Trump Indictment FALLS APART INSTANTLY?!?!

The DOJ's indictment of the SPLC for fraud and money laundering, based on their practice of paying informants within extremist groups, is considered legally specious. The SPLC used these informants to gather intelligence and expose criminal activities, often sharing information with the FBI, aligning with their stated goal to 'dismantle' such organizations. The indictment misrepresents this practice, failing to prove intent to defraud donors, especially given the lack of individual indictments.

Hosts Asha Rangapa and Renato Mariotti, both former federal prosecutors, dissect the indictment, comparing it to the Steve Bannon 'Build the Wall' fraud case. They argue that unlike Bannon's clear diversion of funds for personal gain, the SPLC's actions were consistent with its mission. The indictment's omission of context regarding informants' role in law enforcement and the SPLC's collaboration with the FBI is critical. The 1014 counts (false statements to a federally insured bank) related to concealing informant identities are technically stronger but still face jury skepticism given the necessity of such concealment.

FBI Director Cash Patel has sued The Atlantic for defamation over an article alleging excessive drinking and impaired job performance. The hosts believe this lawsuit is a public relations move to combat negative press and secure his position, especially given Trump's known aversion to alcohol. They predict the case will be dismissed, potentially forcing Patel to pay The Atlantic's legal fees and risking further damaging revelations during discovery.

The Atlantic article, based on 'at least a dozen current and former employees,' detailed incidents like Patel being too drunk to respond to emergencies and needing his door breached. Patel's previous defamation suit against Frank Figuzzi was dismissed. To win, Patel must prove 'actual malice,' a high bar for public figures. The hosts note that the lawsuit itself references a 'technical issue' with his email, which the article framed as him panicking about being fired, highlighting inconsistencies in his narrative.

The DOJ is investigating former CIA Director John Brennan for alleged false statements to Congress regarding the inclusion of the Steel Dossier in a 2016 intelligence assessment. This is seen as a politically motivated effort to re-litigate the origins of the Russia investigation, using a technicality to target a perceived enemy. The case has faced internal resistance, with a career prosecutor removed for deeming evidence insufficient.

Brennan testified that the CIA opposed including the Steel Dossier as raw intelligence but compromised by allowing it as an appendix. The investigation alleges a discrepancy between his testimony and declassified documents suggesting his personal willingness to compromise. The hosts compare this to the 'Comey indictment' theory, a weak false statement claim. The removal of prosecutor Maria Meditas Long and the appointment of a Trump campaign lawyer, Joe Deanova, to lead the investigation further underscore its political nature. FBI agents' attempts to conduct voluntary interviews were abruptly replaced by subpoenas, then withdrawn, indicating confusion and lack of professional process.