Trump Threatens to Fire Special Counsel Jack Smith If Elected, Demonstrating His Disregard for Justice

In a recent interview, Donald Trump brazenly declared that if he were to reclaim the presidency, he would expeditiously fire special counsel Jack Smith, asserting he would do so “within two seconds”. This statement underscores Trump’s ongoing attempts to evade accountability for his numerous legal predicaments, including serious charges related to the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents.

Trump’s remarks came as he faced mounting scrutiny from Smith’s investigations, which have already led to significant legal challenges. The former president has routinely labeled Smith as “crooked” and has shown a disturbing inclination to attack judicial figures whenever they threaten his political ambitions or legal standing. His intent to dismiss Smith further illustrates his contempt for the rule of law, positioning his personal interests over justice.

During the interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump was questioned about whether he would prioritize self-pardon or firing Smith. His quick response highlights a strategy focused solely on self-preservation rather than addressing the serious allegations against him. Trump’s history of attempting to undermine investigations into his conduct raises concerns about his respect for lawful governance.

As Trump continues to navigate his legal troubles, he remains steadfast in his belief that he can manipulate the legal system to his advantage. Despite the significant implications of his threats, he expressed confidence that Congress would not pursue impeachment should he act against Smith. This reflects an alarming level of entitlement and disregard for accountability.

Trump’s penchant for praising judges who deliver favorable rulings, such as U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, further complicates the integrity of the judicial process. His selective admiration for judicial figures, juxtaposed with his attacks on others, paints a clear picture of a man willing to exploit the system for his gain. As the 2024 election approaches, it remains to be seen how voters will respond to Trump’s overt attempts to escape justice.

(h/t: https://apnews.com/article/trump-fire-special-counsel-jack-smith-b0d3d24286fbe0c461a901a33ec78d62)

Trump’s Vicious Attack on Judge For Releasing Jack Smith’s Evidence

Former President Donald Trump recently labeled the judge overseeing his January 6 case as ‘the most evil person,’ a statement that reflects his ongoing pattern of attacking the judiciary whenever faced with legal challenges. This latest outburst comes amid mounting legal troubles for Trump, as he has been notified by special counsel Jack Smith that he is a target in the investigation related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Trump’s remarks about the judge are not isolated incidents but part of a broader strategy where he has previously targeted judges based on their ethnicity, religious beliefs, or any rulings that go against him. This behavior exemplifies his disdain for the judicial system and undermines the principle of an impartial judiciary, which is essential to a functioning democracy.

In addition to the ongoing Jan. 6 case, Trump has been embroiled in numerous legal battles, including a recent loss in the Georgia Supreme Court regarding efforts to quash a special grand jury report that recommended criminal charges in the state’s election probe. These legal setbacks appear to be fueling his aggressive rhetoric against judges and the legal establishment.

Trump’s comments have drawn criticism from legal experts who argue that such attacks on the judiciary are dangerous and can contribute to a culture of contempt for the rule of law. This pattern of behavior raises concerns about his respect for judicial independence and the potential ramifications for the justice system if he were to regain power.

As Trump continues to face legal scrutiny, his incendiary remarks only serve to further alienate him from mainstream political and legal discourse. Many analysts believe that these tactics are designed to rally his base but risk further destabilizing the already strained relationship between the executive branch and the judicial system.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-calls-judge-overseeing-jan-6-case-evil-person-rcna176112)

Trump Advocates for Criminalizing Criticism of Judges, Threatening Free Speech

 

Donald Trump has recently made statements suggesting that criticizing judges should be illegal, which raises concerns about free speech and authoritarianism. At a rally in Pennsylvania, he claimed for the fourth time that people who criticize judges ought to face jail time. This stance contradicts his own history of attacking judges and attempting to sway judicial decisions to align with his interests.

Trump’s remarks signify a dangerous precedent in which he implies that dissent against the judiciary should be criminalized. He has previously referred to the notion of fines for such criticisms but has escalated his rhetoric to include potential jail sentences. This shift in language from vague threats to explicit calls for incarceration suggests a troubling evolution of his views on dissent.

Critics have noted that Trump’s attacks on the judiciary have been extensive and personal, often targeting judges who rule against him. His comments about judges influencing their decisions as akin to “playing the ref” not only undermine the independence of the judiciary but also create an environment of intimidation. This is particularly concerning given that attempts to influence judges and justices have been historically condemned in a democratic society.

Throughout his presidency, Trump has launched numerous personal attacks against judges, including those who ruled against his policies, and has even implied that tragic events could occur as a result of unfavorable rulings. Such rhetoric is unprecedented for a sitting president and poses a risk to the integrity of the judicial system.

In summary, Trump’s recent calls to criminalize the criticism of judges reflect a broader pattern of authoritarian behavior and an attempt to stifle dissent. This poses serious implications for democracy and the rule of law, as it not only threatens free speech but also discourages judicial independence.

(h\t: Washington Post)

Trump demands removal of Judge Merchan in meltdown before contempt hearing

 

Donald Trump went on an all-caps tirade demanding the removal of Judge Juan Merchan before a contempt hearing related to his attacks on Truth Social. Facing a criminal trial on 34 felony counts, Trump accused the trial of being a ‘witch hunt’ orchestrated by Democrats and presided over by a conflicted judge. Legal experts noted that Trump’s defiance of a gag order could lead to financial sanctions or even jail time. The former president’s actions were described as showing contempt for the court and the law.

Former President Trump indicated that he is willing to testify in his first criminal trial in Manhattan, which could be a win for the prosecution according to legal experts. Trump’s lawyers have fought against bringing up civil court losses, while prosecutors argue that such information is crucial to assessing Trump’s credibility. The trial is expected to last four to six weeks, with the verdict likely to be issued before the GOP selects its general election nominee.

 

Donald Trump Rages at Judge, Calls for Immediate Recusal

Donald Trump criticizes Judge Merchan for imposing a gag order before his hush-money trial in April, calling for the judge’s immediate recusal and sanction. The case involves allegations that Trump falsified payments to lawyer Michael Cohen, which Trump denies. Trump insists the case is a political witch hunt to interfere with the election. He accuses the DOJ of bias and coordination against him to aid Joe Biden’s reelection. Trump’s attacks on Merchan and his daughter have escalated, claiming a social media post aimed at his imprisonment.

Judge Merchan recently imposed a gag order on Trump, prohibiting public comments about the trial’s participants, except for Merchan and prosecutor criticism. The judge cited Trump’s history of inflammatory remarks as the reason for the order. Trump’s campaign to discredit the case and the judge continues, with accusations of political bias and unjust legal actions.

Trump’s denial of the charges and insistence on the case’s dismissal reflect his ongoing fight against the legal challenges he faces. The upcoming trial is crucial as it marks the first of four criminal cases against Trump. The former president’s rhetoric on the case is central to his campaign narrative as he seeks to regain the presidency.

Despite the gag order, Trump remains vocal on his Truth Social platform, using it as a tool to rally supporters against what he perceives as biased legal proceedings. The escalating conflict between Trump and Judge Merchan underscores the contentious nature of the upcoming trial and its potential implications for Trump’s political future.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, initially assigned to oversee his case: Sources – ABC News

Cannon faced scrutiny for her prior role in the investigation.

The summons sent to former President Donald Trump and his legal team late Thursday indicates that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon will be assigned to oversee his case, at least initially, according to sources briefed on the matter.

Cannon’s apparent assignment would add yet another unprecedented wrinkle to a case involving the first federal charges against a former president: Trump appointed Cannon to the federal bench in 2020, meaning that, if Trump is ultimately convicted, she would be responsible for determining the sentence – which may include prison time – for the man who elevated her to the role.

A federal grand jury voted to indict Trump on at least seven federal charges late Thursday as part of an investigation into his handling of classified documents, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The indictment comes after more than 100 documents with classified markings were found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in August 2022.

Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and claimed again late Thursday that he was innocent.

Cannon is no stranger to the case. The 42-year-old judge appointed a “special master” last year to review those materials seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Legal experts accused Cannon of handing Trump a series of head-scratching victories over the course of those proceedings.

ABC News left a voicemail with Judge Cannon’s chambers Friday morning seeking comment, but did not immediately receive a response.

In one instance, Cannon restricted the FBI from using the seized classified documents as part of their ongoing probe until she completed her review. Cannon’s order was ultimately thrown out in its entirety by an 11th Circuit Court of appeals panel, which found she overstepped in exercising her jurisdiction in the probe.

In addition to Cannon, Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart’s name also appeared on the summons sent to Trump on Thursday, the sources said.

Reinhart, who was sworn in as a magistrate judge in 2018, is also familiar with the proceedings against Trump: he signed off on the initial search warrant of Mar-a-Lago last year and later ruled to unseal the search affidavit – decisions that made him the target of antisemitic jabs on the internet.

Judges in most federal cases are assigned at random. But the apparent nods to Cannon and Reinhart on the summons for Trump might actually reflect the fact that both have already played roles in the proceedings, experts said.

“If the case is being overseen by the same district and magistrate judges, that means the court likely considered the indictment to be ‘related’ to the search warrant and intentionally assigned it to those judges,” former senior Justice Department national security official Brandon Van Grack told ABC News.

ABC News was provided a case number that was part of the written summons and according to the federal court filing system PACER, that case number matches a docket under “Judge AMC.” Cannon’s full name is Aileen Mercedes Cannon.

Apart from her own previous involvement in the investigation of Trump, Cannon’s assignment would put her at the center of one of what is likely to be one of the most consequential and scrutinized criminal cases in American history.

Her rulings on everything from procedural motions to Trump’s planned efforts to have the case thrown out before trial will have vast implications for the course of the case leading into an election year where Trump currently holds the status of the Republican party’s front runner.

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

DON’T CELEBRATE TOO SOON. Trump has a man on the inside.

Judge Aileen Cannon, a MAGA mole, has been appointed the judge overseeing his indictment. Cannon can throw out the entire case before it goes to trial, and if it does she would be responsible for determining sentencing.

If you recall, Judge Cannon ran interference for Trump during the entire classified documents investigation, appointing a special master and halted the investigation until she personally reviewed the classified documents, and got body slammed by the 11th Circuit who lashed her for overstepping her bounds.

[https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-aileen-cannon-trump-appointee-initially-assigned-oversee/story?id=99956910]

Trump Calls For Sen. Chuck Schumer To Be Arrested

Trump and Republicans are intentionally distorting Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s comments as the president called for Schumer to be impeached and arrested.

After Schumer warned Trump’s Supreme Court justices that an overturn of Roe v. Wade would set off a grassroots political pushback, Trump tweeted:

It is not a surprise that Trump used a tweet from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Sex Abuse Cover-Up Ohio State) to advance his goal of having his political opponents arrested.

Sen. Schumer’s office called out Trump, Chief Justice Roberts, and the rest of the GOP’s hysterical BS in a statement provided to PoliticusUSA:

Women’s health care rights are at stake and Americans from every corner of the country are in anguish about what the court might do to them.

Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.

For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.

Republicans are clinging on to anything they can to motivate their voters after Joe Biden’s march through Super Tuesday. Trump would love to arrest his political opponents because his heart beats pure authoritarianism.

Trump wants to talk about anything else besides Joe Biden, his bungled coronavirus response, the looming economic slowdown.

The Trump presidency is running on fumes, which is why he is trying to fire up the fake outrage machine at Chuck Schumer.

[Politics USA]

Trump accuses Supreme Court justices of bias in first direct attack as president

President Donald Trump on Tuesday demanded that two sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from all Trump-related matters, insisting without evidence that they have treated him unfairly.

“While ‘elections have consequences’, I only ask for fairness, especially when it comes to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court!” Trump said in a pair of tweets posted from Delhi, India, where he was completing a state visit 7,000 miles from Washington.

Trump singled out Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – both appointed by Democratic presidents — for comments he alleged reflect animus toward him. “Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters!” he said.

The tweets are the first time Trump has directly attacked members of the Supreme Court by name since taking office. Justices, who are appointed for life, decide on their own when it’s appropriate to recuse from cases.

The criticism comes one month before the court will consider the legality of subpoenas for Trump’s financial records and as the justices weigh rulings on major Trump administration policies, including the cancellation of DACA. It also follows reportsthat Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Virginia has been closely advising the president and top aides on ensuring White House staff are loyal to Trump.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the justices have no comment.

In his tweets, the president cites a Fox News report that claims Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently “accused GOP appointed justices of being biased in favor of Trump.”

“This is a terrible thing to say,” Trump said in his tweet. Sotomayor, in fact, has not leveled such a pointed accusation.

Legal experts said statements attributed to Sotomayor and others by Justice Ruth Ginsburg do not meet the recusal standard applied to all federal judges.

The extraordinary exchange stems from a narrow Supreme Court decision issued Feb. 21 lifting a lower court hold on the Trump administration’s new “public charge rule” for immigrants in the state of Illinois.

The court’s conservative majority offered no explanation for allowing the policy to take effect as legal challenges continue; Justice Sotomayor dissented in a seven-page statement.

“Perhaps most troublingly,” she writes, “the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.”

While clearly passionate in her objection, Sotomayor never names Trump or the administration, instead referring to “the Government” as is customary.

“This Court often permits executions—where the risk of irreparable harm is the loss of life—to proceed, justifying many of those decisions on purported failures ‘to raise any potentially meritorious claims in a timely manner,’” she writes in the dissent. “Yet the Court’s concerns over quick decisions wither when prodded by the Government in far less compelling circumstances.”

Sotomayor’s position is consistent with her long running and much publicized views that her colleagues often too quickly dismisses appeals from death row inmates and inconsistently address nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts.

She concludes, “I respectfully dissent.”

The White House did not respond to questions about whether Trump had read Sotomayor’s opinion or only the Fox News characterization of it and why he believes Sotomayor was trying to “shame some into voting her way” as he alleged on Twitter.

The president also revived criticism of Justice Ginsburg who had referred to Trump as a “faker” during the 2016 campaign. She later apologized.

“She went wild during the campaign when I was running,” Trump said of Ginsburg during a press conference in India. “I don’t know who she was for. Perhaps she was for Hillary Clinton, if you can believe it.”

None of the justices has publicly revealed his or her votes during the 2016 presidential election.

“The idea being advanced by President Trump – that a justice becomes conflicted if she disagrees with the executive branch’s legal strategy or constitutional theory – is not only wrong but also degrading to the independence of our judiciary,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan advocacy group.

“The notion that a dissent like Justice Sotomayor’s could somehow be construed as an invalid attempt to shame other justices into coming to different conclusions would come as a surprise to many jurists throughout the country and throughout American history,” he said.

[ABC News]

Trump Attacks Roger Stone Jury Forewoman

President Donald Trump spoke out for the first time since Roger Stone was sentenced to three years and four months in prison on Thursday by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court.

During a speech before former prisoners at a criminal justice event in Las Vegas, Trump fired shots at the jury forewoman in the Stone trial, stating, “The forewoman of the jury, the woman who was in charge of the jury, is totally tainted when you take a look.” He additionally labelled her as an “anti-Trump activist” and a “dominant person,” claiming, “she can get people to do whatever she wants.”

“How can you have a jury poll tainted so badly?” Trump asked. He later added, “But it happened to a lot of people and destroyed a lot of people’s lives.”

Trump ended his rant on the jury forewoman by promising viewers, “We are cleaning it out. We are cleaning the swamp, we are draining the swamp.”

He then transitioned to Stone, stating, “I want the process to play out. I think that is the best thing to do. Because I would love to see Roger exonerated. I would love to see it happen because I personally think that he was treated very unfairly.”

He did not say whether he would pardon his longtime friend and adviser.

[Mediaite]

Federal Judge blasted White House involvement in DOJ case like a ‘banana republic’

Justice Department attorneys struggled with mounting frustration and skepticism from a federal judge about producing documents related to the investigation of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, according to transcripts of closed-door conversations released in response to a lawsuit from a government watchdog group. 

The McCabe case—and President Donald Trump’s personal involvement in it—prompted federal judge Reggie Barnett Walton to call the government’s handling of it “disturbing,” a “mess,” and veering close to a “banana republic.”

“I think it’s very unfortunate,” Judge Walton told prosecutors as the case hung in limbo in late September. “And I think as a government and as a society we’re going to pay a price at some point for this.”

The comments were made in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) against the Justice Department.

Jordan Libowitz, a spokesperson for CREW, said the eventual release of the court transcripts on Friday, after a lengthy court battle, showed that the government was “trying to cover up the fact that they were stringing this [lawsuit] along while looking for a reason to indict McCabe.”

The court released the transcripts on Friday afternoon hours after McCabe’s lawyers released a letter from Justice Department officials saying they did not plan to charge McCabe with a crime. Two years ago, the DOJ’s top watchdog released a report finding that McCabe lacked candor when answering questions about leaks to the media. McCabe vehemently disputed the report’s findings. 

The CREW lawsuit sought material on how the Trump administration handled the criminal investigation into McCabe, who served as the acting FBI Director after Trump fired James Comey. In that capacity, McCabe helped oversee Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. He also became one of Trump’s top bête noires. The president has tweeted about him dozens of times, once accusing him of treason. McCabe, in turn, has vociferously pushed back. After Trump insinuated that McCabe deserved the death penalty, McCabe told CNN the comment was “quite honestly terrifying.” 

“It’s just a disgusting level of disrespect for the people who serve this country every day,” he said. 

Throughout the course of the CREW lawsuit, prosecutors appeared unable to predict when their investigation of McCabe would conclude, which would allow them to hand over documents related to the case through the Freedom of Information Act process.

In mid-September, McCabe’s attorneys wrote in an email to the Justice Department that they’d heard “credible” rumors that a grand jury investigating possible criminal charges against their client “had declined to vote an indictment.” They asked Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to drop the case but Rosen declined.

By the end of September, the transcripts released by the CREW lawsuit show the Justice Department had asked the court for another three months to decide whether to continue the McCabe case, calling it “an exceedingly difficult matter and situation.”  

That requested delay, as well as others in the months preceding it, created mounting frustration for Judge Walton as the government seemed unable to determine whether the case against McCabe would continue throughout the summer and fall of September 2019.

Walton chided prosecutors in late September, saying that their delays hindered CREW’s right to the documents and “from the standpoint of Mr. McCabe, he has a right to have the government make a decision and not hold his life in limbo pending a decision as to what’s going to happen.”

“I don’t know why it’s so difficult for a decision to be made. Either you have a case or you don’t,” he said.

Judge Walton also took issue with President Trump’s apparent personal involvement in the case. He told prosecutors that Trump’s comments about the case complicated the ability to receive a fair hearing in the FOIA lawsuit.

“[T]he public is listening to what’s going on, and I don’t think people like the fact that you’ve got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted,” Walton told prosecutors when they asked for another delay in late September. “I just think it’s a banana republic when we go down that road and we have those type of statements being made that are conceivably—even if not—influencing the ultimate decision. I think there are a lot of people on the outside who perceive that there is undue, inappropriate pressure being brought to bear.”

As recently as December 10, prosecutors pushed back on the release of the transcripts showing Walton’s questions about the timing of prosecutors’ decisions in the McCabe case. They argued it would give the public an incomplete picture of the investigation and potentially compromise the case. 

“To understand the Department’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion in this case would necessitate a broader disclosure of internal deliberative information than contained in the staled ex parte hearing transcripts,” J.P. Cooney, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., wrote in one filing obtained by the CREW lawsuit. Their release, he claimed, “risks unfairly calling into question the integrity of the investigation and any future decisions in the McCabe matter”.

Libowitz said Friday that it was “not surprising that the announcement of no indictment [of McCabe] was timed along with the release of these transcripts.”

A 2018 investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility found McCabe had “made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media and lacked candor—including under oath—on multiple occasions” about the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and handling of classified information. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March 2018 just hours before his scheduled retirement date.

[The Daily Beast]

1 2 3 6