ive here. Lambert was early to identify what he called “authoritarian followers” among the Dem team. It is now on its way to its logical conclusion because Democrats and even many so-called leftists are fine with smashing civil rights and freedom if it speeds up hair dropping.
By Thomas Neuburger. Published for the first time in Spies of God
“In cases involving Trump, the Department of Justice has pushed the tactical circumstance in the same ways it has with other types of unpopular defendants over the years, and has done so only with the nagging assumption… that the public wants them to color outside the lines more than ever, Dealing harshly with the goals The Ministry of Justice is behind a political wind[that] She lacked it even in the early days of the war in the days of terror.”
Matt Tibi, writing about the growing power of the Public Prosecution Office
The FBI has always been a tool for suppressing left-wing movements.
– Alex Vitale, author of The end of the police’s work
“The CIA is not your friend.”
– Edward Snowden, here
Two things can be true at the same time:
• Donald Trump could be an untenable excuse for a president and a danger to the Republic (the official institution of our government).
At the same time, the national security state can exercise a power-extracting one that would destroy our democracy and our republican version of it.
Of course, both things can be wrong, or one of them is true. If I were a novelist, I would make both things true. But this is only a fictional opinion. Let’s see what we find when we look at the real world.
Past and future danger
I consider Trump a dangerous president. You can give your reasons, if you have them, as easily as I can give them. Our listings may match.
The point is not to argue with our lists. the point he is Let’s wonder what made liberals – people who used to hate “terrifying state” agents like the FBI and the CIA – suddenly love them and support their penetration of the media with “unaffiliated” spokesmen and blind themselves to the transformation of criminal J. Edgar Hoover, the blackmail project In the Contemporary Angels of Democratic Liberalization in the Present American Mind?
The last Democratic angel of this redemption is George W. Bush, best known for torture and war crimes. Another of the Cheney family, Trump-hating Liz Cheney, is the enemy of everything the Progressives cherish except for her animosity toward the former occupier.
Are either of them a friend of freedom? Not if you look at them – or keep the look of memory – but they are definitely being praised that way, these days. Some Democrats may even fund her candidacy for president, if she chooses.
Who is the past and future danger? Is it just Trump?
Of course, Hoover’s FBI was closely linked to the murder of Malcolm Exand, less to the credibility of Martin Luther King’s murder. The sins committed by the national security state are great and untenable. From the killing of Americans by a CIA drone operation (2010), to Supreme Court spying by the FBI (2012), to outright lying with impunity under oath before Congress by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (2017) – it’s surprising That I, those ardent defenders of democracy, the people on the left to the right, my friends and my friends, became their fast friends too, some of them even their defenders.
Surprisingly, the defense of the FBI by its former attackers even distinguished people democracy now take a look. Describing a recent broadcast, they wrote (all focus in bold for me):
“There are good reasons to defund the FBI. They have nothing to do with Trump” “Defund the FBI” is a growing call by Republicans after the FBI searched former President Donald Trump’s property in Mar-a-Lago. We get a response from Alex Vitale, author of “The End of Policing,” which gives reasons for defunding the FBI that have nothing to do with Trump. Vitaly Review History of the FBI, which he says has “always been a tool for suppressing left-wing movements,” He described the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s case as a “short-sighted” attempt to shut down some of the most extreme parts of the right wing. He’s ramping up his efforts to “reduce the power and scope of the FBI in ways that limit its ability to demonize and criminalize those on the left.”
Did Trump blind us, or did the Public Prosecution Service reform itself?
Is this question even asked?
Trojan horse of the Ministry of Justice
All of this leads me to recommend a full read of a recent Substack series by Matt Taiby. In an article titled “What Happened to Civil Liberals in America?” El-Tayeb elaborates on how upsetting it is for readers to see even these doubts expressed:
Over the weekend, she published an article about the Justice Department’s use of bullying tactics and unfair practices, titled “The Department of Justice Was Dangerous Before Trump. It’s Out of Control Now.” Despite the fact that the bulk of the article focused on targets broadly sympathetic to the leftlike the late radical attorney Lynne Stewart and a Baltimore civil rights firm that was raided for the crime of representing another attorney, a deluge of emails and social media posts followed, mostly on the predictable topic of this article. [—] Full of facts and testimonies by people other than myself [—] He was sloppy right-handed: “What happened to you, man?”
But the piece he’s referring to is solid and deeply thought out. I highly recommend reading the whole thing.
Examines the use of “contaminated teams” by the FBI, a practice whereby they go to a target’s office, often a lawyer on behalf of someone under investigation, and collect whatever they can find, with a view to appointing one of them (but “not part of the investigation”). ”) to consider and classify everything later. They did so long before Trump took center stage.
Judges were particularly upset with prosecutors who were taking advantage of technological changes to seize large amounts of electronic data—usually computers or cell phones that contain private information outside the scope of an order request—and, in defiance of the courts, retain that information. In a case involving the seizure of emails from a defense contractor suspected of a commission scheme, a metropolitan court judge named John Faciola expressed concern that the government would “keep the data indefinitely” despite the fact that it was “unlawful” to refuse to return it. The seized documents“ not described in an order.” Vaciola, who dealt with this case more than once, blew his head … [but he was] Overruled by Judge Richard Roberts, who said, The government takes it all, way to build a possible cause later It was fine as long as it was there “Chance enough to find some needles in a computer haystack.” This was the kind of judicial advice the feds loved: Seize it now, worry later.
In one such raid of Joshua Trim’s law firm, the suspect’s lawyer wrote:
The US Attorney’s Office in Maryland had long been pursuing a lawyer named Ken Ravenel, one of Baltimore’s top criminal lawyers, believing he was an essential part of the criminal operation of a Jamaican marijuana king named Richard Byrd. That the feds raided Ravenel’s office in 2014 was one thing. The real shock came in 2019, when the US attorney general and the IRS raided the office of Ravenel’s attorney, Joshua Trim. If Lane Stewart’s case was about intimidation of the suspect’s attorney, then this case was about intimidation of the suspect’s attorney’s counsel. The Department of Justice didn’t just take the Treem files. It took huge amounts of data and files from the company Treem was and still a partner in, Brown, Goldstein and Levy. This group of lawyers has been repeatedly recognized as a leader by US news and world report And the The best lawyers in America, with several attorneys winning the annual Baltimore Attorney of the Year awards, including Trim himself. Despite their prestige, the Department of Justice treated Treem like terror suspects, introducing a surprise search operation filled with armed agents dressed in Kevlar gear, based on a warrant issued in from one side Hearing with the district judge, which means the company didn’t have a chance to challenge the raid. Lawyers for Brown, Goldstein, and Levi were in shock. “For the Civil Rights Law Office, in the middle of a workday morning, in the center of Baltimore, they felt the need to fully arm themselves.“They didn’t even send a subpoena,” says Trim, laughing astonished as he recalls the scene. “They didn’t even send a subpoena. That was part of our argument later in the Fourth Circuit. We’re all officers of the court. We all have moral duties to follow. We can’t destroy Evidence. If you had just sent a subpoena about these things, we would have given it to you.“
why all that?
One consequence of becoming a criminal suspect was that Trim, who had received a targeted letter six months earlier, had a conflict of interest that prevented him from defending Ravenel, which of course may have been part of the point. “I had to withdraw from representing my clients,” says Tarim. “Once I got the targeted message, I had to advise my existing clients and anyone calling me to ask for representation.” Asked if such tactics could be interpreted as a message that any lawyer who wants to stay in business should think carefully about representing someone the government is serious about going after, Flowers said the intimidation factor goes further. On the one hand, it is a strategic move. They should get Josh off the case.” He said. But the next step, or the corollary of that thought, is: For many criminal defense attorneys, it makes them wonder if they want to be in this profession?“
The FBI and the Department of Justice also get a sneak peek – and a chance to copy and use without revealing their sources for defense – All correspondence and files of all other attorneys in the office. What’s the use of that? Tayeb answers:
The The government has received 37,000 emails from Treem’s mailbox alone, of which only 62 are from Ravenell or contain his name. Treem had more than twenty attorneys, files relating to them were placed in the custody of a separate office of the Office of the Attorney General in the US state of Maryland. As a judge in the case later wrote, referring to Treem and Ravenell as Attorney A and Client A: A ‘vast’ portion of the confiscated emails were ‘from third parties’ [Law Firm] lawyers regarding. . . Other attorney clients who have nothing to do with th[e] Investigation[s]“To Attorney A and Client A. It should be noted that some of these law firm clients” are under investigation or prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office [for the District of Maryland] for unrelated offences. In other words, The US Attorney’s Office in Maryland decided to search the defense files of clients that the office itself was already investigating and/or prosecuting.
Is the Department of Justice out of control when it comes to prosecutorial powers and capabilities? Has the national security state, to which the FBI and Department of Justice belong, slipped off its leash thanks to 9/11 and our newfound love for making life for terrorists miserable?
The permanent detainees who will never be tried at Guantanamo Bay
Is the FBI, in the words of one liberal advocate, “reformed and modernized”? Or is it, in El-Tayeb’s words, “a Trojan horse, within which the Department of Justice has assembled an army to launch a major assault on civil liberties”?
Left and right versus right and wrong
These questions are currently being handled by a left vs right Domain. I would argue that it should be dealt with through a file right vs wrong Domain. Is the criticism valid or not? It is a different question than “Does Trump help or not?”
If the nation becomes an authoritarian inferno, the right may not be to blame. The national security state, with bipartisan support, is already a candidate.
Of course, a single writer and a few thousand loyal readers would not decide this matter for the nation. The nation will decide for itself the spinning wheels it wants to impress.
I look forward to the day you decide. I’ll release that breath when I see what flows from the result.
I hope to God that the result does not warn with the lines of the famous poem “First they came…”, whose middle verse may be reviewed soon to say: “Then they came for Trump, but I hated the bastard, so fuck him.”