Projection - that's what they do - they accuse us of doing the evil things that they actually do. I previously wrote about Ruben Verastugui - evil incarnate - but I missed this story about his buddy Adam Hageman. politico.com/news/2021/03/0…
Verastugui is the most evil thing I have ever tweeted about, and of course he was part of the RNC and Repub Senate media teams, as well as a big figure in the youth "pro-life" movement.
Verastugui pleaded guilty yesterday, admitting the facts in the charging affidavit that he fantasized about raping and killing infants. The Politico story included new facts: the chat group included 18 people; one of them was Hageman. politico.com/news/2021/07/0…
Hageman was a Trump appointee to the Commerce Dept. who came out of Turning Point USA (@clearing_fog@YDanasmithdutra), which is funded by the regular right-wing billionaire characters. It appears that Hageman is not cooperating in hopes of a leniency in sentencing.
Hageman is typical youth, right wing, conservative - he possessed and distributed child rape videos and he was buddies with a guy that shared the same and WORKED FOR THE RNC 2017-2018 AND THE SENATE REPUBLICAN CONFERENCE 2019-2020.
I REALLY want these criminals off the street and I am glad that Verastugui and Habeman are no longer free to undermine free society.
Now let's get the people that put them in positions of trust and power.
I receive many tips and reminders from my friends on twitter. For this one, I want to specifically thank @jennikabrewer, good soul whose memory is vastly better than mine.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Come to think of it, don't ALL the executives of Trump Org live in housing owned by Trump Org? It seems like that might be a tangible, taxable perquisite. businessinsider.com/donald-trump-p…
Just as I thought (now that I'm thinking about it) - housing is a taxable fringe benefit unless fairly strict exceptions apply. corporatehousing.com/blog/corporate…
Here is my response to everyone's ridiculous takes about how the DoJ shouldn't defend the office of the POTUS from sex assault allegations. The evils are ALREADY teeing up sex assault allegations against Biden. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden…
Sure we don't want Trump being defended by the DoJ. BUT IT'S NOT TRUMP BEING DEFENDED BY THE DOJ IT'S THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT FROM ATTACKS BY THE EVILS.
And it's not even sex assault allegations that are being defended. It's the denial - the words - which every politician has to be entitled to do if someone makes an allegation against them.
@BarbMcQuade is a formidable legal mind and this article is quite good. Nevertheless, here is DIRK'S HOT TAKE EXPLAINING WHY THE TWITTER MOB AND BARB ARE WRONG ON THIS POINT.
(I nevertheless take a moment to note I too am frustrated with the glacial pace of justice regarding the obvious trumpist crime wave of the past couple of years)
Key Point One: Ms. Carrol's suit is not about the attack she endured at Trump's hands back in the day. It alleges that Trump lied about the attack when she came forward about it in 2019. THE DOJ IS NOT DEFENDING A RAPE CASE.
What Durham is doing is one of the great mysteries of the Barr era. I still think there's an above-zero chance he finds the opposite of Trumpists want, but I am less confident now that we know RR and O'Callaghan were turned. $1.5M is not a lot of money, really.
If you wanna don the Rose Coloreds ... we now know that Rosenstein and O'Callaghan ventured right up to the edge (and maybe beyond) of obstruction as Barr came aboard as AG. Durham is authorized to prosecute any crimes related to the Mueller investigation.
And we know that O'Callaghan was in the NATSEC division up until RR elevated him to supervise the Russia investigation. Durham is empowered to investigate "intelligence, counter-intelligence or law enforcement activities." justice.gov/file/1370931/d…
As attorneys, we are trained from the beginning that attorney-client privilege is our most sacred trust. We should go to jail to protect it, we should NEVER violate that trust voluntarily.
The Court's decision was that there were portions of the memo that were after-the-fact cover for a decision already made, and that some was mere political advice -- those parts will be released.