Trial by leak

WSJ freelink Trial by Leak

It’s pretty clear Garland knows he doesn’t have a case he can present in court, and has to be satisfied with playing partisan games in the press.

If only we had an honest press to blow the whistle on this.

47 thoughts on “Trial by leak

  1. WSJ’s editors could not have done a better job outlining the issues and stakes this ongoing story animates.

    On the propaganda side, the administration is exploiting weak public understanding of security classification standards and the Executive’s constitutional and statutory authorities. We saw the exact same exploitation pay out in both of the Trump impeachment trials in Congress, both of which failed on the merits.

    WSJ warns DOJ that “Prosecution by leak is hurting Justice as much as it is Mr. Trump,” but I think the warning should be stronger: It has become clear that Justice just doesn’t care about justice anymore.

    Like

  2. “both of which failed on the merits.”

    Utter nonsense. The Impeachment trials failed on the cowardice of Republicans who live in deadly fear (literally in some cases) of the monster they have created. There has never been a clearer, better documented case of criminal extortion than Mr. Trump’s trying to compel Ukraine to produce dirt on his likely opponent.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I find it hard to believe, and think it impossible to prove, that the Senate majorities that voted for acquittal in both impeachment trials did so without regard to the merits of cases tried before them.

      Like

      1. …that the Senate majorities that voted for acquittal”…

        Thee was NO majority vote in the Senate for acquittal. It takes 67 votes for conviction. Either you know that and lied, or you aren’t as smart as you make yourself out to be.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Funny, there has never been a clearer admission of guilt by your dear leader of extortion when he actually bragged about threatening to withhold $1B in aid funding to Ukraine unless the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired and the investigation was dropped. You know, Hunter’s “side hustle” company. The liberal media tried to cover it up but direct from Shokin himself, yes, Burisma and Hunter were in his sights for a some time until Biden had him fired. Talk about slam dunk guilty.
      https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436816-joe-bidens-2020-ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived/amp/

      Like

      1. “Funny, there has never been a clearer admission of guilt by your dear leader of extortion when he actually bragged about threatening to withhold $1B in aid funding to Ukraine unless the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma was fired and the investigation was dropped.”

        What a sucker you are! No lies from Trump are too big for you to swallow.

        Biden’s demand for action on corruption was to implement our government’s POLICY that we would not support international loans while corruption was rampant. Trump’s demand for dirt on Biden as a condition of his faithfully executing the law by releasing funds approved by Congress was for HIS personal benefit. Biden was doing his job. Trump was committing a crime.

        The distinction is not difficult so you are either very dumb or just not trying. And by the way, the prosecutor in question was NOT investigating Burisma. Another lie you have swallowed whole. Sucker!

        Liked by 3 people

          1. “Pretty weak excuse that will fly only with a partisan press.”

            There is no excuse being offered. None is needed. The LIES that you people constantly spread fall of their own weight.

            The simple truth – something that you childish people are constantly at war with – carries the day in the end. It is my pleasure to provide it. Biden was acting for the government, not himself. Burisma was not under investigation at the time. Period.

            I find it both deplorable and laughable that you pretend not see Trump’s behavior (failing to do his duty and provide the aid approved by Congress) and his “perfect phone call” for the obvious extortion that it was.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. The cherry picked details keeps flying in YOUR partisan press and are misrepresented every time. It is also what Mr. Smith did by attempting to ignore that it was national policy that was being implemented.

            No matter how many times YOU people try to say that, it will be challenged as non-factual BS.

            Like

      2. Actually, you are factually incorrect in your statement. AS a representative of the Obama Administration, Biden was assigned the task of dealing with the Ukrainian regime at the time and their CORRUPT, NON-INVESTIGATING prosecutor, which the EU and majority of the European countries ALSO said had to go.

        But keep spewing your little fantasies that are based only in cherry picking of facts and not reality.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. “It’s pretty clear Garland knows he doesn’t have a case he can present in court”…

    How so? Because WSJ op-ed piece says so? Garland has proven time and again to be very studious before proceeding and ensuring that all of the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed. If you (and WSJ) believe that being deliberate is a sign of weakness or lack of evidence, hen you are looking in the wrong direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This is exactly how I see it. Another political stunt by DOJ just like the debunked Russia collusion hoax just in time for elections to distract from the real issues of hyper inflation and a sinking economy all while Biden passes out free bucks (more debt) for votes. DOJ is in damage control mode to save face after the midterms.

    Like

  5. “It’s pretty clear Garland knows he doesn’t have a case he can present in court”

    That is absurd. They have already presented a case in court and based on the evidence they had even before the warrant, convinced the court that it is more likely than not (probable cause) that a crimes have been committed.

    Liked by 1 person

        1. Maybe, but an admittedly biased(remember he had previously recused himself on a case involving Trump) magistrate can’t be all that smart or he would have not touched that warrant. A warrant that unusual should have gone before a circuit court judge at the least.

          The FBI shopped a magistrate they could steamroll.(Though he may be catching on to that.)

          Like

          1. You know nothing of how this particular judge came to be involved. You state a lot “facts” you pull out of your ass. You should stop.

            You question that there was “probable cause” and slime the judge’s integrity based on absolutely nothing. You should stop.

            You ignore the facts. In this case, the search warrant produce the evidence that was the object of the search. You should stop ignoring evidence.

            “Admittedly biased?” Bullshit. He recused himself from a case also involving both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. So, you have absolutely no knowledge of what his prior recusal was about. He may have had the preconceived idea that Trump’s suit was bullshit. Turns out is was. If he acted with integrity then, what reason to think he did not act with integrity now?

            Here is a thought for you – people who slime judges for no valid reason except they do not like the result do not really respect the Rule of Law no matter how much they say they do.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. If you have any evidence, the FBI has already broken the law.

            The filter team has not yet acted and the issue of a special master is before the court. If the FBI has released any contents, it has done so unlawfully.

            Like

          3. “The filter team has not yet acted and the issue of a special master is before the court”

            You just can’t help it, can you? The truth never works for you. Where did you get this “fact?”
            “The filter team has not yet acted.”

            It was nearly two weeks after the warrant was served when Trump initiated his laughable lawsuit demanding a “special master.” You think the filter team was doing nothing during those weeks?

            And, BTW, I used the words “laughable lawsuit” because from what I have read, it is a joke of incompetence. The Trump-appointed judge he filed it with has kicked it back to his lawyers for a do over – it is that poorly conceived and crafted.

            https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/23/politics/trump-special-master-deadline/index.html

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “In this case, the search warrant produce the evidence that was the object of the search.”

            How did the search warrant do that?

            Like

          5. “How did the search warrant do that?”

            Really?

            Okay.

            By allowing law enforcement to search the suspect’s home where they found damning new evidence of crimes. Without that search warrant that evidence would have remained hidden or might have been destroyed.

            You are welcome.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. RE: “By allowing law enforcement to search the suspect’s home where they found damning new evidence of crimes.”

            What evidence? How is it damning? And what crimes?

            Like

          7. What evidence? How is it damning? And what crimes?

            1. What evidence – Documents that should not have been there.
            2. How is it damning – Prima facie evidence that the law had been violated.
            3. What crimes – Read the statutes. They are explained fully there.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. You know this or just another bitter tirade.

            BTW what makes the case unusual is not the fact that a civilian with no clearance had top secret/special access documents in his closet at a supper club he lives in. Or that he was a previous employee of the government.

            Rather, it was the stonewalling by Trump who refused to allow access to official presidential documents and highly classified material.

            For well over a year. Even after many repeated efforts to accommodate. Even subpoenas. Then lie again about returning all classified material.

            Who would do that and expose the nation to compromised security in the most critical areas of defense intelligence? Why?

            We may have our secrets back, but who knows who saw them, copied them and passed on the information to our adversaries. Who had keys? Was there a log?

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Trump walks out with boxes and boxes of presidential documents and highly classified documents and NARA has to beg for access. That is backwards. NARA is the national archive, the papers belong to us, and Trump, like Obama, could access them if he wanted to.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Possession perhaps but they had full access.”
            That is an obvious LIE.

            Just for starters, Trump misrepresented what he had at Mar-a-Lago. You do not have “full access” to documents that you have been told were not there.

            The record is growing ever more clear. Trump took HUNDREDS of documents that he should not have, he stonewalled NARA and tried to put them off with partial cooperation, and finally failed to comply with subpoenas going so far as to certify falsely that all classified materials had been returned. This bullshit went on for more than a year before NARA was compelled to ask the DOJ to intervene to enforce the law. Obvious LIES do not change any of these facts.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. …but they had full access.”.

            If that were the case, why did they have to continually ask for them to be returned IAW THE L-A-W!!! for over 21 months?

            Like

          12. RE: “What evidence – Documents that should not have been there.”

            No one has alleged that the documents found at Mar-a-Lago should not have been there.

            RE: “How is it damning – Prima facie evidence that the law had been violated.”

            The Mar-a-Lago raid produced no such evidence that has been made public.

            RE: “What crimes – Read the statutes. They are explained fully there.”

            The statutes don’t say what crimes, if any, were committed at Mar-a-Lago.

            Like

          13. “RE: “What evidence – Documents that should not have been there. blah blah blah ”

            Sheer desperation. It is very hard to admit you have been conned. Sooner or latter you will have to suck it up, Buttercup, and face reality. Donald Trump is a criminal. He has been his entire life.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. RE: “We may have our secrets back”

            They were never lost.

            RE: “but who knows who saw them, copied them and passed on the information to our adversaries.”

            Fair question, but who knows if any information was disclosed to any adversary?

            RE: “Who had keys? Was there a log?”

            Also fair questions, but not especially significant unless unauthorized disclosures occurred.

            Like

          15. Was it monitored 24/7? Was it ever turned off?

            Trump and family had control, so much so that they watched the entire search. Even his lawyer quipped that the family had a better view than she did. As such, Trump controlled what was monitored and when.

            You don’t know. Which means Americans don’t know either. This includes at risk agents in countries we have conflicts with. How comfortable are they now that a man with a history of spilling secrets while in office has papers that may name them. 20 months in a closet. We’re any copied and sent to Putin? You don’t know. How about showing some cool secrets to golf buddies? Possible. Even probable. Remember the fiasco of going over N.Korean tests with the Japanese PM at dinner while MAL members and guest surrounded the table shooting pix.

            Again, that Trump has so little regard for his own country by putting us at risk is egregious, dangerous and despicable.

            Outside the bubble this is how it looks.

            Liked by 2 people

          16. “There was video surveillance of the entrance constantly.”

            And it showed a variety of people going into and out of that broom closet with boxes and documents. Who were they? Were they even Americans – Trump famously uses immigrant labor to staff his properties?

            Liked by 2 people

          17. “… but who knows if any information was disclosed to any adversary?”

            Do our enemies call up and say we have your secrets?

            Russia was “parked” in our government servers for 12-18 months a few years back. Did they tell us?

            Sloppy storage by any other ex-government employee would not be treated with such deference. Trump was given lots of time and opportunities to clear out any personal papers and he didn’t.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. RE: “Outside the bubble this is how it looks.”

            Outside the bubble, as you call it, is full of anti-Trump conspiracy theories.

            Like

          19. And inside YOUR bubble, Trump is a hero with no sins to be washed of. At least the media bubble most of us are paying attention to is based on facts and not trying to find ways to exonerate the most singularly corrupt POTUS in our nations’ history – IMO.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. RE: “Russia was “parked” in our government servers for 12-18 months a few years back. Did they tell us?”

            They told me. I got a letter from the Office of Personnel Management stating that my private information (related to my security clearance) might have been compromised by the hack and informing me that I had been given a free account with a software service that would monitor online transactions for theft of my identity. I logged into the account from time to time for a couple of years, but never saw any alerts.

            Like

          21. “They told me.”

            Russia told you? Surprising.

            Or did OUR government tell you AFTER they discovered the hack? Probably the later. And Len’s point stands – Russia is not going to announce that they got info from Mar-a-Lago.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. Your “biased” judge ordered the release of the redacted affidavit. He also explained that the FBI presented a reasonable case for their warrant.

            YOU people just can’t deal with it when one of your anointed gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar and have to deal with the legal consequences.

            And if you pay attention, you will realize that BOTH sides shop for courts or judges they think will rule favorably for them. Your faux outrage is not justified.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s