Profile picture
, 3 tweets, 3 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
<3-part thread>

1. Schiff quotes from this law review article👇(by @jedshug Leib & @andrewkent33) for principle that a President's solemn duty to FAITHFULLY EXECUTE the law means exercise power when in the public interest not his private self-interest.

harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/upl…
2. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Jan. 16, 2020:

"FAITHFUL EXECUTION OF THE LAW does not permit the President" to have withheld the Ukrainian aid.

justsecurity.org/wp-content/upl…
3. Articles of Impeachment for Nixon and for Clinton👇— about the faithful execution of the law (Abuse of Power).
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rgoodlaw see all

Profile picture
Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw
<thread>

Reflecting on @gtconway3d's Jan 24 op-ed saying Trump should've been a witness.

Even more true today as Trump's defense rested on claim of mixed motive.

The law typically requires person with exclusive access to evidence should bear the burden.
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/…
2. If the president’s counsel were correct that Trump had a mixed motive, then why doesn’t the President have to testify that he had such a mixed motive? House Managers proved one motive and if Trump wants us to believe he had another purpose he should have to say so under oath.
3. When I say the law typically requires the person with exclusive access to evidence should bear the burden — that obviously does not apply to criminal cases (and impeachment is not a criminal case).

<end>
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw
On removing the President from the 2020 ballot and letting the voters decide.

There's another option.

Tell your favorite GOP Senator: They can say they are voting to convict, but would not vote to bar Trump from running in 2020.

law.cornell.edu/constitution-c…
@lisamurkowski @SenatorCollins @SenAlexander @SenatorRomney @SenToomey @senrobportman @SenThomTillis @SenPatRoberts To be clear:

My view: The appropriate action, based on the evidence, is impeachment, removal, and disqualification from office.

But this is an option that could bring someone to vote to convict and reserve/decline on the question of disqualification from future office.
@lisamurkowski @SenatorCollins @SenAlexander @SenatorRomney @SenToomey @senrobportman @SenThomTillis @SenPatRoberts 3. Historical example of this option:

House impeached Judge Alcee Hastings.

Senate voted to convict and remove Judge Alcee Hastings.

Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.

Hasting later ran for House of Representatives (and won).
Read 3 tweets
Profile picture
Ryan Goodman
@rgoodlaw
<thread>

If I'm reading this correctly👇, potentially a broad (and invalid) interpretation of the 2002 AUMF to apply to U.S. force against #Iran/Iran-backed groups.

@charlie_savage @ritasiemion @BenjaminEHaas @steve_vladeck @marty_lederman @MonicaHakimi @oonahathaway @timkaine
@charlie_savage @ritasiemion @BenjaminEHaas @steve_vladeck @marty_lederman @MonicaHakimi @oonahathaway @timkaine @joshgerstein @shaneharris 2. The OMB statement: This has "long been understood" as the interpretation.

Oh, really?

1. Understood by whom? Senior national security lawyers across all departments and agencies?

2. If "long" then ... why did the Trump administration not inform Congress of this when asked?
3. As a matter of law, @steve_vladeck and my recent analysis applies:

"Why the 2002 AUMF Does Not Apply to Iran
- There is no congressional statute authorizing military attacks on Iran"

justsecurity.org/67993/why-the-…
Read 4 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Venture Capital
@kelly2277
🔥Ken Starr describes the President and his wife: ... didn’t have “the character to become the leader of the free world, public distrust doomed presidency... smug, dismissive, brittle, aloof, liar, enabler... their legacy is contempt for justice🔥 washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/styl…
It fits @realDonaldTrump & @FLOTUS to a tea, but Ken Starr was describing the Clintons and his deep animosity & hypocrisy is exposed. In Starr’s book Contempt, he again describes @realDonaldTrump perfectly: “a deeply flawed president who believed he was above the law. @tribelaw
🔥🔥🔥Ken Starr’s own words in his book, Contempt, should be used against him and be read as the opening statement‼️ @RepAdamSchiff @SpeakerPelosi @tedlieu @tribelaw 🔥🔥🔥
Read 7 tweets
Profile picture
Jewhadi™
@JewhadiTM
To those claiming that if it was anyone but Trump, (@HillaryClinton for one, and currently Baghdad @BWilliams and panel), then Bill Clinton should have been in handcuffs, as well as Hillary.
Report, Rebuttal Offer House Stark Contrast
washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politic…

Kenneth W. Starr's report confronts members of Congress with the daunting task of analyzing difficult questions of criminal law, and vaguely defined constitutional standards for impeachment.
Were Clinton an ordinary target in a “run-of-the-mill criminal investigation”, it is highly unlikely, that evidence upon which Starr bases his impeachment argument that Clinton lied under oath, obstructed justice, & tampered with a witness would have resulted in criminal charges
Read 22 tweets
Profile picture
Karol 🌿
@karolcummins
ROAD MAP TO CONGRESS pg 220
@RepAdamSchiff @RepJerryNadler
Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers.
doc-0c-70-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/…
The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regardless of their source.
doc-0c-70-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/…
We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission.
doc-0c-70-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/…
Read 11 tweets
Profile picture
Thomas Wood
@twoodiac
(THREAD--59 tweets) Here is all the confusion in a nutshell: Trump in one of his tweet’s today: “I have the absolute right to pardon myself.” tinyurl.com/y7n38q2e
1/ In this tweet, Trump segues from “I have the AUTHORITY/POWER to do x” to “I have the RIGHT to do x.”

This, quite simply, is wrong.
2/ Here it is essential to distinguish not just two, but actually three very different questions.
Read 60 tweets

Trending hashtags

#TraduisonsLes #transactions #RedFlags #Agriculture #PostegreSQL #LearnMMT #pesticides #iSALUTE #LittleDonald #TrumpRussia #ImpeachTrump #C76 #CDNlaw #ArticleOfImpeachment #Constitutional #Spark #ClimateChangeIsReal #CarcerePerTradimento #NoMoreProfitsBeforePeople #openaccess #chub #StayHappyAlways #RDF #McRoyal #TheWordAppearsInTheFlesh
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!