes in 20th century Germany, told us there is "no truth whatsoever" to Trump’s comparison.

The denunciation of the rule of law "was a core theme of the Soviet regime," Herf, who has authored several publications about Nazi Germany, wrote in an email. "So Trump's accusation is doubly absurd, dangerous, and is a sign of the historical ignorance of Trump and whoever wrote that claim."

Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt on Aug. 1 posted on X, formerly known as Twitter, that Trump’s comparison to Nazi Germany was "factually incorrect, completely inappropriate and flat out offensive." 

"A Soros-backed state prosecutor first tried to break us when he indicted and arrested me earlier this spring despite having committed no crime at all." — Aug. 1 Trump campaign fundraising email

Trump is referring to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought charges against the former president following a grand jury indictment in a case that involved a $130,000 hush money payment in 2016 to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. In April, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts. 

Liberal billionaire George Soros did not donate directly to Bragg’s campaign. Soros donated $1 million in May 2021 to Color of Change, a progressive racial justice group that endorsed Bragg and pledged to spend more than $1 million supporting his campaign. Color of Change supported other progressive district attorney candidates, too.

Democrats called Trump an illegitimate president and objected to presidential election results in the past. — Aug. 1, Truth Social 

Following the indictment, Trump posted a 10-minute video of Democrats "denying election results" through the years. 

The clips focused on what some Democrats said or did after four elections the party lost. The claims highlighted include:

  • Democrats saying Trump’s 2016 victory was illegitimate due to Russia’s meddling in the election; 

  • Democrats saying Vice President Al Gore would have won the 2000 presidential election if the Supreme Court hadn’t voted 5-4 to stop a vote recount in Florida;

  • Objections by 31 Democrats in the House of Representatives to certify Ohio’s electoral votes in President George Bush’s 2004 defeat of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. 

  • Stacey Abrams’ refusal to concede in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race against Gov. Brian Kemp over voter suppression claims. 

This comparison has come up before. It is true that some Democrats called Trump an illegitimate president and objected to the certification of electoral counts in previous elections. They did so following a lawful process, unlike Trump’s supporters who disrupted Congress’ certification of the 2020 election results. 

In Trump’s indictment, Special Counsel Jack Smith clarified that Trump was "entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means." However, it was Trump’s alleged attempts to illegally subvert the election results that could amount to crimes.

In all of Trump’s examples except for Abrams, the losing Democratic candidate conceded the election. Trump did not. And none of the House Democrats’ electoral vote count objections were supported by the presidential candidates, Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution told PolitiFact in September 2022. 

"Comparing ‘election results denial’ in 2016 and 2020 is not just comparing apples and oranges, it’s more like comparing a tricycle to an 18‐​wheeler," said Cathy Young, a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute in a 2022 article.

Thursday, August 03, 2023

Transcript Of Jack Smith's Speech After Latest Indictments


Here is what Special Counsel Jack Smith had to say after releasing the latest indictments of Trump:

Good evening. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia and sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full.

The attack on our nation’s capital on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.

The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6 are heroes. They’re patriots, and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it. They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States.

Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case is brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues.

In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I would like to thank the members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are working on this investigation with my office, as well as the many career prosecutors and law enforcement agents from around the country who have worked on previous January 6 investigations. These women and men are public servants at the very highest order, and it is a privilege to work alongside them. Thank you.

Thursday, June 22, 2023

Most Approve Of Indictments & Want An End To Campaign


 


The charts above reflect the results of the new CNN / SSRS Poll -- done between June 13th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,350 adults, with a 3.4 point margin of error.

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Most Approve Of Trump's Indictment For Document Handling


The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between June 10th and 13th of 1,500 adults (including 1,303 registered voters). The margin of error was 2.7 points for adults and 2.9 points for registered voters.
 

Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Republicans Still Support Trump Even Though Indicted





The charts above are from the new CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between June 7th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 2,480 adults. The margin of error for adults is 2.7 points, and for Republicans is 5.5 points.

Monday, June 12, 2023

GOP Fails To Come Up With A Defense For Trump's Crimes


Donald Trump has been indicted for 37 charges by a federal grand jury. And these are not misdemeanors. They are serious felonies concerning the national defense of the United States - and if he is convicted, he could serve many years in a federal prison.

There is a significant portion of the Republican Party base that simply doesn't care. They love their favorite demagogue, and will support him no matter what he does. Trump once said he could shoot someone on a Main Street and not lose any support. These Trump supporters show that he was telling the truth for once.

That puts Republican officials between a rock and a hard place. They must defend Trump or lose the support of a significant portion of the base. The problem they have is that there is no legitimate defense for Trump's crimes.

The most popular "defense" seems to be that Democrats have weaponized the Department of Justice to go after their enemies (especially Trump). Of course, this is a lie. But even if it wasn't, it would not be a defense. After all, Trump has confessed to the crime of intentionally taking classified documents several times on nationwide television and there are tapes of it.

Another "defense" they are using is that Pence and Biden did the same thing, and were not charged. Another lie. While Pence and Biden did have some classified documents in their possession, it was inadvertent - not intentional. And they immediately returned the documents when they learned of their existent. Trump intentionally took the documents, refused to return them, and lied about them.

Perhaps the most ridiculous "defense" is that the DOJ investigation was a witch hunt. No 'witch hunt" was needed, since Trump confessed on tape, and his aides and lawyers testified as to his guilt.

There is only one defense to a crime -- that the accused did not commit the crime (or was justified in doing it). That does not apply here. Trump committed the crime, and in doing so, placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.

GOP officials will continue trying to defend Trump, because they don't want to be voted out of office by the base of their party. But the defenses will all be lame and pathetic, because Trump is guilty. 

Saturday, June 10, 2023

Trump Tells A Plethora Of Lies To Defend Himself


Donald Trump would be smart to shut up and let his lawyers defend him, but his personality won't allow that. He's doing what he always does - he is lying.

PolitiFact exposes the lies he's telling about documents:

Here is a look at our fact-checks of Trump about presidential records:

Classified documents "become automatically declassified when I took them" after leaving the White House. 

(May 10, 2023, CNN town hall)

This is unsupported by legal precedent.

Presidents have an unusual degree of authority to declassify documents. But there’s judicial precedent that counters Trump’s belief in what might be called "in-brain declassification."

In three legal cases during the Trump presidency, courts rejected the idea that a president can declassify simply by tweeting or issuing a news release and not following up through more formalized processes involving executive agencies. That’s more concrete action than the "automatic" declassification Trump cited. 

"President Barack Hussein Obama kept 33 million pages of documents, much of them classified. How many of them pertained to nuclear? Word is, lots!" 

(Aug. 12, 2022, media statement)

This is Pants on Fire!

The National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, said in response to Trump’s statement that "former President Obama has no control over where and how NARA stores the presidential records of his administration."

The National Archives said it took custody of Obama’s presidential records when he left office. The arrangement to preserve Obama’s records has been publicly known since 2016, before he left office.

The agency said about 30 million pages of unclassified records went to a National Archives facility in the Chicago area. Classified Obama presidential records are in a facility in the Washington, D.C., area.

NARA’s statements didn’t specifically mention records about "nuclear" weapons or materials. NARA wrote that the classified records were relocated to the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, "to facilitate their review for declassification."

Joe Biden as vice president didn't "have the right to declassify" documents. 

(Jan. 10, 2023, interview)

This is False. 

An executive order Obama signed in 2009 authorized the vice president to classify and declassify documents. Trump and Biden did not issue their own orders, so Obama’s order remained in effect.

This means that because Biden had original classification authority as vice president, he also had authority to declassify information that he had classified in the first place. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel in January to investigate the handling of documents found at Biden’s home and at Biden’s post-vice presidential office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C. 

We don’t know who initiated the classifications on those documents. 

"Biden is obstructing by making it impossible to get the 1,850 boxes" of documents. 

(April 4, 2023, in a speech at Mar-a-Lago following the indictment in the Stormy Daniels case)

This is unsupported. 

Trump was referring to a donation of 1,850 boxes of Biden’s senatorial papers to the University of Delaware, which have been housed on the campus since June 2012, according to the university library. 

The documents, dating from from 1973 to 2009, include committee reports, drafts of legislation and other files. In 2020, Biden said the collection also contains speeches and policy positions.

The university’s website says the records would be made publicly available no sooner than Dec. 31, 2019, or two years after Biden retires from public life. Until then, access is available only with Biden’s express consent. 

The FBI has conducted two searches of these papers, which CNN reported were carried out with the consent and cooperation of the president's legal team.

The searches of the university collection followed FBI searches of Biden's homes in Wilmington and Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and the Penn Biden Center’s Washington, D.C., office.

The search of Mar-a-Lago was an "illegal and unconstitutional raid." 

(April 4, 2023, in a speech at Mar-a-Lago)

This is wrong.

FBI agents followed the law in securing a search warrant used to enter Mar-a-Lago. 

The FBI warrant was signed by a U.S. magistrate judge. 

"Under the (Presidential Records) Act, I am supposed to negotiate with NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration." 

(April 4, 2023, in a speech at Mar-a-Lago)

This is inaccurate.

The Presidential Records Act requires that all documents be returnedto the National Archives upon a president’s departure. It did not create a negotiating process by which ex-presidents get to choose which documents to keep and which go to the government.

Former President Jimmy Carter signed the Presidential Records Act in 1978, applying to all records received or created after Jan. 20, 1981. The law built upon previous legislation Congress passed in 1974 to stop former President Richard Nixon from destroying tapes linked to the Watergate scandal.  

The Presidential Records Act transferred ownership of presidential records to the U.S. government.

"Hillary Clinton was allowed to delete and acid wash 33,000 emails AFTER they were subpoenaed by Congress. Absolutely nothing has happened to hold her accountable." 

(Aug. 8, 2022, on Truth Social)

There are key differences between the two situations. 

In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans.

Clinton repeatedly said she had no classified emails on her server, but the results of an FBI investigation found otherwise.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. Former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016 that Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed. In a sign of the uncertainty around classification, in 2018, a Justice Department report found that the classification markings were not clear.

Ultimately, Clinton paid a political, not a legal, price for her email practices. 

Trump took clearly marked classified documents from the White House to Florida, where he stored them in a location that lacked adequate security, said Bradley Moss, a Washington-based lawyer who works on national security cases.

The presence of classified information in Clinton’s emails was less obvious.

"The emails were never marked as classified because these were communications from unclassified government accounts," Moss said.

In three instances, email chains included information with classification markers. It was unknown whether Clinton knew of that marked information’s presence, or whether the classification marking was clear. 

"George H.W. Bush took millions of documents to a former bowling alley and a former Chinese restaurant where they combined them. So they're in a bowling alley slash Chinese restaurant. By contrast, I had a small number of boxes and storage at Mar-a-Lago, very small, relatively guarded by the great Secret Service." 

(Oct. 8, 2022, at a rally for Nevada Republicans)

Trump is right about the location of the facility in Texas where Bush’s presidential papers and possessions were sorted before his presidential library was built. But Trump’s ridicule of the facility’s security standards was unfounded.

Items of Bush’s including documents were sorted in an old bowling alley and in an adjacent space that used to be a Chinese restaurant’s kitchen.

The National Archives said "reports that indicate or imply" that the presidential records of George H.W. Bush or other past presidents "were in the possession of the former presidents or their representatives after they left office, or that the records were housed in substandard conditions, are false and misleading."

Prior president's papers were handled according to standard procedures, with the National Archives fully involved. Trump’s was not.

"There's a big difference between having records in a facility managed by the National Archives, even if it is a rented facility, and having records in a private residence," said Benjamin Hufbauer, an associate professor of art history at the University of Louisville and an expert in presidential libraries.

"What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat(ic) National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States." 

(Aug. 8, 2022, on Truth Social)

There’s one crucial difference: The break-in of DNC offices in the Watergate complex was illegal, and the Mar-a-Lago search was approved by a federal judge.

Randall D. Eliason, a lecturer at George Washington University who spent 12 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, called the comparison "ridiculous."

"Watergate was a burglary," he said. "It was illegal, done in secret, with no authorization. Comparing the two is like saying there is no distinction between someone who goes to a bank, writes a check, and properly withdraws their money and someone who puts on a mask and robs the bank at gunpoint."