,
17 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1/The DOJ policy Trump hides behind to avoid indictment is based on an OLC OPINION written by staff attorneys who, when ordered to craft opinions meant to protect the president never fail to do just that-here’s the most recent bit of garbage they spit out
Does anyone doubt that this OLC opinion has one goal - protecting the president? And does anyone doubt that @RepRichardNeal will fight this power grab by the executive branch? Why then isn’t @RepJerryNadler challenging that DOJ POLICY Trump is hiding behind to avoid indictment?
3/That DOJ policy also relies on an opinion written by OLC staff attorneys who had only one goal-protecting the president from indictment.The constitutionality of THAT policy-a policy at the heart of this Constitutional crisis-has never been challenged by Congress. Why is that?👇
4/Both parties have relied on that OLC opinion to shield their presidents -Nixon in 1973 and Clinton in 2000 and although @speakerpelosi @RepJerryNadler were in Congress in 2000 and failed to challenge that policy-new members like @repAoc @RepRashida etc have no such conflict.
5/Here is an article that makes a clear case for how (and why) these members can and should challenge the constitutionality of that DOJ policy -a policy that Mueller CHOSE to follow when investigating Trump for obstruction of justice. justsecurity.org/59789/path-pro… via @just_security
6/ To determine its constitutionality a court would subject the OLC opinion to a ‘strict scrutiny’ balancing test - weighing the burdens indictment imposes on a president ability to carry out his duties against the government’s interest in safeguarding legitimate govt objectives.
7/In this case, the govt’s interest in ensuring that ‘no man is above the law’-especially the man charged w/faithfully carrying out that law - is absolutely compelling. It is the very foundation upon which our democratic form of government and our criminal justice system rests.
8/In order to override such a compelling govt objective and pass Constitutional muster, the OLC opinion cannot just argue indictment would be too burdensome, it must also show that there is a viable alternative by which a president WILL be held accountable for his alleged crimes.
9/Therefore, as Savoy so forcefully argues-the burdensomeness of indictment alone is insufficient to overcome such a compelling govt interest-to pass ‘strict scrutiny’, the OLC opinion must also show that impeachment is a VIABLE means of holding a criminal president accountable.
Therefore, ABSENT a viable alternative to indictment, the OLC’s contention that the burdens of indictment on the office and on nat’l security would NOT override the compelling interest the govt has in holding a president accountable and would fail the court’s strict scrutiny test
10/Our system of checks and balances is threatened as never before by unprecedented partisan polarization in Congress, for which the Republican Party is primarily responsible, and which has produced efforts by House Republicans that can be fairly characterized as complicity
11/There is clear evidence that impeachment is NOT a viable means to hold this president accountable for the acts of criminal obstruction outlined in the Mueller Report, starting w/McConnell’s vow that even if the House impeaches Trump, the GOP senate will not vote to remove him.
Including @SpeakerPelosi ‘s public remarks in which she shifts her duty to impeach an obviously criminal president to a largely uninformed electorate -a shift that undermines the Constitution and nullifies the govt’s compelling interest in ensuring that no man is above the law.
12/And the inordinate amount of time Trump spends tweeting, watching TV, going to rallies, and playing golf eviscerates the OLC argument that indicting this president would impose an undue burden on his ability to carry out his duties and, hence, would threaten our nat’l security
13/No one can reasonably argue that indicting a president who colluded w/a FOREIGN power to obtain the office and then obstructed the investigation into that collusion poses too great a threat to our nat’l security when, in fact, not indicting him poses an even greater threat!👇
14/For all these reasons and more, new House members should challenge the constitutionality of the DOJ policy that shields this criminal president from indictment -a policy that not only puts Trump above the law but incentivizes to abuse his power in order to stay there.
15/ If Congressional Dems are unwilling to file suit to challenge the Constitutionality of the OLC opinion upon which this DOJ policy rests who else would have standing to do so? Since this is a matter that effects us all, would ordinary citizens have standing to file suit?
