By statute, Acting U.S. Attorney/SDNY Audrey Strauss' term will now last 120 days, unless a Presidentially appointed nominee is confirmed by the Senate in the meantime. That takes her into mid-October, effectively until the Election. Not what Barr was trying for, obviously.
However, Strauss can be expected to abide by the generally sensible rule (policy, not law) that no politically sensitive indictments should be issued within a 'quiet period' of 60 days prior to an election. That period starts Sept. 4th.
Therefore, in practice, the period in which any sensitive indictments might be issued by SDNY is from now until Sept. 4th: approximately 12 weeks.
Whether Barr's move against Berman was related to this timeline, i.e., anticipating that indictments might drop in the next 3 months, is unknown. Given the political cost implicit in the move, however, inferences can be drawn. Barr seems to have been 'motivated.'
That said, SDNY will *not* rush out indictments to hit a window. Indictments will be issued when ready. These are complex cases, and SDNY will cross every 't' and dot every 'i.' Whether we're now in an SDNY 'drop zone' for indictments therefore remains almost completely unknown.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Consider, please, the plight of poor Donald Trump. He’s told everyone he’s a great deal maker (wrote a book about it !), and he’s hot for the Nobel Peace Prize (because Obama). He’s simply *desperate* to claim credit for ending Russia v. Ukraine (“9 wars I’ve stopped !”).
But, there’s a problem: Trump has NO LEG TO STAND ON ! He’s got *no* leverage on EITHER of the combatants:
(1) He’s shot his bolt with the Ukrainians, cutting off all military and financial aid and slow-rolling a G-7 effort to give Putin’s frozen assets to Ukraine.
Sure, Zellensky would still happily take whatever he might be able to get from the U.S., but the U.S. is no longer central to Ukrainian (or European) war planning. Trump made sure of that.
🧵On Sept. 2, 1987, exactly two months after returning from his first ever trip to Russia (arranged by the Russian Ambassador to the UN), Trump spent over $100,000 to publish a full page ad in three major U.S. newspapers.
The ad, a letter to Americans, inveighed against the 'unfairness' of disproportionate U.S. spending on multilateral defense structures. He said our allies, a bunch of free riders, were taking us to the cleaners, and that the U.S. needed to 'show some spine' in dealing with them.
This intervention, from someone not then in public life, came out of the blue. He had no history on the issue, and almost no profile on any other issue of national significance (other than having put himself forward to Reagan as a candidate to lead nuclear disarmament talks !).
🧵MEMO
To: @realDonaldTrump @SecRubio
Copies: @LeaderJohnThune @SenSchumer @SpeakerJohnson @RepJeffries
From: A Lot of Americans
There is no precedent in our history for abetting an aggressor’s demand for territory seized in an illegal war.
Backing Putin’s demand for Donbas, and inhibiting Ukraine’s legitimate self-defense, would betray our deepest held values as a people, and do serious damage to our national security. It would be strenuously opposed by the majority of Americans who side with Ukraine.
You are bound by oath to protect the national interests of the United States, not those of any other country. Our national interests are in Ukraine’s independence and territorial integrity. We expect you to act accordingly.
In those years, we held many large, noisy protests in Trafalgar Square, opposite South Africa House.
At one of those protests, I was standing next to a dear friend, an American Jew. He started talking about his experience of working on a kibbutz the previous summer. Surveying the scene around us, he concluded: “And you know what ? Israel’s as apartheid as South Africa.”
🧵My read: GM's pressuring Trump, as I wrote she would. If she were quiet and happy in the cushy digs she negotiated w/ Blanche, they'd leave her be, at least till after mid-terms, and there'd be no need to parlay with her. That they're meeting w/ her suggests she's got demands.
From GM's pov, there's no upside in delaying her power play: (i) she knows Trump's a treacherous jackal whose promise of a pardon can't be trusted, (ii) even if Trump could be trusted, his shelf life (physically and politically) is probably short, and (iii) she's impatient.
Also: (iv) she's leveraging the feverish interest in the 'Epstein Files.' With the battle over the discharge resolution (w/ stakes so high that Trump's ordered Johnson to keep Congress on shutdown), does Trump really want GM leaking more stuff like the 'birthday book' ?
🧵My take on the Homan story and a general problem in our laws:
Homan's obviously dirty. There were undoubtedly more of these 'transactions' (that's how FBI got onto him originally). He's been revealed as a slimy, dishonest person and a betrayer of the public's trust. But ...
The Vance/Bondi line that Homan 'did not commit a crime' and didn't take a 'bribe' rests on the fact that the payoff occurred during the campaign and *before* he held an official position. He was soliciting money in *anticipation* of being in a position, later, to bestow favors.
On its face (putting aside that it was a sting), the $50,000 was a 'bet' that Homan would take office and then be able to perform the services he was advertising. It was a 'bet' because his taking office wasn't certain. Can you 'bribe' a private citizen ?