Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
ancianita
ancianita's Journal
ancianita's Journal
September 19, 2023
Trump lawyers file a new 11-page argument to disprove the govt's objection to
their original motion for Chutkan to recuse herself; that therefore, the court should overrule the govt's motion and recuse herself.
As if they've proven that their motion is in "the American public's interest" as much as in the interest of their client, Trump. As if their arguments aren't rooted in the political interests of Trump.
Blanche/Lauro:
The public interest is not in the perception of a rush to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights.
As if they'd never again file a motion claiming partiality by any other judge.
Or never again let their client dictate terms to this or any other judge.
As if Chutkan will impartially be swayed to accept their "proofs" of her partiality; as if she herself can show no proofs of her impartiality -- and therefore will be compelled by their argument to recuse herself
Jack Smith could tear this to shreds, but the decision is Chutkan's.
Hoping that DU lawyers might care to weigh in on Trump lawyers' "proofs." 
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/58/united-states-v-trump/
Final three paragraphs, pages 10 and 11:
That is not an insignificant consideration, it is the consideration. No system of justice can
survive if its citizens lose faith in it: “because even the appearance of questionable impartiality
poses a significant threat to these fundamental values, Congress created a very broad § 455(a) net,
one that would ensnare not only those actually lacking impartiality, but also those whose
impartiality might appear questionable to a reasonable person.” Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 22
(emphasis in original) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 548). “Any question of a judge’s impartiality
threatens the purity of the judicial process and its institutions.” Potashnick, 609 F.2d at 1111 (5th
Cir. 1980).
These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush
to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a
fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights. Anything less will
rightly call into question the very legitimacy of these proceedings and cause irreparable damage
to our judicial system for generations to come. The public must have confidence that President
Trump’s constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a
king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Court should overrule the government’s objections and grant the Motion. Additionally,
to ensure the Court is fully apprised on this crucial motion, President Trump respectfully requests
the Court schedule a hearing at the earliest opportunity.
survive if its citizens lose faith in it: “because even the appearance of questionable impartiality
poses a significant threat to these fundamental values, Congress created a very broad § 455(a) net,
one that would ensnare not only those actually lacking impartiality, but also those whose
impartiality might appear questionable to a reasonable person.” Bilzerian, 729 F. Supp. 2d at 22
(emphasis in original) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 548). “Any question of a judge’s impartiality
threatens the purity of the judicial process and its institutions.” Potashnick, 609 F.2d at 1111 (5th
Cir. 1980).
These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush
to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge, but in a
fair proceeding guaranteeing fundamental human and constitutional rights. Anything less will
rightly call into question the very legitimacy of these proceedings and cause irreparable damage
to our judicial system for generations to come. The public must have confidence that President
Trump’s constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a
king, but every president is a United States citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed
by the U.S. Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Court should overrule the government’s objections and grant the Motion. Additionally,
to ensure the Court is fully apprised on this crucial motion, President Trump respectfully requests
the Court schedule a hearing at the earliest opportunity.
September 16, 2023
Jen Psaki Interviews CA Governor Gavin Newsom
With this lineup of Democratic presidents -- Harris after Biden, and Newsom after Harris -- Democrats could govern this nation for the next 20 years. Hands down.
September 16, 2023
Four Little Girls -- Documentary by Spike Lee
I'll never forget the loving power of Spike Lee's film, how we should never forget the ugly reality of the terrorist Klan South that our fellow oppressed Americans have fought to overcome.
September 16, 2023
SCOTUS Assoc. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson at 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama
September 15, 2023
See the Motion and three attachments that Contain
-- court ruling precedents for similar court constraints
-- transcript proofs from Jan 6 hearings that Trump knows the effects of his words
-- at least 10 tweets & Truth Social posts that prove Trump's malice and prejudice toward the judge, prosecutor, witnesses
-- the government's texts of its proposed orders in its Exhibits 2 & 3
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/57/united-states-v-trump/
Excerpt of the 19 page Motion:
"... A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That
Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements
The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in
Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than
our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To
fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial
statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.”
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should
enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on
certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.
...
The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,
consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to
prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations
of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the
Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to
the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.
The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct
result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by
the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact
on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The
defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his
peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect
the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements
regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his
- 15 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 16 of 19
targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court
but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.
A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel
to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was
unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which
he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and
a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses
that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the
jury. 21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which
prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things,
“the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the
evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing
regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the
Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature.
The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by...
- 16 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 17 of 19
the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by
disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.
B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This
District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving
Authorization from the Court
The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective
jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised
the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct
outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court
instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District
of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr.
at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are
claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the
kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.
Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully
requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts
with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing case-
specific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury
study”). 22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the
party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes
any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than 30
days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and
22
At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to
the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.
- 17 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 18 of 19
methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require
filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least
two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3....
- 18 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 19 of 19
To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether
intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district
court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the
party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar
study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug.
11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead
“regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2)
requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4)
requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pre-
trial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has
attached a proposed order that contains these features.
III. Conclusion
Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent
prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court
should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public
statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By: /s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530 "
Jack Smith Files Opposed Motion To Ensure TFG's Extrajudicial Statements Don't Prejudice Proceedings
From the DC Court Docket:MOTION to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-6) (zhsj) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47-6) (zhsj) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
See the Motion and three attachments that Contain
-- court ruling precedents for similar court constraints
-- transcript proofs from Jan 6 hearings that Trump knows the effects of his words
-- at least 10 tweets & Truth Social posts that prove Trump's malice and prejudice toward the judge, prosecutor, witnesses
-- the government's texts of its proposed orders in its Exhibits 2 & 3
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/57/united-states-v-trump/
Excerpt of the 19 page Motion:
"... A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That
Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements
The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in
Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than
our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To
fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial
statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.”
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should
enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on
certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.
...
The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,
consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to
prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations
of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the
Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to
the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.
The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct
result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by
the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact
on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The
defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his
peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect
the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements
regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his
- 15 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 16 of 19
targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court
but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.
A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel
to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was
unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which
he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and
a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses
that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the
jury. 21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which
prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things,
“the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the
evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing
regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the
Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature.
The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by...
- 16 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 17 of 19
the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by
disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.
B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This
District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving
Authorization from the Court
The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective
jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised
the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct
outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court
instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District
of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr.
at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are
claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the
kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.
Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully
requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts
with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing case-
specific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury
study”). 22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the
party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes
any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than 30
days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and
22
At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to
the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.
- 17 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 18 of 19
methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require
filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least
two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3....
- 18 -
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 57 Filed 09/15/23 Page 19 of 19
To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether
intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district
court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the
party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar
study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug.
11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead
“regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2)
requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4)
requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pre-
trial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has
attached a proposed order that contains these features.
III. Conclusion
Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent
prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court
should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public
statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By: /s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530 "
September 13, 2023
PA Governor Shapiro announces the capture of Daniel Cavalcante with high praise to police and public
Countless thanks all around. And not a shot fired. Press conference follows.
September 13, 2023
DU lawyers: After an impeachment inquiry finds no evidence, is proceeding to impeachment a fraud?
In my non-lawyer opinion, to conduct an impeachment "inquiry," either in good faith or bad faith, is okay.
However, if those involved in the inquiry report in writing that they do not find evidence, yet proceed to write, sign off on, and vote to approve articles of impeachment anyway, they commit fraud.
18 U.S.C. § 371
Those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:
[cited in JM 9-42.001]
They cheat the government out of money or property;
They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or
They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
September 12, 2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition.
All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed.
See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order.
Future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd)
Here is the Trump team's original recusal motion link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/50/united-states-v-trump/
Judge Chutkan responds to the Trump motion for recusal.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition.
All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed.
See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order.
Future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd)
Here is the Trump team's original recusal motion link:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/50/united-states-v-trump/
September 12, 2023
by Thom Hartmann
The Hartman Report
Today is 9/11, the event that first brought America together and then was cynically exploited by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to have a war against Iraq, following their illegal invasion of Afghanistan just a bit more than a year earlier.
Yet the media today (so far, anyway) is curiously silent about Bush and Cheney’s lies.
Given the costs of both these wars — and the current possibility of our being drawn deeper into conflict in both Ukraine and Taiwan — it’s an important moment to discuss our history of wars, both illegal and unnecessary, and those that are arguably essential to the survival of democracy in the world.
To be clear, I support US involvement — and even an expanded US involvement — in the defense of the Ukrainian democracy against Putin’s Hitler-grabs-Poland-like attack and mass slaughter of Ukrainian civilians. Had the world mobilized to stop Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938 there almost certainly wouldn’t have been either the Holocaust or WWII, which is why Europe is so united in this effort.
If Putin succeeds in taking Ukraine, his administration has already suggested that both Poland and Moldova are next, with the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) also on the menu. That would almost certainly lead to war in Europe.
And China is watching: a Putin victory in Ukraine will encourage Xi to try to take Taiwan. Between the two — war in both Europe and the Pacific — we could find ourselves in the middle of World War III if Putin isn’t stopped now.
That said, essentially defensive military involvement like with Ukraine or in World War II have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. We’ve been far more likely to have presidents lie us into wars for their own personal and political gain than to defend ourselves or other democracies.
For example, after 9/11 in 2001 the Taliban that then ran Afghanistan offered to arrest Bin Laden, but Bush turned them down because he wanted to be a “wartime president” to have a “successful presidency.”
The Washington Post headline weeks after 9/11 put it succinctly: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden.” With that decision not to arrest and try Bin Laden for his crime but instead to go to war, George W. Bush set the US and Afghanistan on a direct path to disaster (but simultaneously set himself up for re-election in 2004 as a “wartime president”).
To further complicate things for Bush and Cheney, the 9/11 attacks were not planned, hatched, developed, practiced, expanded, worked out, or otherwise devised in Afghanistan or by even one single citizen of Afghanistan.
That country and its leadership in 2001, in fact, had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, as I detailed in depth here on August 15th of last year. The actual planning and management of the operation was done out of Pakistan and Germany, mostly by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
The Taliban were bad guys, trashing the rights of women and running a tinpot dictatorship, but they represented no threat whatsoever to America or our allies.
Almost two decades later, though, then-President Trump and Mike Pompeo gave the Taliban everything they wanted — power, legitimacy, shutting down 9 of the 10 US air bases in that country to screw incoming President Joe Biden, and the release of 5000 of Afghanistan’s worst Taliban war criminals — all over the strong objections of the democratically elected Afghan government in 2019.
Trump did this so could falsely claim, heading into the 2020 election, that he’d “negotiated peace” in Afghanistan, when in fact he’d set up the debacle that happened around President Biden’s withdrawal from that country.
”The relationship I have with the Mullah is very good,” Trump proclaimed — after ordering the mullah who then named himself President of Afghanistan — freed from prison over the furious objection of Afghan’s government, which Trump had cut out of the negotiations.
Following that betrayal of both Afghanistan and America, Trump and the GOP scrubbed the record of their embrace of the Taliban from their websites, as noted here and here.
And the conservative Boris Johnson administration in the UK came right out and said that Trump’s “rushed” deal with the Taliban — without involvement of the Afghan government or the international community — set up the difficulties Biden faced.
“The die was cast,” Defense Minister Ben Wallace told the BBC, “when the deal was done by Donald Trump, if you want my observation.”....
https://hartmannreport.com/p/america-cant-let-the-911-war-lies-26c
America Can't Let the 9/11 War Lies Go Down the Memory Hole
America has been lied into too many wars. It’s cost us too much in money, credibility, and blood. We must remember the lies, and tell our children about them so that memory isn’t lost...by Thom Hartmann
The Hartman Report
Today is 9/11, the event that first brought America together and then was cynically exploited by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to have a war against Iraq, following their illegal invasion of Afghanistan just a bit more than a year earlier.
Yet the media today (so far, anyway) is curiously silent about Bush and Cheney’s lies.
Given the costs of both these wars — and the current possibility of our being drawn deeper into conflict in both Ukraine and Taiwan — it’s an important moment to discuss our history of wars, both illegal and unnecessary, and those that are arguably essential to the survival of democracy in the world.
To be clear, I support US involvement — and even an expanded US involvement — in the defense of the Ukrainian democracy against Putin’s Hitler-grabs-Poland-like attack and mass slaughter of Ukrainian civilians. Had the world mobilized to stop Hitler when he invaded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in 1938 there almost certainly wouldn’t have been either the Holocaust or WWII, which is why Europe is so united in this effort.
If Putin succeeds in taking Ukraine, his administration has already suggested that both Poland and Moldova are next, with the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) also on the menu. That would almost certainly lead to war in Europe.
And China is watching: a Putin victory in Ukraine will encourage Xi to try to take Taiwan. Between the two — war in both Europe and the Pacific — we could find ourselves in the middle of World War III if Putin isn’t stopped now.
That said, essentially defensive military involvement like with Ukraine or in World War II have been the exception rather than the rule in American history. We’ve been far more likely to have presidents lie us into wars for their own personal and political gain than to defend ourselves or other democracies.
For example, after 9/11 in 2001 the Taliban that then ran Afghanistan offered to arrest Bin Laden, but Bush turned them down because he wanted to be a “wartime president” to have a “successful presidency.”
The Washington Post headline weeks after 9/11 put it succinctly: “Bush Rejects Taliban Offer On Bin Laden.” With that decision not to arrest and try Bin Laden for his crime but instead to go to war, George W. Bush set the US and Afghanistan on a direct path to disaster (but simultaneously set himself up for re-election in 2004 as a “wartime president”).
To further complicate things for Bush and Cheney, the 9/11 attacks were not planned, hatched, developed, practiced, expanded, worked out, or otherwise devised in Afghanistan or by even one single citizen of Afghanistan.
That country and its leadership in 2001, in fact, had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, as I detailed in depth here on August 15th of last year. The actual planning and management of the operation was done out of Pakistan and Germany, mostly by Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
The Taliban were bad guys, trashing the rights of women and running a tinpot dictatorship, but they represented no threat whatsoever to America or our allies.
Almost two decades later, though, then-President Trump and Mike Pompeo gave the Taliban everything they wanted — power, legitimacy, shutting down 9 of the 10 US air bases in that country to screw incoming President Joe Biden, and the release of 5000 of Afghanistan’s worst Taliban war criminals — all over the strong objections of the democratically elected Afghan government in 2019.
Trump did this so could falsely claim, heading into the 2020 election, that he’d “negotiated peace” in Afghanistan, when in fact he’d set up the debacle that happened around President Biden’s withdrawal from that country.
”The relationship I have with the Mullah is very good,” Trump proclaimed — after ordering the mullah who then named himself President of Afghanistan — freed from prison over the furious objection of Afghan’s government, which Trump had cut out of the negotiations.
Following that betrayal of both Afghanistan and America, Trump and the GOP scrubbed the record of their embrace of the Taliban from their websites, as noted here and here.
And the conservative Boris Johnson administration in the UK came right out and said that Trump’s “rushed” deal with the Taliban — without involvement of the Afghan government or the international community — set up the difficulties Biden faced.
“The die was cast,” Defense Minister Ben Wallace told the BBC, “when the deal was done by Donald Trump, if you want my observation.”....
https://hartmannreport.com/p/america-cant-let-the-911-war-lies-26c
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 36,031