Joyce Alene Profile picture
Sep 11, 2020 4 tweets 1 min read Read on X
This: the concern of Durham allies who believe he’s under pressure to produce “something” before the election “is that the Russia investigation group will be disbanded and its work lost if Trump loses” makes no sense because there are 2 more months (con’t) courant.com/news/connectic…
after the election to bring the case & no experienced prosecutor like Durham wants to bring a case before it’s ready, as though somehow all that matters is just getting it indicted & not the outcome at trial months down the road. Also, cases don’t disappear just because (con’t)
administrations change. The career prosecutors who work on cases see to that. One of the 1st cases tried in my office after I took over was a public corruption prosecution of Dem officials. Righteous cases don’t just disappear. There’s no legitimate reason for Durham to be rushed
So If there’s an attempt to offer this as a justification for having Durham release a report or make indictments within the 60 day window of the election, there will be no doubt it’s just a planned political stunt.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Joyce Alene

Joyce Alene 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JoyceWhiteVance

Mar 25
1/Last Monday, Trump’s lawyers told the court they had tried—and failed—to get a bond. They asked the court for a stay or an alternative to a full bond. They said “the court may consider ‘any relevant factor, including...any exigency or hardship confronting any party.’” Image
2/So what is the “exigency or hardship”? The Trump team claimed that despite “diligent efforts” "a bond in the judgment's full amount is ‘a practical impossibility.’" The wrote that
the bond requires "reserves approaching $1 billion … is unprecedented for a private company.”
3/You’ll be stunned to learn that isn’t exactly true. Even Fox News told its audience it wasn’t the case. Politifact concluded companies have posted appeals bonds of $1 billion or more, 2x the surety Trump was to provide, altho more for large companies that family owned co's. Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 24
1/There is immense Democratic pressure on NJ Senator Menendez to drop out & he seems to be saying he won't run again. But there's been no pressure from his party on Trump, who is now the nominee despite 4 criminal indictments & a massive judgment for engaging in business fraud.
2/Also, two defamation judgments against him where a jury found he sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.

Sometimes it's important to take a step back & think about the things that we know & have watched happen. We stop really considering what they mean because they're so baked in.
3/There's no real world where Trump is qualified to be president. You don't reward the kid who tries to steal a school election with a 2nd chance, you ban him. You don't put a crook in office, you incarcerate him. Trump is only a candidate b/c the GOP has gone off the rails, AND
Read 5 tweets
Mar 18
1/Trump & some of his co-defendants have now asked Judge McAfee for permission to appeal his decision that Fani Willis can stay on the case. Image
2/For there to be an unusual interlocutory appeal—one that occurs before trial—requires approval from Judge McAfee, who has until Monday. If he blesses an appeal, it's still up to the court of appeals to decide if it wants to take the case.
3/A little tea leaf reading, although it's nothing certain: Judge McAfee dropped a footnote in his opinion dismissing 6 counts in the indictment last week saying he’d permit an appeal. He didn’t do that with the disqualification motion. Make of that what you will.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 14
1/In the Mar-a-Lago case, Judge Cannon will hear from the lawyers today on Trump’s motions to dismiss the prosecution based on the Presidential Records Act & “unconstitutional vagueness.” I've handled a lot of motions in criminal cases. These are barely better than frivolous.
2/Trump insists he designated the documents as personal records under the PRA so his possession of them was authorized & he can’t be prosecuted for it. But he's never been able to explain how the PRA trumps laws about handling classified & national defense info. It doesn't.
3/Even if, by some stretch of the imagination, a president can hang onto classified information by claiming its personal records, Trump's still obstructed justice according to multiple first-hand witnesses.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 6
1/Tuesday, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg responded to Trump’s motions in limine, which are about what evidence the jury to consider when the case goes to trial on March 25. Trump wants to prevent the DA from making key arguments and offering evidence from important witnesses.
2/Trump wants to keep Michael Cohen from testifying. His reason? He doesn't think Cohen will be believable. But the whole point of a trial is letting a jury hear the evidence & decide where the truth lies. This is their decision to make, both the defendant's in a criminal case.
3/Of corse, with his prior criminal history, Cohen isn't a witness who can be the sole source for critical findings the jury needs to make. It's predictable the case would include careful corroboration of his testimony & the DA confirms that will be the approach here.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 1
1/ In the Fulton County proceeding to disqualify (DQ) Fani Willis, the defendants arguing for DQ near the burden of proving that it's the judge should remove Willis from the case. What does that mean?
2/ It means that unless the evidence establishes a financial conflict of interest-that's the Georgia law standard for DQ--Willis should stay in the case. And the evidence doesn't establish a financial conflict on Willis' behalf, even if Wade bought her dinner a few times.
3/ This hearing has morphed into something else, a salacious romp thru Willis' personal life. But assume for the sake of argument the judge thinks a lie about the start date of the Willis/Wade relationship somehow gives rise to a conflict of interest. What then?
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


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

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(