Trump signs EO targeting Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs

[maxparrish]

Lawfare was absolutely used against Trump.

And now Trump has used it here.

Those who decry the one and not the other mostly demonstrate they aren't worth listening to.

Aside from the fundamental moral principle taught to school children that two wrongs don't make a right, have you or any other apologist for Trump noted that these two former aides, Krebs and Taylor, were not involved with or a part of anyone's lawfare against Trump?

This isn't even politics, its abuse of the justice system to settle a personal grudge.

The mad King has decided to disinter a kind of ancient device of punishment for disloyal subjects - something like the bill of attainder. It was a method kings once used to punish named "enemies of the crown", "enemies of the crown" because Krebs said there was no evidence of side spread fraud in 2020, and Taylor had written an anonymous op-ed. The King cannot tolerate that affront to the crown and wants personal revenge. So, he orders his minister to "find a crime".

And like a Tudor king yore he actually accused Taylor of "treason" (the typical charge in bills of attainer, eg Henry 8th vs. Cromwell) and Krebs of violating Trump's religious doctrine (Cromwell's second charge) - the doctrine being in this case Krebs' heresy in denying his delusion of widespread election fraud.

The mad King, of course, has more targets. Law firms that dare challenge his royal prerogatives, civil institutions that may shelter resistance, media companies, NGOS, etc. Of course, Henry the 8th had monasteries to plunder, he has the Ivy League schools.

So now, this is a whole lot more than lawfare - this is what happens when the Republic's President becomes its tyrant King in the making.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trump is not even pretending but is openly going after his political enemoes with zero evidence that they have done anything illegal.

I'll let the investigation develop what evidence it may before conclusion that there's 'zero evidence'. Your claim of 'zero evidence' is premature and without foundation, so nothing more than wishful thinking and hoping on your part, apparently.

This 'pretending' idea.
Appears you believe that the Dems 'pretending' legitimate legal proceedings in their lawfare for what was clearly politically motivated is somehow any better?

He is wasting money investigating his enemies just as a means to smear them with no real chance of finding any evidence of wrongdoing.

This is the narrative which is being demanded to be pushed, and which you are pushing. It's more 'hope and pray' that this is the case.

It is purely personal use against all those who he perceives as his political enemies.

See 'pretending' comment above.

This is Putin level corruption.

As was the lawfare campaign.

He really does admire corrupt authoritarian leaders as he models his behavior after them.

The latter 1/2 of this continued demanded push narratives.

Trump will never be deterred from continuing his weaponizing the justice system for personal vengeance.

See pretending comment again.

He told us that he would and that is one of the few promises he has kept. He is a criminal.

. .. and off into the deep blue TDS ocean you've gone.

I'll refer you to this specific part of my earlier post:

. . .
The law should never be misused, abused, and tortured for political ends, such as we have seen since Biden came to the presidential office.

It is my hope that sufficient deterrent is one of the results so that this tactic is never used again.

Without any deterrent, we are only going to see the law misused again for the same political purposes. This needs to be avoided.

I'll also refer you to this post, as to why your wailing and gnashing of teeth aren't likely, at all, to change my position on this:

. . .
Those who decry the one and not the other mostly demonstrate they aren't worth listening to.

 

[eohrnberger]

Those who shrug at this by Trump but were upset about abuses by Democrats are telling on themselves. They aren't actually against lawfare. They just want to be the ones exercising the power.

I'd have preferred that the one or more of the branches of the federal government would have done so, but there's no indication which I can see that this is happening, or has happened.

I'm not seeing any others, neither in government nor outside of government, who are holding any who have conducted the lawfare of the last 4 - 6 years accountable in any way.

Without a deterrent lawfare will just be used again.
If the only deterrent has to come by this route, so be it.

 

[AZRWinger]

You are saying you want the state to have the authority to sic a legal investigation on anyone, at any time, and for no reason.

You are saying you want the state to politicize and weaponize our judicial system.

Well, I'm not surprised at your stance, @AZRWinger. Many in MAGA want a police state.

Nothing like a wildly hyperbolic Orange Man Bad fun house mirror interpretation of what I wrote to avoid answering the question of why you object to investigating suspicious aspects of the 2020 election. Democrats love baseless investigations like FISA approved spying justified by Hillary's made up dirty dossier or an impeachment charade based on an unknown whistleblower conducting an ad hoc investigation of a Presidential phone call, as long as they target political opponents. But voting machine vulnerability, illegal changes to signature verification procedures and ballot submission deadlines, along with over $400 million in bribes passed out to state election officials, the mere suggestion of an official investigation is denounced as endorsing a police state. Absurd.

It's amusing to see a complaint about MAGAs supposedly wanting a politicized justice system after the Mueller witchhunt, select committee show trial, January 6th shock and awe persections, and the lawfare campaign still ongoing. Who is filing lawsuits in carefully forum shopped courts before sympathetic judges encouraging district court judges to issue worldwide injuctions second guessing the President? Not MAGAs.

 

[j brown's body]

Aside from the fundamental moral principle taught to school children that two wrongs don't make a right, have you or any other apologist for Trump noted that these two former aides, Krebs and Taylor, were not involved with or a part of anyone's lawfare against Trump?

This isn't even politics, its abuse of the justice system to settle a personal grudge.

The mad King has decided to disinter a kind of ancient device of punishment for disloyal subjects - something like the bill of attainder. It was a method kings once used to punish named "enemies of the crown", "enemies of the crown" because Krebs said there was no evidence of side spread fraud in 2020, and Taylor had written an anonymous op-ed. The King cannot tolerate that affront to the crown and wants personal revenge. So, he orders his minister to "find a crime".

And like a Tudor king yore he actually accused Taylor of "treason" (the typical charge in bills of attainer, eg Henry 8th vs. Cromwell) and Krebs of violating Trump's religious doctrine (Cromwell's second charge) - the doctrine being in this case Krebs' heresy in denying his delusion of widespread election fraud.

The mad King, of course, has more targets. Law firms that dare challenge his royal prerogatives, civil institutions that may shelter resistance, media companies, NGOS, etc. Of course, Henry the 8th had monasteries to plunder, he has the Ivy League schools.

So now, this is a whole lot more than lawfare - this is what happens when the Republic's President becomes its tyrant King in the making.

When they defend Trump's indictments against those who truthfully said that he lost the election by claiming "lawfare" was used against Trump, they are legitimizing the tactics they have decried.

 

[j brown's body]

I'd have preferred that the one or more of the branches of the federal government would have done so, but there's no indication which I can see that this is happening, or has happened.

I'm not seeing any others, neither in government nor outside of government, who are holding any who have conducted the lawfare of the last 4 - 6 years accountable in any way.

Without a deterrent lawfare will just be used again.
If the only deterrent has to come by this route, so be it.

Detering its use by continuing its use is quite the contradiction.

 

[eohrnberger]

Detering its use by continuing its use is quite the contradiction.

That's fair, but there is no sign of any deterrence from any other quarter.

If the conclusion by all is 'We'd better not use lawfare, as there will be political opponents who would use it against us.' I'll be more reassured.

I'll grant you that this is probably overly optimistic on my part, that political leaders would consider and prioritize what's best for the nation above their own political interests and agenda.

 

[Emlee]

John Solomon
America first
Might show...

Lol

America First Legal….Stephen Miller’s outfit….completely credible without a hint of bias or propaganda narrative pushing. <<snark>>

John Soloman…long time known propaganda and misinformation peddler, so much so that even Fox dumped him… yet beloved and often parroted by cult45/47 because they like what he peddles.

 

[j brown's body]

That's fair, but there is no sign of any deterrence from any other quarter.

If the conclusion by all is 'We'd better not use lawfare, as there will be political opponents who would use it against us.' I'll be more reassured.

I'll grant you that this is probably overly optimistic on my part, that political leaders would consider and prioritize what's best for the nation above their own political interests and agenda.

Lack of a specific charge was once a deterence. Trump seems to have eliminated that deterence.

 

[eohrnberger]

Lack of a specific charge was once a deterence. Trump seems to have eliminated that deterence.

See post #293.

 

[Emlee]

Post #304

What "abuses" of the legal system by Democrats that rise to the level of trump's using the powers of the Executive Branch to get revenge on his enemies?

BE SPECIFIC and provide details. Be prepared to substantiate your claims.

That is just one of the many tactics always used by cult45/47 to try to excuse/justify whatever he does. Sometimes used openly sometimes passive aggressively, but the tactic remains the same.

Always start with the false premise that he’s really the victim and spin from there.

Nonsense such as he’s really just fighting back against abuses/lawfare/weaponization he endured, he's trying to stop abuses/lawfare/weaponization, he’s draining the swamp, he’s exposing the lies etc.

Once the false premise is wiped away with actual facts and reality the justifications fall apart.

But the need for the justifications and the continued use of the justifications won’t ever end.

 

[cpwill]

Bragg ran for office based on fighting crime. Trump committed a crime and Bragg made sure he was prosecuted for it. But your opinions are noted even though there is nothing to support them

You may be confusing "this never showed up in the media I watch" with "there is nothing to support this".

You see evidence because you want to.

No, I see the evidence here because it exists. Life is not a morality play with perfectly good good guys and perfectly bad bad guys. People you don't like are capable of doing the right thing, even when it results in an end you don't like. People you are sympathetic to / identify-with are capable of doing the wrong thing, even when it results in an end you do like.

But it did happen. Prosecutors ran for office campaigning on bringing charges against Trump. Bragg did use an entirely novel interpretation of a law to charge Trump with a crime no one had been charged with before, claiming it was still a felony after Federal Prosecutors had already said it wasn't and declined to prosecute.

There was no tribal lawfare going on except in the fevered imaginations of Trump and his supporters

<- Not a Trump supporter, and never have been. Supported both impeachments and have repeatedly pointed out to you here (and to plenty of others elsewhere) that Trump absolutely did break the law.

Multiple things can be true at once: The case in NY would never have been brought against anyone who wasn't Donald Trump (and hasn't been) because it was patent lawfare, the case regarding the classified documents is open and shut, and Trump tried to steal an election.

Our anger at the second shouldn't cloud our ability to see the first. This is important not least because:

who he convinced by repeating the false accusation ad nauseum.

What Trump and his followers successfully did was use the obvious partisanship of the first set of charges to obfuscate his guilt in the latter sets of charges. Alvin Bragg (and, to a lesser extent, the prosecutor in Georgia who also decided to behave unethically) provided Trump a shield by muddying the waters, neutralizing the issue.

The people who should be angriest about this are those who are also most upset that we are in a second Trump administration, which those prosecutors helped create.

 

[cpwill]

I'd have preferred that the one or more of the branches of the federal government would have done so, but there's no indication which I can see that this is happening, or has happened.

I'm not seeing any others, neither in government nor outside of government, who are holding any who have conducted the lawfare of the last 4 - 6 years accountable in any way.

Without a deterrent lawfare will just be used again.
If the only deterrent has to come by this route, so be it.

Yeah, that's not how that works, because each side tells themselves they are just "establishing deterrence" against the other "because this is the only language they speak" or some such nonsense.

In reality, this is how that works.

 

[devildavid]

You may be confusing "this never showed up in the media I watch" with "there is nothing to support this".




No, I see the evidence here because it exists. Life is not a morality play with perfectly good good guys and perfectly bad bad guys. People you don't like are capable of doing the right thing, even when it results in an end you don't like. People you are sympathetic to / identify-with are capable of doing the wrong thing, even when it results in an end you do like.

But it did happen. Prosecutors ran for office campaigning on bringing charges against Trump. Bragg did use an entirely novel interpretation of a law to charge Trump with a crime no one had been charged with before, claiming it was still a felony after Federal Prosecutors had already said it wasn't and declined to prosecute.



<- Not a Trump supporter, and never have been. Supported both impeachments and have repeatedly pointed out to you here (and to plenty of others elsewhere) that Trump absolutely did break the law.

Multiple things can be true at once: The case in NY would never have been brought against anyone who wasn't Donald Trump (and hasn't been) because it was patent lawfare, the case regarding the classified documents is open and shut, and Trump tried to steal an election.

Our anger at the second shouldn't cloud our ability to see the first. This is important not least because:




What Trump and his followers successfully did was use the obvious partisanship of the first set of charges to obfuscate his guilt in the latter sets of charges. Alvin Bragg (and, to a lesser extent, the prosecutor in Georgia who also decided to behave unethically) provided Trump a shield by muddying the waters, neutralizing the issue.

The people who should be angriest about this are those who are also most upset that we are in a second Trump administration, which those prosecutors helped create.

I am not confusing anything at all. I am not labeling you as anything. I am simply stating that it factually is not tit for tat lawfare happening just because there are opposing tribes if the facts don’t support it.

The case brought against Trump factually has been brought up against others not named Trump. His case was not especially unique at all.

 

[devildavid]

Yeah, that's not how that works, because each side tells themselves they are just "establishing deterrence" against the other "because this is the only language they speak" or some such nonsense.

In reality, this is how that works.

A book sold at Amazon on the Roman Empire tells us nothing at all about made up accusations of lawfare by both sides today.

 

[cpwill]

I am not confusing anything at all. I am not labeling you as anything. I am simply stating that it factually is not tit for tat lawfare happening just because there are opposing tribes if the facts don’t support it.

Unfortunately, in this case, the facts do. I've pointed you to some repeatedly, now, and you continue to ignore them.

The case brought against Trump factually has been brought up against others not named Trump. His case was not especially unique at all.

The Manhattan DA’s office has prosecuted a number of falsification of business records cases. These are usually straightforward, run-of-the-mill paper crimes. Bragg has even referenced them as the “bread and butter” of his office’s white-collar work. But it’s the added element of the “another crime” that raised eyebrows. And this is the heart of the novel legal theory that Bragg chose to employ in this trial. The Washington Post reviewed the New York State Law Reporting Bureau as far back as 2000 for any relevant case law regarding this specific statute. The report found “two entries in which a judge issued legal opinions on the statute. Both were from [Judge Juan] Merchan last year in rejecting Trump’s motions to have the case dismissed.” That’s how rarely Section 17-152 is prosecuted in New York. And that fact makes Bragg’s decision to primarily premise the prosecution of a former president of the United States on that statute even more novel.​

It was indeed. :-/

Contrary to Colangelo's spin, there is nothing "pure and simple" about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Trump. To begin with, Trump is not charged with "conspiracy" or "election fraud." He is charged with violating a New York law against "falsifying business records" with "intent to defraud." Trump allegedly did that 34 times by disguising his 2017 reimbursement of Cohen's payment to Daniels as compensation for legal services. The counts include 11 invoices from Cohen, 11 corresponding checks, and 12 ledger entries.... Business Insider describes Section 17-152 as "old," "obscure," and "unused." Reporter Laura Italiano interviewed "two veteran New York election-law attorneys," a Democrat and a Republican, who backed up that description.​

​

"I've never heard of it actually being used, and I've practiced election law for 53 years," said Brooklyn attorney Martin Connor, a former Democratic state senator. "I would be shocked—really shocked—if you could find anybody who can give you an example where this section was prosecuted," said Joseph T. Burns, an attorney for the Erie County Republican Committee. "I would be absolutely floored if you could find anyone prosecuting this in the last 40 years." Italiano adds that "two highly respected law professors specializing in New York election law said the same."...The fact that Bragg is relying on an obscure offense that apparently has never been prosecuted speaks volumes about his eagerness to convert the Daniels hush payment into 34 felonies.​

There is a reason that Federal Prosecutors under Biden's DOJ declined to prosecute what Bragg claimed was a felony.

 

[cpwill]

A book sold at Amazon on the Roman Empire tells us nothing at all

Indeed. For those who refuse to accept new information, all the books in the world are of no help whatsoever

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah, that's not how that works, because each side tells themselves they are just "establishing deterrence" against the other "because this is the only language they speak" or some such nonsense.

True, and we've seen this before from those very same political parties.

In reality, this is how that works.

I guess you are pointing to the inevitable, being that each side will continue in an escalation of bending, and breaking, the legal system to their political will and use as political tools. <sigh>

I had so hoped that the nation might have been able to avoid that.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

A better source:

Link

Great! Do you have the Miles Taylor one, too?

 

[cpwill]

True, and we've seen this before from those very same political parties.


I guess you are pointing to the inevitable, being that each side will continue in an escalation of bending, and breaking, the legal system to their political will and use as political tools. <sigh>

I had so hoped that the nation might have been able to avoid that.

It only works when one side is willing to break the cycle - see, for example, Coolidge after Wilson/kinda-Harding, or Carter after Johnson/Nixon.

 

[The Mark]

Neither one of these guys did anything wrong whatsoever. This is as Putin-esque as anyone can get. Miles Tayler wrote a book, and Chris Krebs just did his job reporting on the 2020 election. This crazy man is out for blood. He's a lunatic. This is still and echo of the 'The Big Lie'.
Something is mentally wrong with Trump.

President Trump Signs EOs Directing DOJ to Investigate Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs

President Trump signs executive order stripping clearances and directing the Department of Justice to investigate Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs, former Homeland Security officials who served in the first Trump administration.

www.c-span.org

Trump signs EO targeting Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs - Democratic Underground Forums

www.democraticunderground.com

NOW: Trump calls Miles Taylor a “traitor” and says he’s “guilty of treason” due to penning the book “Anonymous”. Doubles down on calling the 2020 election rigged. Supports voter suppression and also goes after a law firm and Christopher Krebs - and says he’s a fraud. “A bad guy”.

I don't know about Trump himself, but I suspect that some persons around him are pushing this, to create fear that scares people away from holding them accountable in any way.

 

[eohrnberger]

It only works when one side is willing to break the cycle - see, for example, Coolidge after Wilson/kinda-Harding, or Carter after Johnson/Nixon.

Hmm. I don't think there's even close to the same level of statesmanship now than there probably was during those earlier eras.

Do you believe that the next elected Dem president is going to 'break the cycle'? I'm extremely skeptical of that.
They started the whole lawfare thing targeting Trump, and pro-lifers, and . . . etc.

Should a GOP be elected to president following Trump, I think breaking the cycle at that point is more likely than Dems doing so.

 

[cpwill]

Hmm. I don't think there's even close to the same level of statesmanship now than there probably was during those earlier eras.

The 70s were a lot more explosive than we maybe give them credit for, but, it will come down to what the people demand and reward, and whether the party elites can seize back control of their apparatus from the most shameless and aggressive primary voters.

Do you believe that the next elected Dem president is going to 'break the cycle'? I'm extremely skeptical of that.
They started the whole lawfare thing targeting Trump, and pro-lifers, and . . . etc.

Should a GOP be elected to president following Trump, I think breaking the cycle at that point is more likely than Dems doing so.

Maybe. The Democrats definitely have a chance to go first running a Harding-like campaign of "Return to Normalcy", or a Carteresque rejection of the preceding administrations corruption and abuse.

I go back and forth on whether they are more likely to run to the center, or have their own Tea Party - like movement of rejecting their own elites. We will see :-/.

 

[Deuce]

Lawfare was absolutely used against Trump.

And now Trump has used it here.

Those who decry the one and not the other mostly demonstrate they aren't worth listening to.

There was evidence that Trump committed crimes.

There is no evidence here.

Those who think evidence doesn't matter have already abandoned due process of law.

 

[Kelby]

There was evidence that Trump committed crimes.

There is no evidence here.

Those who think evidence doesn't matter have already abandoned due process of law.

Trump supporters hear "Lawfare!" from their media sources and their thinking about Trump's very real legal issues stops there.