Full Reichstag Fire

[Res Ipsa]

Trump has a big up his ass about Portland because his sending undercover agents to drag people into unmarked vans didn’t go over well.

Can you elaborate on how it didn't go well?

It was locally very unpopular, with a ton of local publicity. They kind of just went away quietly.

[Res Ipsa]

Next section:

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.

This is pure conspiracy theory, with a heavy dose of projection. And it is designed to fire up the conspiracy theory riddled MAGA base. And note how he’s drifted from political assassination to much fuzzier terms like “intimidation”, “threats,” “change policy outcomes.” These could be applied to any peaceful, legal, permitted protest. In fact, the very purpose of exercising the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition is to “change policy outcomes.”

This is, pure and simple, the Trump resume’s attempt To bully all dissenters into silence. The irony of accusing the left, comprised almost entirely of ordinary Americans who oppose Trumps authoritarian regime, of trying to limit political activity is stunning. It is his government that is trying to silence dissent and intimidate his political opposition.

[Whiskey]

Next section:

This political violence is not a series of isolated incidents and does not emerge organically. Instead, it is a culmination of sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society. A new law enforcement strategy that investigates all participants in these criminal and terroristic conspiracies — including the organized structures, networks, entities, organizations, funding sources, and predicate actions behind them — is required.

This is pure conspiracy theory, with a heavy dose of projection. And it is designed to fire up the conspiracy theory riddled MAGA base. And note how he’s drifted from political assassination to much fuzzier terms like “intimidation”, “threats,” “change policy outcomes.” These could be applied to any peaceful, legal, permitted protest. In fact, the very purpose of exercising the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition is to “change policy outcomes.”

This is, pure and simple, the Trump resume’s attempt To bully all dissenters into silence. The irony of accusing the left, comprised almost entirely of ordinary Americans who oppose Trumps authoritarian regime, of trying to limit political activity is stunning. It is his government that is trying to silence dissent and intimidate his political opposition.

Quote. Counterquote. Mirror.

You lifted a sweeping, apocalyptic claim and labeled a whole side a criminal conspiracy. You answered that claim by launching a matching sweeping, apocalyptic counterclaim and labeling a whole side as the bully. Same mechanics. Same theatrics. Different hat.

Both posts convert disagreement into existential threat. Both trade evidence for moral panic. Both stretch ordinary political tactics into crimes against the republic. Both weaponize tone to win the crowd instead of the facts. That is not critique. That is a performance piece of outrage.

Projection is the engine. You accuse the other side of manufacturing a pretext to silence dissent while you manufacture a pretext to silence dissent. You call out authoritarianism while practicing it rhetorically. You demand specificity from others while offering none yourself. That is hypocrisy dressed as analysis.

If you want to stop being part of the show, do three simple things: quote the single actionable claim you believe is true, supply one verifiable fact that supports that claim, and tell us what remedy you seek that does not end in silencing people who disagree. Stop this nonsense you are playing off with Markk. If you have something, let's see it. These boogeywoogy conclusions, along with your screeching "fascists are eating my baby" BS is BS.

No more moral cliffnotes about the other side being more authoritative than your side. No more grand narrative until you can point to a concrete difference that would survive neutral scrutiny. Right now both posts are the same theatrical move, mirrored across the aisle. Own that, and stop pretending you are doing anything other than staging the next act.

[Kishkumen]

The idea that there are only two sides here is part of the mind-eff. There are also many people not on the Tweedle-Dee-Tweedle-Dumb train who are still very opposed to Trump’s actions. Leave the epithets out, and we still don’t like masked ICE agents, shipping people to foreign gulags, sending the military to American cities, identifying large parts of the country as virtual foreign enemies, tariffs that raise our cost of living, etc.

[Hound of Heaven]

I’ve been holding my breath since Kirk was murdered, sorting through the angry and unhinged rhetoric to look for signs of what the regime would actually do in response. The reflexive stab at intimidating the media was beaten back, largely due to the fact that freedom of speech is such a core value that the FCC’s overreach was a bridge too far for folks like Ted Cruz.

But yesterday’s move is much more serious and will receive much less push back from Republicans because it’s a weapon deployed only at MAGA’s enemies — meaning everyone that is not MAGA.

I recommend that everyone read this Presidential Memo: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... -violence/

This is full on Reichstag fire: using an incidence of violence as an excuse to crack down on political opponents, including groups dedicated to protecting fundamental civil rights of American citizens. This tactic was not a one-off by Hitler. Issuing violence as a pretext to take away freedom and persecute opponents is typical of authoritarians. A good parallel is what Stalin did with the Kirov assassination. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Kirov

Do not fall for the DARVO that our self-anointed gadflies will inevitably try to cram down our throats. You know, the part where correctly identifying autocracy is a crime, but the autocracy itself is fine and dandy.

Let’s outline a few facts about this thread, shall we? To begin with, the individual behind this thread, Captain Progressive, is a lawyer. A careful reading of this post helps us understand that this lawyer, influenced by Marxist progressive ideology, is taking on the roles ofjudge, and prophet, determining the significance of events, identifying enemies. He understands that he can depend on Can'tpakes and GadiSCAMton to support his incorrect assertions, as they too are influenced by Marxist progressive ideology.

It embodies traditional legal language presented in an aggressive manner, its very confrontational but also exhibits a rigid structure, reflecting the very authoritarianism he criticizes in the opposing party. Like many hack lawyers, particularly those with a Marxist progressive stance, Captain Progressive is establishing a binary, you either align with his framing or you do not. This entire post isindeed a form of authoritarianism.

He uses loaded language to shape the narrative to undermine any opposing arguments. It's basic legal knowledge, and he's so ignorant , he genuinely believes no one can notice what he's doing. He criticizes authoritarianism, yet his writing embodies a sense of moral absolutism.

Captain Progressive does not encourage dialogue. He provides instructions. The opening post in this discussion offers a wealth of insights into his psyche.. If I had to guess, I would say his family likely doesn't engage in conversations. He likely provides them with cross-examinations. Dinner is not merely a meal, it's a tribunal, and xxck anyone who challenges his interpretation of history or psychology.

Watching a subpar lawyer interact on a discussion board can be quite amusing. It is contradictory to denounce authoritarianism while employing every tactic associated with it. To be frank, lawyers of his kind tend to support authoritarianism.

[canpakes]

Let’s outline a few facts about this thread, shall we? To begin with, the individual behind this thread, Captain Progressive, is a lawyer. A careful reading of this post helps us understand that this lawyer, influenced by Marxist progressive ideology, is taking on the roles ofjudge, and prophet, determining the significance of events, identifying enemies. He understands that he can depend on Can'tpakes and GadiSCAMton to support his incorrect assertions, as they too are influenced by Marxist progressive ideology.

It embodies traditional legal language presented in an aggressive manner, its very confrontational but also exhibits a rigid structure, reflecting the very authoritarianism he criticizes in the opposing party. Like many hack lawyers, particularly those with a Marxist progressive stance, Captain Progressive is establishing a binary, you either align with his framing or you do not. This entire post isindeed a form of authoritarianism.

He uses loaded language to shape the narrative to undermine any opposing arguments. It's basic legal knowledge, and he's so ignorant , he genuinely believes no one can notice what he's doing. He criticizes authoritarianism, yet his writing embodies a sense of moral absolutism.

Captain Progressive does not encourage dialogue. He provides instructions. The opening post in this discussion offers a wealth of insights into his psyche.. If I had to guess, I would say his family likely doesn't engage in conversations. He likely provides them with cross-examinations. Dinner is not merely a meal, it's a tribunal, and xxck anyone who challenges his interpretation of history or psychology.

Watching a subpar lawyer interact on a discussion board can be quite amusing. It is contradictory to denounce authoritarianism while employing every tactic associated with it. To be frank, lawyers of his kind tend to support authoritarianism.

Whiskey account has advice for the Hound account:

AI says this is your usual playbook. No substance. No argument. Nothing original to add. … Everyone sees it. You do not debate. You do not build ideas. You recycle the same tired triggers and call it contribution. It is not clever. It is not subtle. It is the only move you have.

[Whiskey]

The idea that there are only two sides here is part of the mind-eff. There are also many people not on the Tweedle-Dee-Tweedle-Dumb train who are still very opposed to Trump’s actions. Leave the epithets out, and we still don’t like masked ICE agents, shipping people to foreign gulags, sending the military to American cities, identifying large parts of the country as virtual foreign enemies, tariffs that raise our cost of living, etc.

There are many sides and facets. The single line spectrum of L/R, Republican/Democrat, fascist/antifascist is a farce.

At the fringes and extremes, these “opposites” are exactly the same. And yes, most Americans are in the middle and common sense club.

[Whiskey]

Let’s outline a few facts about this thread, shall we? To begin with, the individual behind this thread, Captain Progressive, is a lawyer. A careful reading of this post helps us understand that this lawyer, influenced by Marxist progressive ideology, is taking on the roles ofjudge, and prophet, determining the significance of events, identifying enemies. He understands that he can depend on Can'tpakes and GadiSCAMton to support his incorrect assertions, as they too are influenced by Marxist progressive ideology.

It embodies traditional legal language presented in an aggressive manner, its very confrontational but also exhibits a rigid structure, reflecting the very authoritarianism he criticizes in the opposing party. Like many hack lawyers, particularly those with a Marxist progressive stance, Captain Progressive is establishing a binary, you either align with his framing or you do not. This entire post isindeed a form of authoritarianism.

He uses loaded language to shape the narrative to undermine any opposing arguments. It's basic legal knowledge, and he's so ignorant , he genuinely believes no one can notice what he's doing. He criticizes authoritarianism, yet his writing embodies a sense of moral absolutism.

Captain Progressive does not encourage dialogue. He provides instructions. The opening post in this discussion offers a wealth of insights into his psyche.. If I had to guess, I would say his family likely doesn't engage in conversations. He likely provides them with cross-examinations. Dinner is not merely a meal, it's a tribunal, and xxck anyone who challenges his interpretation of history or psychology.

Watching a subpar lawyer interact on a discussion board can be quite amusing. It is contradictory to denounce authoritarianism while employing every tactic associated with it. To be frank, lawyers of his kind tend to support authoritarianism.

Whiskey account has advice for the Hound account:

AI says this is your usual playbook. No substance. No argument. Nothing original to add. … Everyone sees it. You do not debate. You do not build ideas. You recycle the same tired triggers and call it contribution. It is not clever. It is not subtle. It is the only move you have.

No. I think I am correct and Hound is correct.

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

[canpakes]

Whiskey account has advice for the Hound account:

No. I think I am correct and Hound is correct.

Do you have anything intelligent to add?

Neither of those quotes was intelligent?

OK, then. I accept your clarification.

[canpakes]

Miller sounds a little hyperbolic here in describing this particular bit of revenge prosecution.



From: https://www.publicnotice.co/p/comey-ind ... igan-Trump

For the last few days, the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey felt inevitable, so when news of it dropped Thursday night, it wasn’t as much a surprise as a confirmation that the Trump administration is completely out of control.

ABC News broke the news Thursday that Comey had been indicted for obstruction and making a false statement in relation to his 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. NBC News reported that the charges are based on testimony Comey gave in a September 30, 2020, hearing. During it, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Comey about his 2017 testimony, when Comey said he did not authorize former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to leak anything to the press. Comey stood by what he testified three years earlier, but MAGAs are convinced he lied.

Ryan Goodman of Just Security has a good rundown on Bluesky of the flimsy basis of the charges against Comey, which can basically be summed up as “Ted Cruz misunderstands or mischaracterizes things or both.”

Why are we all guessing at what the charges are based on when the indictment is available? Well, because Lindsey Halligan, one of Trump’s myriad former personal attorneys and currently his handpicked acting US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, didn’t really see fit to include much in the way of detail.

The indictment clocks in at 1.5 pages, and you can read the whole thing in about 30 seconds if you have some time during a commercial break. Here’s the entirety of the explanation of the first charge:

1. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

2. That statement was false, because, as JAMES B. COMEY JR. then and there knew, he in fact had authorized PERSON 3 to serve as an anonymous source in news reports regarding an FBI investigation concerning PERSON 1.

That’s it. That’s the whole of Count One, alleging false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). A source told CNN that this is related to “Arctic Haze,” an FBI investigation into leaks that ultimately appeared in four news articles.

As short as it is, Count One is positively voluminous when compared to Count Two:

4. On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR. did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which an investigation was being had before the Senate Judiciary Committee by making false and misleading statements before that committee.

That’s all you — and James Comey — get to know about the justification for alleging he obstructed a congressional investigation, violating 18 U.S.C. 1505.

Halligan failed to secure a charge on a third count, but you can see what she tried for in the report of a Grand Jury’s Failure to Concur in an Indictment. Maybe the reason she didn’t succeed is that this thing is positively incoherent:

”On or about September 30, 2020, in the Eastern District of Virginia, the defendant, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did willfully and knowingly make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch of the Government of the United States, by falsely stating to a U.S. Senator during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he, JAMES B. COMEY JR., did not remember “being taught” of PERSON 1’s “approval of a plan concerning” PERSON 2 and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.”

What?? Near as anyone can figure, this was about the conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton (PERSON 1) approved of some plan concerning Trump (PERSON 2) to have Russian hackers disrupt the election to distract everyone from her private email server use, and that Comey knew about it.

Now, having an indictment this short and detail-free isn’t illegal or inherently unethical. But it is downright weird, particularly in a blockbuster case indicting a former FBI director for lying to Congress.

If you want to see what an indictment actually looks like in these sorts of cases, peep former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 49-page filing in the Trump classified documents case or his 45-page filing in the January 6 case.

Those documents have lengthy narratives about Trump’s conduct — as in dozens and dozens of paragraphs — presented in a way that supports every element of each charge. Where relevant, the indictments quote Trump at length. If you read them, you can get a complete, detailed picture of the charges against Trump.

Now, you might be thinking, “well, sure, those indictments were lengthy and bulletproof because they had to be to charge Trump, but what about charging a normie criminal?” Here’s a recent indictment in a wire and bank fraud case in the same federal district, from the same US attorney’s office. It’s 14 pages and contains a narrative about the alleged criminal behavior with topical subheadings and explanations of how the behavior violated the relevant laws. Here’s another 24-page one for securities fraud, complete with an overview of the applicable securities reporting laws.

None of this is normal

Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what the indictment says, because Halligan was going to indict Comey no matter what. That’s literally why she’s in the job — to bring the sort of sham charges that the previous US attorney, Eric Siebert, would not.

Siebert told senior DOJ officials there was not enough evidence to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James with mortgage fraud and that he had concerns about any case against Comey. Siebert resigned, though Trump insists he was fired. But the specifics don’t really doesn’t matter. In the end, Siebert was out because he wouldn’t do precisely what Halligan would do.

Halligan isn’t just malleable and unethical. She also has no idea what she’s doing, having never prosecuted a single case. She was an insurance lawyer before Trump plucked her out of obscurity in Florida to be one of his defense lawyers in the classified documents case. Halligan also appears to still work for the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Staff Attorney, where she has been in charge of making sure that the Smithsonian and other museums don’t have anything that bums white supremacists out, like mentions of slavery.

The indictment came just a few days after President Trump went on Truth Social to demand that Attorney General Bondi get cracking on prosecuting his enemies and fired the US attorney who wouldn’t bring sham charges. There’s no separation between the Department of Justice and Trump’s desire for retribution.

However, because, as political science professor Mark Copelovitch puts it, “performative public lying is a hallmark of far right authoritarian parties,” both Trump and Bondi are pretending that this is a run-of-the-mill prosecution as opposed to yet another stop on Trump’s vengeance tour.

When asked to comment on whether Comey would be indicted approximately six hours before it happened, Trump said, “I think I’d be allowed to get involved if I want, but I don’t really choose to do so. I can only say that Comey is a bad person. He’s a sick person. I think he’s a sick guy, actually. He did terrible things at the FBI. And — but I don’t know. I have no idea what’s going to happen.”

Buddy, you literally called for the prosecution of your enemies on your social media site, fired the person who wouldn’t do it, and installed someone who would. There’s no world where you’re not knee deep in it.

Pam Bondi went on X to claim, preposterously, that “no one is above the law” and that the indictment reflects the DOJ’s “commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

Okay, well, your boss’s stance is that he literally is above the law, so that part is laughable. And the thing about following the facts — what facts? Halligan didn’t see fit to include any of them in the indictment. I guess we’ll all follow the facts whenever Halligan gets around to sharing.

Not that it would matter. The clock was ticking on the five year statute of limitations, set to expire in just a few days, and Halligan needed to charge Comey with something, anything, to make Trump happy. As Lawfare explained, charging Comey with lying during his September 30, 2020, testimony was likely appealing because “it might just be possible to slap together a simple false statements case and get it in under the wire.”

That appears to be exactly what Halligan did, though likely no one expected this indictment to be quite this thin. But what was Halligan to do when all the actual prosecutors in her office sent her a memo saying there was no probable cause to get an indictment, much less a guilty verdict? Apparently she took matters into her own hands to write a two-page masterpiece. Indeed, she’s the only person who signed the indictment, an odd move given that most criminal indictments are signed by the career prosecutors handling the case, along with the US attorney for the district.

Those career prosecutors are absolutely right to refuse to sign this thing. The court can sanction lawyers for signing an indictment they know isn’t supported by the facts. They can also face ethical complaints in the states where they are admitted to practice law, which can result in everything from a slap on the wrist to disbarment.

And here’s the thing: Trump can’t make those bar complaints go away. Attorneys are admitted — and regulated — at the state level, where Trump has no power. So, several of Trump’s former personal attorneys are no longer practicing law because they’ve been disciplined by their state bars.

Trump couldn’t get Rudy Giuliani out from under being disbarred in both New York and Washington DC. John Eastman, who helped come up with the fake electors scheme and pressured Mike Pence to refuse to certify Joe Biden’s victory, is still fighting the California state bar’s recommendation that he be disbarred. In June, a California court upheld the hearing judge’s disbarment decision. Eastman can still go to the California Supreme Court over this, but it’s highly unlikely he’ll get a different result. Kenneth Chesebro, also part of the fake electors plot, was disbarred in New York.

The DC Bar has recommended that Jeffrey Clark be disbarred for his efforts while at the DOJ to get senior DOJ officials to issue a false statement saying there was significant fraud in the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Jenna Ellis got off comparatively easy by entering into a voluntary agreement with the Colorado bar for a three-year suspension for making false statements about the 2020 election.

Lindsey Halligan isn’t immune to ethics complaints to the state bar(s) to which she is admitted, which appears to be only Florida at this time. The career prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia also aren’t immune to ethics complaints to the state bar, which is why they were smart enough to refuse to sign this sham indictment. Halligan is probably on her own here, but she’s already proven more than willing to do whatever Trump says, so you can expect to see more of this sort of fact-free, ethically-compromised indictment as Trump works through his enemies list.