Trump: “Look, if we didn’t test all the cases that we’re reporting, you wouldn’t know about any of those cases. In many ways it makes us look bad. The fact that we’re so good at something makes us look bad.”
Trump: “After the 1st month, I asked [Bolton] 1 question. I said, ‘So, do you think you did the right thing by going into Iraq?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ And that’s when I lost him.”
@MichaelCBender: “You didn’t ask him about Iraq before you brought him into the White House?
Trump: “No”
. @MichaelCBender: “You did move your rally off Juneteenth. Can you talk about why you did that?”
Trump: “Well, I did that out of respect because I had two African-American friends and supporters.”
Trump: “I made Juneteenth very famous. Did you ever hear of Juneteenth before?”
WH Strat Comms Director Farah: “I did from last year when the White House put out a statement.”
Trump: “Oh really? We put out a statement? The Trump White House put out a statement?”
Farah: “Yes”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Justice Department just filed its response to the lawsuit filed by Gohmert & more trying to force Pence to declare Trump the winner at the joint session of Congress on 1/6.
DOJ—the same DOJ that reports to Trump—says the lawsuit should be tossed out of court.
DOJ is right.
DOJ says any conceivable claims should’ve been brought against the House & Senate, not the VP.
That’s not just a technical point. It’s a huge (if obvious) acknowledgement that the VP doesn’t have substantive authority to reject slates of electors on 1/6–the suit’s key claim.
My @GeorgetownICAP colleagues & I, alongside @MikeSigner & more, sued the unlawful militias that had contributed to violence in Charlottesville exactly 2 months earlier.
A few months after filing our Charlottesville suit, we at @GeorgetownICAP published a catalogue of state laws that prevent unlawful, unsanctioned private armies.
There's a very short law that's causing a lot of angst right now.
With @bartongellman@FareedZakaria & more talking about 3 USC 2, let's take a look at why an attempt to use it simply to override voters' will would be unlawful. /1
Here's the whole law:
"Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct." /2
The worry is that "Trump can pressure Republican-controlled legislatures to ignore the popular vote in their Democratic-leaning swing state & instead select an Electoral College slate that supports him," as @tribelaw@jentaub & I said in @TheAtlantic. /3 theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Friday marks exactly 1 year since Americans read the 5 words that will forever define the Trump presidency:
"Do us a favor though."
Here's a quick look at how Trump's quid-pro-quo presidency remains alive & (un)well today. /1 nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/…
"A president who abused the public trust for his personal benefit" defined what got Trump impeached, as @neal_katyal & I said.
"For a president to exploit for private political gain the tools of national power placed in his or her hands" was appalling. /2 nytimes.com/2020/02/05/opi…
But Trump didn't stop there.
Faced with a deadly pandemic, Trump played "states off 1 another for his affection, rewarding the generally Republican (or swing) states whose governors grovel at Trump’s feet."