Top House Republicans Unpack ‘Three-Pronged’ Response To Prosecutions Against Trump Noting the House GOP is “working on a three-pronged approach,” Johnson explained, “We’re looking at various approaches to what can be done here through the appropriations process, through the legislative process, through bills that will be advancing through our committees and put on the floor for passage and also through oversight.” He added, “All those things will be happening vigorously. Because we must do that, because the stakes are too high and because people are losing faith in our institutions. And that at the end of the day, is something that should concern every single one of us, and I think it does.” House Republicans have opened investigations into key players involved in the Trump cases and have proposed legislation to restrain the prosecutors who are leading them. Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) invited prosecutors from the hush-money case to testify and submitted proposals that would leverage the fiscal 2025 appropriations process. One of the other top House members who appeared at the press conference on Tuesday, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), expounded on efforts already underway to “look into the weaponization of government” that Republicans argue is being leveraged against Trump by President Joe Biden and his allies.
Here's the facts we know: 1) Pubs have shown zero evidence of any of the so called "weaponization of government” that would prove the WH, DOJ, or FBI are involved. 2) The only “ weaponization of government” that is factual is that of the Pub House leadership attacking the US Judicial system.
Dershowitz was a legal idol for me. When I was a young lawyer I viewed him as the greatest legal mind in this Country. But he is no longer the same man. As they say, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. As others pointed out, Dershowitz represented Epstein. I don’t fault him for that at all; everyone has a right to counsel and why not hire one if the best minds for your team. However, Dershowitz - during the course of the representation — was accused of, using the Shogun term … “pillowing” young girls handed to him by Epstein. The litigation — already scorching — took an even nastier turn. Lawyers sued lawyers, victims and accuseds. Dershowitz really battled through a nuclear-waste of litigation. He has never been the same since then. And it is sad to see such a blessed mind decline.
Interesting…I knew he was somehow involved in all of that, but I am inclined to believe that he is still an expert in the law despite the nature of the controversy he was wrapped up in. IMO, one of the tell tale signs of a fundamentalist mindset is someone will only listen to those that agree with them. FWIW, I think fundamentalism is a posturing or an attitude, and I think people of any religion or political persuasion can have a fundamentalist mindset. Now to some degree we all have our foundational beliefs we are rigorously committed to. I’m not saying that a Democrat needs to agree with a Republican on his talking points to “listen” or that a Republican needs to agree with a Democrat on his talking points to “listen.” But a fundamentalist mindset would be a mindset that writes off everything someone might say about anything no matter what because of a set of fundamental disagreements or offenses. Writing off anything Alan Dershowitz has to say because of things that happened with the Epstein case smacks of that mindset a little bit. For example, I might disagree with you on abortion, but that does not mean that you don’t have valuable input or sound arguments that have some merits in other areas. If I dismissed everything you said about anything because you support abortion then that would be a fundamentalist mindset.
I didn't recall this nugget from the Mueller report. I'd love to hear our Republican friend's view on this since they're so convinced about the weaponization of the DOJ under Biden despite a lack of evidence. "According to Sessions, the President asked him to reverse his recusal so that Sessions could direct the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Hillary Clinton."
I find it particularly galling that a supporter of the Convict trump and MAGA regular expressing concern about Americans losing confidence in our institutions. Bald-faced chutzpah.
I always thought that Trump let Hillary’s email server go. I did not think that he tried to prosecute Hillary. I think there is a huge difference between prosecuting Hillary and prosecuting Trump, though. There is the Stalinist mindset of “Find me the man, and I’ll find the crime.” That is literally headhunting your political enemies desperately trying to turn over every stone to find a crime. When you spend years trying to get access to a candidate’s tax returns, so you can find a crime that is head hunting your political opponents. Trump essentially filed paper work incorrectly. He called payment to fulfill the terms of a contract “legal fees.”That is digging for something very petty and technical. That is Stalinist. Hillary clearly had an illegal email server that threatened national security. Trump did not go digging for this. It came to light without him digging for it. There is really no argument you can make that Trump should be prosecuted and Hillary should not be prosecuted. If you are going to prosecute Trump for that, then you also should be on board with prosecuting Obama because he told the Russians he would relax missile defense in his 2nd term if they “give him some space.” Obama bartered our national security for political expedience. If you are going to be that petty about Trump, then go ahead and charge Obama with a felony too. This is why the Trump trial will be very bad for America. Democrats have set a precedent now that Stalinistic prosecution of political opponents is the status quo. That status quo is probably going to work both directions. I don’t support it, but that is where we are headed IMO.
I applaud your cute attempt at whataboutism but you're glossing over the main point about weaponization of the DOJ: Trump explicitly requested his AG to prosecute his political opponent. The Manhattan DA's office is not within Biden's purview and there's no evidence that Biden was involved in any way.
As Colin Cowherd put it: “Donald Trump is now a felon,” Cowherd said. “His campaign chairman was a felon. So is his deputy campaign manager, his personal lawyer, his chief strategist, his National Security Adviser, his Trade Advisor, his Foreign Policy Adviser, his campaign fixer and his company CFO. They’re all felons. Judged by the company you keep. It’s a cabal of convicts.” Now Cowherd is a bit bombastic sports reporter, but he makes a good point. Did the Federal DOJ try to find crimes for all these men? Or, were they all guilty? What is more likely? As for Hillary, as mentioned, Trump tried to get his DOJ to indict her. But the evidence to convict probably wasn't there. The same was true for Trump until after the Cohen and Weisselberg guilty pleas. Part of the reason why the New York DA waited until they had these facts before putting Trump's case in front of a grand jury. And in the end, the facts against Trump were not only enough to get an indictment, they were enough for a jury to find Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts.
Seriously drinking from the cult well of spin: "When you spend years trying to get access to a candidate’s tax returns, so you can find a crime that is head hunting your political opponents." The reality that is proven: Trump purposely withheld criminal evidence ( tax returns) to avoid prosecution. That is called legitimate criminal investigation. If poster has any shred of proof of "head hunting your political opponents" it would surely be in the folders of the clowns Jorden and Comer. Whose repeated attempts to smear Biden have spectacularly failed. Let us know when that is released. LOL
Ahh, now we have moved onto the next phase of coping: it is just paperwork. It turns out that continually filing false paperwork (as he did in this case with criminal implications and in the case of loans with civil implications) is not something that you should do in a business where you can easily hire experts on filing correct paperwork. He, instead, hired people to file incorrect paperwork, which is not allowed for a long list of reasons (i.e., there is a reason that companies have to report things like what their assets are worth and why they spent money).
Maybe he did, but Hillary clearly broke the law in a way that threatened our national security. Trump was not a Stalinist searching for a crime his political opponents committed. This was so obvious everyone in the American public was talking about it. This clarion call that "No one is above the law" really should be retranslated to "no conservatives are the above the law. Those above the law include Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Hunter Biden, Barrack Obama, and other members of the favored political class, which definitely does not include Trump." If the executive branch does not prosecute an obvious federal crime, then who does? Most DA's at the state level are not Alvin Braggs that over step their jurisdiction and prosecute things that have federal jurisdiction. Everyone in the public knows Hillary blatantly broke the rules and put our national security at risk. It is crystal clear. When an obvious crime has been committed it is the government's job to uphold justice. How can you sit there, and then with a straight face defend the fabricated Steele Dossier and the circus show the Democrats put on about 1/6, and then turn around and say Trump was political for asking Hillary to be prosecuted? The double standards here are absolutely incredible.
I would have more respect for the charges brought against Trump if they had been prosecuted under the correct jurisdiction according to US law. If the Democrats were going to charge Trump for the violation of campaign finance laws, then that political process should have happened at the Federal level. It is a huge overstep by a local DA, and it sets a very dangerous precedent for the future of American politics for local DA's to overstep their jurisdictions to charge a political candidate like this.
Remember, out of the tens of thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton's email server, the majority had nothing to do with classified information. And incoming emails asking about anything classified, Clinton's response was 99% of the time to take the conversation to a more secure place. The one time she didn't was when someone asked how a classified story appeared on the front page of the NY Times. The toothpaste was already out of the tube on this one. The FBI cleared Hillary. And Trump's DOJ investigated and realized an indictment was unlikely. And a conviction even more unlikely. Trump directed Barr to see if something might stick, but Barr, like other AG's and DA's don't like to waste their time and resources on cases where a conviction isn't likely. That's why no charges were bought. As for Trump's NY case, what federal charge did the state charge Trump with? The answer is none. Trump was charged and convicted of falsifying business records under a NY State statute. Any federal crime only comes into make the charges felonies instead of misdemeanors. And the NY state law is clear that to upgrade to a felony, the second crime doesn't have to be a state crime. It can be any crime the defendant is covering up with the false records. Doesn't matter jurisdiction, or any charges. There have been plenty of people from both sides of the aisle charged with crimes. And even more people in Trump's inner circle both as a business man and politician. Did the DOJ and state DAs all have an agenda to convict Trump's NSA Advisor, Trade Advisor, CFO, personal lawyer, and more?
I must have misspoken. I don’t discount everything he says because of the Epstein case. What I said is that I have noticed a dramatic decline in his skills as an advocate, and as a so-called ambassador of law, since he suffered through the PTS of that litigation. Stated differently, his advocacy has declined just as Giuliani’s.
Hold on. You cannot, in good conscience, throw in Hilary’s mail server by arguing she breached national security, when in the next breath you claim that Trump is innocent of literally stealing highly classified documents, and then lying about having them, then actively concealing them, and then actively lying about concealing them. Those documents are literally nationally secure documents, and Trump was caught knowingly having them unlawfully in his possession (and the hiding and moving them to avoid being caught). I mean this with all respect, but is there a point where you stop excusing Trump for his transgressions? If so, what is that point and how do we get there? By your line of thinking, we can’t arrest him, because it is too political. We can’t punish him or correct him, because it’s too political. We can’t even chastise him, because it’s too political. WHEN ARE HIS ACTIONS SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE, regardless of politics?
I have not made any comments on Trump and the classified documents he had in his possession. I have never defended Trump on that point to the best of my knowledge. I also have never condemned him for it either because I honestly have not done enough research on that issue to know both sides of the issue.
Are people really debating with someone who doesn't even understand the role of the DOJ in prosecuting people? It's actually rather telling : he honestly expected Trump to "weaponize" the justice system. Maybe that expectation is why all these cultists falsely think that Biden has done so; because it's part of what they consider the standard political playbook.
You sparked my curiosity, and I have read a little bit about the case and what he is being charged with there. I think it is much more likely the case in Florida has merits compared to some of the other cases and charges that have been brought against Trump. A government has a right to defend its national security secrets, and if Trump put those at risk then that is fair game for a prosecution. I am not convinced what happened in Florida is political targeting. Trump never formally declassified those documents, and he justified in his own mind he had the authority as former POTUS to do what he wants with those documents since he had the authority to declassify them as POTUS. I think Trump is wrong about that, and my best estimation is Trump's pride and ego along with his own self-rationalizations led him to defy the law and mishandle those documents. This is one of those situations where I would say that Trump should have just cooperated with the authorities. It is the thing I would say to someone at a traffic stop who gets arrested or shot. If you simply comply with what the government asks you to do, then you usually do not get in trouble. Every case is different, though. I think a lot of damage has been done to public trust in our institutions by the political targeting of Trump, and I think many people will be reluctant to admit Trump did anything wrong in the mishandled documents case because there is a wake of distrust due to the bunk Steele Dossier and the Russian collusion hoax, the bunk 1/6 insurrection narrative, and the obvious corruption that was involved in prosecuting the case against Trump in New York. I would still reserve the right to change my opinion as I learn more about the classified documents case and as the trial for that case works itself out. But that is my honest opinion of the Florida mishandled documents case after reading some articles about it even from pretty conservative sources.
