The shredding has begun

 

Worth a full read

Washington, D.C. (October 26, 2026)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, released a sweeping new Committee staff report, “‘We Have Certain Things in Common, Jeffrey’: The Case Against Donald Trump Emerging in the Epstein Files and DOJ’s Desperate Efforts to Cover it Up,” detailing evidence involving 11 women, five of whom directly accuse Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault in Jeffrey Epstein’s close company or presence. The report concludes that, based on the available evidence and witness testimony, Trump and Paolo Zampolli—who until recently served as a senior Trump Administration official and diplomat—may have been co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein’s conspiracy to traffic and abuse young women in the 1990s.

[...]

“Donald Trump says he knew Jeffrey Epstein ‘just like everybody in Palm Beach knew him.’ Not exactly. Evidence involving 11 women tells a completely different and far more damning story about their relationship and the abuse of young women and girls that took place in their network. Five women have directly accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein’s company or presence; others have indicated that Epstein or Maxwell attempted to traffic them to Trump. These women have spoken to investigators and, in some cases, testified under oath, yet Trump’s Justice Department has shut down investigations, deliberately withheld evidence and, through Todd Blanche, prevented Ghislaine Maxwell from discussing a survivor whose account implicated Trump—all while insisting there is no basis upon which to investigate Epstein’s possible accomplices. Trump’s Justice Department appears to be covering up these crimes to protect the President.

  House Judiciary Committee

This is why Aileen Cannon will not release the report

 

America is failing

 

It's on a par with everything he does: disregard for the law, and buying whatever he wants.  Or selling, as in the case of pardons.  It's all transactional, and it all involves money changing hands.

Jack Smith testifies (again)

In his first public testimony, former special counsel Jack Smith warned that President Donald Trump’s targeted attacks against civil servants in the Department of Justice pose a grave threat to the rule of law.

[...]

Thursday’s hearing represented a reversal for the House Judiciary Committee’s Republican Chairman Jim Jordan (Ohio).

Previously, Jordan had denied Smith’s request to speak publicly about the Trump investigations and instead ordered a closed-door hearing, which took place in December.

[...]

“The rule of law is not self-executing,” Smith said. “It depends on our collective commitment to apply it.”

[...]

Trump is threatening the primacy of law in the United States by attacking civil servants previously assigned to probes against him.

[...]

Smith issued the warning while testifying on the two criminal investigations he led into Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and the president’s mishandling of classified documents after his first term.

[...]

Smith defended his team’s work and said the Trump administration’s retaliatory actions constituted an assault on independent law enforcement.

“President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents and support staff for having worked on these cases,” Smith said. “To vilify and seek retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the best of us.”

  Democracy Docket

Also, and this is obviously not a deterrent, it's illegal.

In August, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), an agency that oversees the conduct of federal employees, publicly confirmed it was investigating Smith over allegations he engaged in unlawful political activity by bringing criminal charges against Trump.

The probe, the status of which is unclear, was highly unusual for the OSC, which is meant to operate in a non-partisan manner independent of the White House. However, several months earlier, Trump fired the previous OSC leader and installed loyalists to lead the office.

[...]

Thursday’s hearing marks the first time Smith has testified publicly about the two investigations into Trump.

[...]

During the hearing, Trump called Smith “a deranged animal” in a post on social media and said that he hoped that Attorney General Pam Bondi was “looking at what he’s done.”

[...]

Since his return to the White House, Trump has repeatedly and publicly attacked Smith and has called for his arrest.

[...]

Asked about Trump’s personal attacks, Smith said he believed they were meant to intimidate him and others who “stand up.”

“I’m not going to be intimidated,” he said. “We did our work pursuant to department policy. We followed the facts. We followed the law. And that process resulted in proof beyond a reasonable doubt that [Trump] committed serious crimes. And I’m not going to pretend that didn’t happen because he’s threatening me.”

 UPDATE 02:22 pm:

Apparently, it wasn't just Nehls...

Former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fanone repeatedly told far-right operative Ivan Raiklin "go f*ck yourself" at the hearing, where the two were both in attendance as audience members.

"You're a traitor to this f*cking country," Fanone also told Raiklin, getting close enough that two of his former law enforcement colleagues had to restrain him.

The altercation occurred during a recess in the Judiciary Committee's hearing, with Raiklin starting off the interaction by trying to shake Fanone's hand.

Fanone repeatedly cursed at Raiklin and told him not to "pretend" that they are on good terms, Raiklin responded, "Why do you have to lose your cool like that?"

"This guy has threatened my family, threatened my children. Threatened to rape my children ... you sick bastard," Fanone told Raiklin as people gathered around the two men.

"F*cking do something," Fanone dared Raiklin. "Do something."

[...]

The ex-MPD officer said [that during the insurection on January 6, 2021,] he was "grabbed, beaten, tased, all while being called a traitor to my country."

Raiklin, for his part, was a key figure in pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to try to overturn the 2020 election results and has continued to propagate conspiracy theories about the election.

Fanone's fellow Capitol Police veterans, Jared Dunn and Aquilino Gonell, quickly rushed to hold Fanone back and de-escalate the situation, with Dunn telling Fanone repeatedly, "Let's take a seat."

Judiciary chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) then banged his gavel and called the hearing to order, with ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) thanking Fanone and Democrats applauding the former officer.

  Axios

Jack Smith testimony transcript released

Smith used the day-long grilling before the House Judiciary Committee to mount a robust defense of his investigation into Donald Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 election. He forcefully rebutted claims that his work was tainted by politics and delivered a granular defense of his office’s tactics and prosecution strategy — all while repeatedly restating his view that Trump was guilty of a historic crime.

[...]

“The president was preying on the party allegiance of people who supported him,” Smith said. “The evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people in his own party who … put country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him, even though it could mean trouble for them.”

[...]

"These are people in his party who supported him,” Smith continued. “And I think the fact that they were telling him these things … would have had great weight and great credibility with a jury.”

Smith said he came to believe that Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, tweet attacking Pence while he was at the Capitol “without question” exacerbated the danger to Pence’s life.

[...]

The former special counsel said he never officially decided whether to bring additional charges against the figures he alleged were Trump’s co-conspirators — including attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman and Boris Epshteyn.

[...]The former special counsel repeatedly leaned into the defense of his probe and expressed confidence that a jury would have convicted Trump if the case went to trial.

He refused to take Democrats’ bait to attack Republicans for refusing, so far, to give him a public hearing. And he avoided straying into discussions that might have forced him to reveal subjects still protected by grand jury secrecy or a federal judge’s order that barred him from disclosing details of his second investigation into President Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office in 2021.

[...]

Smith repeatedly reminded lawmakers that he’s open to sharing the results of his classified documents investigation, but was restricted by the ruling from a federal judge in Florida who maintained Smith’s report must stay under seal.

[...]

He emphasized that he regularly consulted with Justice Department officials to ensure he abided by its guidelines.

“We certainly were not in any way intending to affect the outcome of the election. And to make sure we complied with the policy, we met with Public Integrity to make sure we were doing that,” Smith said.

[...]

Multiple people also asked Smith if he would be surprised if Trump directs his Department of Justice to target him. The former special counsel responded no.

“I have no doubt that the president wants to seek retribution against me,” Smith said.

[...]

Though there were few new details in Smith’s testimony, he disclosed that he didn’t pursue interviews with three figures close to Trump: Steve Bannon, Roger Stone and Peter Navarro.

[...]

“Given the highly uncooperative nature of the individuals you talked about, I didn’t think it would be fruitful to try to question them,” Smith said. “And the sort of information that they could provide us, in my view, wasn’t worth immunizing them for their possible conduct.”

But Smith also described a text exchange between Bannon and Epshteyn on the evening of Jan. 6 in which Bannon described Trump as “still on fire” — an exchange he said was evidence that Trump did not see the riot as the end of his effort to prevent his defeat in the election.

[...]

He also said the [lawmakers' phone] records they pursued were limited and intended to shore up the case if it went to trial — and all were obtained in accordance with DOJ policies governing the handling of investigations that touch on congressional records.

Smith also emphasized he was not special counsel when Justice Department investigators obtained a two-year batch of House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan’s phone records.

  Politico

Until somebody stops him

 

Dems on the House Judiciary Committee pull no punches

 I'm sure Pam Bondi will 86 this letter and not even respond, but it's an amazing piece of work, and it will go in Congressional records. (For as long as we still have them.)

            [...]

Read the whole thing here.

Dropping the case in Florida

No surprise here.

By hook or by crook

Trump 2.0 is essentially all crook.

Everyone knows that with Trump now in office the Department will move to dismiss the [stolen documents] case against Trump’s two co-defendants (as it has precipitously done with respect to all pending J6 defendants in Washington D.C.). Trump is hardly going to prosecute his two co-defendants, particularly since any trial will put front and center his own actions and result in his being a central witness in the case.

Yet, the Department has not moved to dismiss its appeal of the Cannon decision [to block release of the Smith report] — the only live activity left in that case. At least, not yet. And there’s the rub.

[...]

Indeed, the only legal issue preventing the release of the Jack Smith Mar-a-Lago report is the pendency of that appeal— that is the reason given by former Attorney General Garland for not making it public, and it is the reason given by Judge Cannon for not even permitting then-Attorney General Garland to share the report with certain select members of Congress. Indeed, this evanescent stumbling block (ie the inevitability of Trump’s DOJ dropping the criminal case) led many (including this author) to wonder why former Attorney General Garland did not move to dismiss the Cannon appeal, so that he would be able to further the settled public interest in the release of as much of Special Counsel reports as possible.

[...]

It is hard to come up with a more plausible reason for the Department’s odd sloth – made all the more striking by the new administration’s lightning speed in dismissing the J6 cases – than to thwart any efforts by Democrats, reporters and others from gaining access to the Smith report.

[...]

This inaction of course protects Trump. But it also serves another function. By not moving to dismiss the appeal now, the Department does not risk the report being unveiled – a report that is likely to cast substantial doubt on factual assertions made by Kash Patel. It had been widely reported that Patel claimed to have witnessed Trump declassifying the documents wholesale. Presumably to learn about this claim, Patel was reportedly called to the grand jury by Smith and asserted his fifth amendment rights (as is well within his rights). But Smith is reported to have obtained an immunity order which would require Patel to then testify under oath in the grand jury. Whether he did so, and what he then said (to the grand jury and/or to investigators) is unknown. And what remains under seal as well is Smith’s presumably detailed factual refutation of Patel’s public claim.

  Just Security

UPDATE 01/29/2025:  They're dropping the case now.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Rely on Garland?

This makes sense.  That report will never see the light of day if Garland doesn't release it now.  It will most likely "disappear".  And, Trump is either going to drop the case against these two himself, or pardon them, so what's the point in keeping it open?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Aileen stands aside - sort of

Federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday denied a request to extend an injunction banning the Justice Department from releasing a volume of a report former special counsel Jack Smith issued on President-elect Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

  MSN

I'm still not convinced we'll see any of it.

Clarence Thomas sits over the 11th Circuit.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 04:50 pm:

UPDATE 01/14/2025:  

Didn't happen.  Perhaps Thomas - or Alito - alerted Trump that they wouldn't stand in the way.  Smith's January 6 report is released.

Cannon balls

Why?  She doesn't have anything to do with the January  6 case.

Both sad and disgusting.  This was Smith's case to try.

Nor will a lot of Americans.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01/12/2025:

"Totally exonerated"

I think it would be more accurate to say he was already formally convicted, and he has now been sentenced.  Whatever.  There's no practical difference.

"An injustice of justice."

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 11:00 am:

In some distant future, Mark.  In some distant future.

Donald Trump decried that his hush money trial was a “witch hunt” during his sentencing hearing Friday, but he saved his biggest fireworks for a post-hearing rant on Truth Social.

“After spending tens of millions of dollars, wasting over 6 years of obsessive work that should have been spent on protecting New Yorkers from violent, rampant crime that is destroying the City and State, coordinating with the Biden/Harris Department of Injustice in lawless Weaponization, and bringing completely baseless, illegal, and fake charges against your 45th and 47th President, ME, I was given an UNCONDITIONAL DISCHARGE,” he wrote in part.

Trump’s sentence of unconditional discharge means he will face no prison time, fines, or probation. However, he will carry the distinction of being the first president in U.S. history to be a felon when he’s sworn in on Jan. 20.

  Daily Beast

Big deal. He's also the first president to incite an insurrection in order to try to stay in office. He's the first president to refuse to divest in, and instead use for profit owing to his position, his money-making properties. He's the first to graft and grift his way through his term. He's the first in a lot of things, and he'll be the first in a lot more and more horrible things in the next term.

[H]e was not a silent participant like he was when he attend hearings in New York.

He said “this has been a very terrible experience” and that his conviction was a “tremendous setback” for the New York court system.

He added that the trial was a “political witch hunt,” brought forward to damage his reputation and electoral chances ahead of the 2024 election. He added that he was “totally innocent.”

“I was treated very, very unfairly, and I thank you very much,” Trump said, closing his comments.

"I thank you very much." ??

Trump was less rational in a Truth Social post shortly after the hearing.

“The real Jury, the American People, have spoken, by Re-Electing me with an overwhelming MANDATE in one of the most consequential Elections in History,” he wrote. “As the American People have seen, this ‘case’ had no crime, no damages, no proof, no facts, no Law, only a highly conflicted Judge, a star witness who is a disbarred, disgraced, serial perjurer, and criminal Election Interference. Today’s event was a despicable charade.”

No crime? No proof? No facts? No law?

Friday’s sentence is likely not the end to this years-long saga. Trump and his attorneys have indicated they will appeal the conviction.

“Now that it is over, we will appeal this Hoax, which has no merit, and restore the trust of Americans in our once great System of Justice,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

UPDATE 01/11/2025:

Joyce Vance is a law professor and former federal prosecutor.  If she did explain it this way, I assume it was still speculation, and not because she knows it for a certainty.  Sounds very plausible, though.  Such a corrupt court.

Judge Juan Merchan's ruling spares Trump any jail time, fines or probation supervision for his conviction, though the sentence cements his status as the first convicted felon to hold the White House.

[...]

The president-elect was convicted in May on charges he falsified business records to cover up a sex scandal threatening to break during his first presidential campaign in 2016.

A jury found him guilty on all 34 counts.

[...]

The incoming president appeared remotely during the hearing with his lawyer on TV screens in the courtroom. Taking his opportunity to address the court, Trump maintained his innocence and said the case was a "tremendous setback" for the justice system.

"I'm totally innocent, I did nothing wrong," said Trump.

[...]

Under New York law, a judge can choose an unconditional discharge if they don't see prison time or probation as being in the public's best interest.

"An unconditional discharge is virtually nothing in terms of punishment," David Dorfman, a law professor at Pace University in New York, told CBC News in an interview Friday.

"You are now known forever as a felon, but basically there's no direct consequence to the 34 convictions. The former and soon-to-be-president owes nothing to the courts."

  CBC Canada

Or the American people.

With sentencing over, Trump is now free to formally appeal the jury's verdict. He cannot pardon himself because those presidential powers only apply to federal crimes, not those brought at the state level.

It will never end.

Canada is among dozens of countries in the world to refuse entry to felons. It will likely fall upon Canada's immigration minister to grant Trump special status to make him legally admissible for entry into the country moving forward.

Trump's remedy is to threaten to take over Canada.

Inch by inch

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 10:55 am:

Amen.

Sentencing will commence

UPDATE 01/10/2025:

Next up: SCOTUS

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 06:29 pm:  He did, and he voted to block sentencing.  Surprise.

Yeah, a convicted felon who got off scot free.

Only because he doesn't have to appear in person.

I hope Judge Merchan has extra protection tonight.  

And, of course Trump is grifting off the decision.

This was the email he sent out: “Today is your last day to activate this special deal. Sign my petition to DROP ALL CHARGES, and donate any amount before my sentencing day TOMORROW! Once you do this, I’ll throw your name in the hat for the drawing!”

  Meidas Touch

Pretty sure you can't petition the court for that.  Not that his willing dupes will know.

UPDATE 01/10/2025: