Thread by @tracybeanz

🚨THREAD: Yesterday in GA, Trump attorneys filed a Motion to Quash the Special Purpose Grand Jury and any evidence derived from it. Here is how CNN chose to portray the filing.

As usual, there is much, much more than meets the eye.

I am going to begin this thread, but I will likely have to pick it up later on as I have a meeting breaking up my mid-day. Ready?

Donald Trump is asking not only for the judge to order that the Special Grand Jury be rendered useless but also requesting that the DA be barred from further involvement at all.

They are requesting that the Chief Judge hear the motion. Because this directly relates (in some ways) to the judge who supervised the SPGJ (Special Purpose Grand Jury), Trump doesn't want him to decide on it.

As per usual, the devil is always in the details. Attached as exhibits to this filing? Some things that I personally wasn't aware of, some transcripts from hearings (VERY INTERESTING), lists of the media appearances made by the SUPERVISING JUDGE, the DA, AND the foreperson...

I hope I don't get attacked for saying this (I probably will if the past few days are any indication), but some of the arguments are MUCH stronger than others, IMO. A few of these may go down on laches, but some really great constitutional arguments in this motion warrant… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

First, some history: On 1/24/22, the Chief Judge in Fulton County entered an order approving the request for a SPGJ - the order basically copied the need that the DA had presented. They needed the SPGJ, they said, because the investigation would be so long and complex that a… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

The Fulton County DA in charge of this case had just been elected. She is a Democrat who unseated a 6 term incumbent Republican.

In looking through the docket on this case, it *appears* to me that there had been only one other attempt to quash this SPGJ, by a Trump attorney in NY. The documents are .50 a page to view, which adds up VERY quickly in a case like this.

I wish this motion had been filed… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

To clarify the above- it wasn't a current Trump attorney; it was an attorney who had been subpoenaed to appear.

President Trump was always a non-witness. He was never subpoenaed or asked to testify. The DA gave interviews to the media throughout the process.

The Supervising Judge decided that much of the report would remain publicly unavailable, citing due process concerns. The statute… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

But, alas, that didn't happen. The foreperson went on a media blitz, sharing her experience publicly. As per the filing, the public comments demonstrated that the constitutional rights of the individuals who testified weren't protected.

To add insult to injury, the SUPERVISING… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Here is what they are addressing in the motion.

1. The unconstitutionality of the SPGJ as a whole and also as used in this case. (I think this is going to fail. It's far too late in the process)

2. The conflict of interest suffered by the DA, exacerbated by forensic misconduct… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

On point one: The rules for the SPGJ are very vague, especially regarding the report that is issued at the end.

When the judge declared that this would be a criminal SPGJ, he violated due process rights because it allowed the compulsion of testimony from out-of-state witnesses, and impacted core privileges like sovereign immunity and the 5th Amendment.

Unfortunately my meeting calls. Will be back appx 2:30 ET. Stay frosty.

And I am back!! Stand by, thread resumes now.

This is one of the more interesting ones for me. The DA was prejudiced (badly) against one of the investigative targets, and the judge ruled that person couldn't be questioned in the probe. Trump attorneys argue that this bias can't be separated from the rest of the case, and… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Because of the way the foreperson spoke in interviews, it was clear that the SPGJ was not properly instructed on their duties and wasn't supervised properly.

The foreperson's comments violate notions of fairness.

I don't think this is so far out there when even legacy media… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

And finally, the judge who SUPERVISED this SCGJ acted improperly. His actions during, in decisions made about the report, and the prior rulings he has made during the case necessitate a review by the Chief Judge of the Superior Court.

"Accordingly, President Donald J. Trump hereby moves to quash the SPGY’s report and preclude the use of any evidence derived therefrom, as it was conducted under an unconstitutional statute, through an illegal and unconstitutional process, and by a disqualified District… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

The next section goes over standing. One of the objections raised by some party to this process could be that Trump doesn't have standing to bring this motion, as he is a non-party. The argument that he is a non-party comes from the fact that he was never contacted, subpoenaed,… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

...and all of the media interviews the DA gave referencing him...

The laws governing the SPGJ are pretty unfocused. They don't specify whether it is criminal or civil or what it can be. They don't specify what the report should look like, what the rights of people named in the report may be, and what happens with it once it is written. There is… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

A few things here that are glaring. One, the entire purpose of a Grand Jury is typically its secrecy. You don't want to ruin people who are otherwise innocent in the court of public opinion, etc. So, given the lack of specifics about those things, it's likely the law could've… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Two, the SPGJ has wrapped already. Attorneys for Trump probably waited to file this because they didn't think they'd be able to pass the standing hurdle and because the abhorrent PR campaign hadn't happened yet.

However, SOMEONE else involved should have raised this earlier. I… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Two, the SPGJ has wrapped already. Attorneys for Trump probably waited to file this because they didn't think they'd be able to pass the standing hurdle and because the abhorrent PR campaign hadn't happened yet.

However, SOMEONE else involved should have raised this earlier. I… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

In any case, when everyone was fighting their subpoenas, they were arguing this point. The judge just decided that this would be a criminal SPGJ. He allegedly waffled on his decisions throughout on how or why he had the authority to do that. There isn't a statute that determines… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

This craziness led to a flurry of out-of-state courts having to hop in and try to interpret GA law. Texas ruled that according to GA law, the SPGJ really only conducts civil investigations, buttressed (but not decided upon) by the fact that an SPGJ can't return indictments or… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Just an aside for everyone: In the Missouri v. Biden case, the government went court and judge shopping to try to protect Jen Psaki. They ended in in VA. The judge in the case brought there really wasn't happy having to meddle in a case already pending in another state and… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

The next section of the argument is about the report. Boiled down, the statute doesn't direct the SPGJ on what to do with the final report. It only states period reports need to be made, and a final report needs to be written. It doesn't say how, what should be included, or if it… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Also, what happens if the report is made public? Do the people named in it have the ability to review it first? Do they have the ability to challenge it? This creates a nightmare of due process issues.

The Grand Jury is supposed to be secret.

The DA identified certain people as "targets" in this investigation. That label is important; the DOJ typically assigns it when they have substantial evidence linking someone to a crime. The term carries some presumptive rights with it, such as exclusion from testifying in front… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

There seems to be a blending of civil and criminal procedure here, and there isn't any precedent for it. As with most things "Trump" prosecution, we are on entirely new ground.

This is actually a serious issue. Because the SPGJ can't return an indictment, the DA will need to use the testimony given before the SPGJ to bring to ANOTHER Grand Jury for indictment, and 5th amendment protections were not offered to anyone "targets" or otherwise who testified… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

As a matter of fact, even the judge recognized this issue and made a statement about it in the disqualification hearing.

When 5th amendment rights were invoked, the SPGJ was instructed incorrectly on handling them. They also were subject to bias by the judge, who impugned anyone who invoked their 5th amendment rights. Read this screenshot, please.

When a judge says an investigation has been "imbalanced, incomplete, and one-sided," it never means anything positive for justice.

It was already ruled once that the DA had a disqualifying conflict in the matter and barred her from targeting or questioning the now lieutenant… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

As per this motion, both the supervising judge and the DA fit this bill.

This is hard to argue against. The DA had a conflict- she was barred from investigating ONE of the witnesses or bringing charges against them, but the judge allowed her to continue on the case! I actually can't believe she wasn't entirely removed. This is pretty substantial.

The DA hopped all over media throughout the SPGJ, proclaiming the guilt of people involved and talking about their criminality and what laws they broke.

The entire purpose of the GJ is to decide WHETHER OR NOT THAT HAPPENED. They weren't barred from watching television; we know… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

The arguments get very detailed and pretty interesting from here. There is a lot going on, so I will set this down for tonight and continue tomorrow. I'll retweet the beginning and everything will line up.