"Trump’s Justice Swings for Bolton’s Head" Trump’s revenge tour isn’t slowing down; it’s swinging harder. Bolton’s next up at bat, and this time, the pitch isn’t justice. It’s payback, wrapped in prosecution. Michael Cohen Oct 11 Here we go again. My sources tell me that come Tuesday, John Bolton; yes, that John Bolton, the walrus-mustached hawk who once strutted through the West Wing like he owned the Situation Room, is next up in the batter’s box. And if you’ve been keeping score, and I hope you have, that makes me three for three in calling Trump’s enemies list. First it was James Comey. Then Letitia James. Now, it will be Bolton’s turn under the blinding glare of the national spotlight. This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. You can feel the pattern now; it’s not coincidence, it’s choreography. Every swing is deliberate. Every “independent” Justice Department press release reads like campaign literature wrapped in legalese. Trump has turned prosecution into performance art. And just like any good showman, he saves the biggest acts for prime time. But here’s what makes the Bolton case different. Unlike Tish James, who made the mistake of tangling with Trump’s business empire, or James Comey, who crossed the man personally, Bolton’s “crime” runs deeper; it’s ideological. This is about loyalty, betrayal, and the heresy of disobedience within Trump’s inner sanctum. Bolton didn’t just defy Trump; he humiliated him. He publicly called him weak on Russia, reckless on North Korea, and clueless about the Middle East. He wrote it all down in The Room Where It Happened, and for that sin, Trump vowed revenge. I remember the Fox News interview from 2020; Trump saying Bolton “should be in jail” for releasing classified information. At the time, it sounded like another unhinged rant. Now it reads like a prophecy to be fulfilled. According to two federal officials I spoke with, Bolton’s indictment will come out of Maryland, his home state, courtesy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. And if that sounds local and routine, don’t be fooled; every move has been coordinated by Main Justice, with Pam Bondi’s fingerprints all over it. The same “one team” DOJ spokesman line; about making America “safe again”, isn’t just boilerplate. It’s messaging. It’s branding. It’s the Justice Department as a campaign surrogate and no one brands better than Trump when they stay on message. When the FBI raided Bolton’s home and D.C. office back in August, they didn’t just stumble upon this case. They knew what they were looking for. CIA Director John Ratcliffe; Trump’s loyalist, personally fed intel to FBI Director Kash Patel, another Trump enforcer, to justify the warrant. That’s not law enforcement; that’s statecraft with a badge. The target? Alleged mishandling of classified material, supposedly dating back to Bolton’s time as U.N. ambassador under George W. Bush. The irony? Trump himself was indicted for nearly identical charges; mishandling classified documents, and his case was tossed by Judge Aileen Cannon, a loyal Trump appointee. So, while Trump walks free, his critics are dragged through the mud for doing far less. America, meet the new definition of “justice.” Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, insists the documents were typical of long-time government officials; historical leftovers, not espionage. But none of that matters in Trump’s America. In this system, innocence is irrelevant. The spectacle is the sentence. Tish James will learn that lesson the hard way when her crusade against Trump’s business empire ends with her own indictment on a trumped-up bank fraud charge. Comey, too; indicted for allegedly lying to Congress, which is rich considering the halls of Congress are practically echo chambers of deception. Both cases reek of revenge; and you can bet the “evidence” will surface just in time to make it legitimate. But Bolton? He’s not a prosecutor or a lawman. He’s a hawk; one of their own. That makes this different. It signals the purge is widening. Trump isn’t just coming for his political enemies anymore; he’s coming for anyone who ever challenged his authority. That’s how autocracies harden; when the purge expands from opponents to insiders. Bolton’s indictment is the canary in the coal mine for every Republican who once thought they could outlast or outsmart Trump. The same man they defended, protected, or tolerated is now turning the same weaponized justice system they built right back on them. The irony is brutal. You can almost hear the crowd chanting from the stadium: “Who’s next?” Because in this version of America, the batter’s box never empties. There’s always someone on deck; and I predicted 2 weeks ago that it will be Adam “Shifty” Schiff. And let me be clear: this isn’t me defending Bolton. I’ve got no love for the guy. He was arrogant, self-righteous, and helped fuel some of the worst foreign policy disasters in modern history. But justice isn’t about liking someone; it’s about fairness. And fairness left the building the day Trump took back the Oval Office. Bolton’s real crime was breaking the code of silence. He pulled back the curtain on Trump’s chaos, mocked his ignorance, and dared to write it down. For that, he’s now facing charges under the Espionage Act; the same law once used to target journalists, whistleblowers, and, yes, political dissidents. Think about that for a second. So, this Tuesday, when the indictment drops, the message will be clear: dissent is dangerous, and betrayal is fatal. Bolton is just the next cautionary tale in The Trump Revenge Tour. So, here I am, three for three in predicting who’d be next on the chopping block. It’s not clairvoyance. I’m not Nostradamus. It’s pattern recognition. I’ve seen this movie before, only now it’s not a mob operation behind closed doors; it’s the United States government playing it out in public view. John Bolton is up in the batter’s box, the crowd’s on its feet, and Trump’s got the bat in his hands. And trust me; the man’s not swinging for a hit. He’s swinging for annihilation. ____________________________________________________________________________ Another Saturday and more chaos is here. This is not the moment to scroll past. This is the moment to stand up. SUBSCRIBE. SHARE. RESTACK. SPEAK OUT. I get it—you’re exhausted. Hell, so am I. But fatigue doesn’t excuse surrender. For nearly a decade, I’ve been in the mud, swinging blind so truth could claw its way into daylight. Now I’m asking you to take a swing with me. Because if you’ve read this far, you already know: This isn’t just a newsletter. It’s a war drum. A megaphone. A battle line. We don’t watch history unravel—we fight like hell to stitch it back together. We drag corruption into the light. We say the things they want buried. We refuse to look away, even when it’s easier to shut our eyes. But here’s the reality: no one can fight this alone—not me, not you, not anyone. The storm is here. Right now. It’s wearing the flag like a costume, preaching liberty while selling autocracy out the back door. So let me ask you: Are you in? Because this isn’t a passive read. This is a call to arms. And movements don’t move unless you do. We have to be louder than the spin, stronger than the propaganda, and impossible to silence. That means more than clicks. More than likes. It means stepping into the arena. So if you believe truth still matters—if you’re sick of the lies, if you’re ready to do more than scream into the algorithm—then this is your moment. HERE’S HOW YOU PUT YOUR SHOULDER INTO THE FIGHT: – Become a paid subscriber. Fund work that pulls no punches. – Share this with every voice that refuses to be muted. – Build the community. Amplify the message. Become the echo they can’t contain. And to the first wave of Founding Members? You’ll get a signed, limited-edition copy of Revenge. Not just memorabilia. A receipt. Proof you didn’t stand on the sidelines. But don’t get it twisted—this isn’t about a book. This is about backbone. It’s about locking arms and saying: Not on our watch. You want to make change? Then make it. Right here. Right now. Because if we don’t fight for truth, no one will. But if we fight together? They will never drown us out. Let’s be so loud they wish we were just tweets. Let’s be relentless. Let’s be undeniable. Let’s be unbreakable. It starts now. Let’s go.

Trump Judge GETS OUTED for her VILE SCHEME

 

MeidasTouch

3.29M subscribers

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok on the Legal AF podcast (After Dark) debate why Judge Cannon is in the news again, the impact of her being "outed" as Trump's choice for Attorney General and the timing of new filings by Trump in 2 courts extolling the legal prowess of Cannon. Subscribe: @LegalAFMTN Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Support the MeidasTouch Network:   / meidastouch   Add the MeidasTouch Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Buy MeidasTouch Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com Follow MeidasTouch on Twitter:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on Facebook:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on Instagram:   / meidastouch   Follow MeidasTouch on TikTok:   / meidastouch  

BREAKING: Judge Cannon pulls STUNNING move in court

 

Brian Tyler Cohen

3.39M subscribers

The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

Legal Breakdown episode 402: ‪@GlennKirschner2‬ discusses Judge Cannon's latest move. For more from Brian Tyler Cohen: Order my #1 NYT bestselling book SHAMELESS: https://www.harpercollins.com/pages/s... YouTube (español):    / @briantylercohenespanol   Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/36UvEHs Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0066rKC... Twitter:   / briantylercohen   Instagram:   / briantylercohen   Facebook:   / briantylercohen   Newsletter: https://www.briantylercohen.com/sign-up/ TikTok:   / briantylercohen   Substack: https://plus.briantylercohen.com

Explore the podcast

404 episodes

The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner

Brian Tyler Cohen

Judge Cannon In Serious Trouble For Failing To Disclose Right Wing Junket

 

Farron Balanced

561K subscribers

Judge Aileen Cannon could be in big trouble after it was revealed that she failed to disclose the fact that she attended a right wing legal junket in May of 2023. The event, paid for by a conservative law school, featured other conservative judges and right wing organizations, and Cannon was required by rules to disclose the trip within 30 days - which obviously never happened. This news comes as outside groups have filed amicus briefs to get Cannon removed from the Trump documents case. Farron Cousins explains what's happening. Link - https://www.rawstory.com/aileen-canno... Listen to our videos in an audio format by subscribing to our podcast: https://farronbalanceddaily.buzzsprou... Don't forget to like, comment, and share! And subscribe to stay connected! Connect with Farron on Twitter:   / farronbalanced  

"Jointly Where Possible" Joyce Vance Sep 3 We start with chickens, because these two are too sweet not to share, and also because Donald Trump’s transparent efforts to delay justice are so frustrating that we need something soothing before we get into tonight’s discussion. Toot & Pickles (seated) surveying their domain Friday night, Donald Trump’s lawyers and the Special Counsel’s Office filed their joint status report, noting, with lawyerly restraint, that they had conferred and were reporting to the court on their positions “jointly where possible.” In other words, they were largely unable to agree. The lawyers were under court order to try and reach agreement, but the court advised them they could also lay out their separate views where agreement wasn’t possible. The report reflects very different perspectives on how the prosecution of Trump for election interference should progress. Here is the extent of the issues they agree on: “The parties recognize the types of motions and briefing anticipated in pre-trial proceedings,” but they don’t agree on scheduling and how these matters should be conducted. “The parties believe the speedy trial deadline continues to be tolled because of at least one pending motion.” The Speedy Trial Act gives the government 70 days from the date of indictment to take a defendant to trial. If they violate the Act, the case is dismissed. But there are some exceptions to the Act, including one that excludes days where there is a motion pending in front of the court from the days that count towards the 70. That’s canon law and not up for debate, so it’s unsurprising that Trump and the Special Counsel agree that for as long as motions are pending in front of Judge Chutkan, the Speedy Trial Act clock isn’t ticking. But that’s it, as far as agreement goes. The motion is ten pages in all. The parts the two sides agree upon take up two paragraphs, not even half of a page. The Special Counsel’s position takes up roughly two pages. Trump’s takes up roughly six and one-half pages. The bottom line is that Trump’s lawyers are devoted to preventing the public from learning anything about the Special Counsel’s evidence in the case before the election. It’s the same strategy we’ve seen Trump use repeatedly in litigation: delay, delay, delay. This is the Trump side’s proposed schedule for the case. Nothing of significance happens before the election. On October 25, Trump would file a version of the motion to dismiss that succeeded before Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida, asserting that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. That’s a position that has already been rejected by the courts in the District of Columbia. But it gives Trump one last chance to trot out a rhetorical piece about the unfairness of it all as the bulk of American voters prepare to cast their votes. The briefing on that motion to dismiss would take up the remainder of November on Trump’s timeline, with a hearing the first week in December. The Special Counsel would not begin to explain to the court (and the public) why the charges in the superseding indictment are not barred by immunity—which will require, either in briefs or in evidentiary hearings, a discussion of what Trump did and what evidence the government has to prove it—until January 3, when Trump would have the Special Counsel file his first brief on the issue. If the court accepts Trump’s view, there would be no proceedings in court until January 27, 2025, a week after the inauguration. Trump anticipates filing a number of motions to dismiss the indictment, which his lawyers detail. One item they focus on is immunity, in the context of the Special Counsel’s allegations about the pressure campaign on Mike Pence. In the view of Trump’s lawyers, their client is immune from any prosecution regarding the pressure Trump put on Pence to refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election. In a rather remarkable section of the report, Trump’s lawyers don’t argue that their client didn’t pressure Pence to help Trump steal the election. Instead, Trump’s lawyers just say he’s immune from prosecution for doing it. That could even end up, at least to some extent, once the Supreme Court gets its hands on it, being a winning argument in a court of law. But in the court of public opinion, and particularly for voters, the argument that, “sure, I pressured Mike Pence to refuse to certify the election for Joe Biden after we lost so we could take over the government anyway” isn’t exactly a compelling one. And yet, that’s the essence of the position Trump’s lawyers take. A major point of disagreement between the two sides is, who goes first. Jack Smith wants to file an opening brief on the immunity issue. He notes that while Trump is talking about lots of different motions to dismiss, the Supreme Court stressed that the immunity issue should go first, and Smith proposes the Court take that path. Trump disagrees. He wants to go first, writing, “Finally, the Special Counsel asserts that it should file an opening evidentiary brief, but cites no authority or analogous rule in support of such a procedure. The Special Counsel has drafted and filed its Superseding Indictment as it saw fit. It is now President Trump’s right to challenge that indictment through appropriate motions and argument.” It will be up to Judge Chutkan to decide how to proceed. There are no firm rules, and Judges have discretion about how to proceed in cases in front of them. She can accept the suggestion of one of the parties or craft her own roadmap. But here, Smith makes a compelling argument for beginning with a brief from the government explaining why the indictment survives the Supreme Court’s immunity rules. Most defendants would relish the prospect of having the government make its arguments before they must make their own so they would know what they were up against. It seems like for Trump, the whole goal is to keep as much of this information away from the public as possible for as long as possible. Smith writes in his brief, “the Government proposes that it file an opening brief in which it will explain why the immunity set forth in Trump does not apply to the categories of allegations in the superseding indictment or additional unpled categories of evidence that the Government intends to introduce at trial and will proffer in its brief. The Government’s proposed brief would provide the defendant and the Court with detailed information regarding the ‘content, form, and context,’ … of the defendant’s conduct, distinguish his private electioneering activity from official action, and rebut the presumption of immunity as to any conduct that the Court may deem official. Such a brief would position the defendant, in his response, to oppose the Government’s positions and raise any other immunity claims based on the superseding indictment and additional evidence set forth in the Government’s pleading.” Whether Smith gets to file his brief first or second, it’s going to be fascinating reading, and with a trial in this case a distant prospect—it’s likely there will be a second round of appeals on immunity before we get there—this will be Smith’s chance to make his case to the public. The Supreme Court was critical of Judge Chutkan for failing to create a factual record during her first look at the case and directed her to engage in a “factbound analysis” when it came back to her. She can’t do that without permitting the parties to submit detailed briefs, and perhaps taking evidence from witnesses in court. Smith did not ask for that specifically at this point, but it may end up being the best way to satisfy the Supreme Court’s concerns about the absence of a factual basis for the analysis of the immunity issue. Judge Chutkan will hold a status conference this Thursday to work through these issues. We’ll know a lot more about what comes next after that. Whether she’ll have more patience with Trump’s transparent efforts to delay the case than the commentators who fumed after reading Trump’s portion of the status report remains to be seen. Trump is afraid of this case. There is no other explanation for a schedule that is meticulously crafted to prevent the government from making any of its arguments until after the election. If Trump had confidence he wasn’t guilty, he’d be champing at the bit to get going. Instead, his lawyers are left arguing that, sure, their guy did it, but his buddies on the Supreme Court said he’s entitled to immunity, so the government can’t prosecute him. You can find the ten-page submission in its entirety here. Last year, I wrote a piece about Labor Day and the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. I learned about the fire as a kid at a Jewish summer camp in Northern California, and because my immigrant great-grandparents were tailors, it has always stayed with me as one measure of the importance of unions. As much as I enjoy the friends, family, and BBQ aspects of Labor Day, it’s also an important commemoration we should take a moment to reflect on. If you missed my piece last year, you can read it here. We’re in this together, Joyce