Thread by @emptywheel

Reading Beryl Howell's opinion in the Perry case--which a panel of Karen Henderson, Neomi Rao, and Greg Katsas as considering. This paragraph is (thus far) one of the most interesting.

dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/file…

Howell, of course, had no idea that Henderson would be reviewing this decision.

But I felt like the actual subsequent facts of the William Jefferson case, about whom the Rayburn precedent pertained, were influencing this. In that case, trial showed he was a wildly corrupt.

Here's that earlier decision. One of the questions w/Perry is whether a personal cell phone is like a Congressional office.

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/…

So much of the discussion seemed to pertain to, "well, William Jefferson was obviously a crook, so how do we avoid giving someone like that immunity?"

Thing is, the Perry warrant -- FROM WHAT WE KNOW -- suggest the facts should be far closer to stuff that falls under Speech and Debate. So what's in the affidavit to get this treated like a bribe?

Here's an unsealed passage describing what the comms Perry is trying to withhold include.

Shorter Beryl Howell: How could Scott Perry have been engaged in "fact" finding when he was seeking a way to declare Joe BIden's election invalid without considering whether his own reelection was valid?

🤔

I think some of Howell's opinion really may overstep speech and debate. But this passage -- finding that Perry's comms WITH the Trump admin are not protected by Speech and Debate -- seems uncontroversial (and covers almost half the comms in question).