Important book by Mueller top prosecutor @AWeissmann_
“They were hamstrung by Mueller’s decision not to look into Trump’s financial dealings with Russia, which might have established a source of Russian leverage over Trump.”
Weissmann told his colleague. “When there is insufficient proof of a crime, in volume one, we say it. But when there is sufficient proof, with obstruction, we don’t say it. Who is going to be fooled by that? It’s so obvious.”
3. Note:
Those potential obstruction charges are still lying in wait.
When Trump leaves office, he loses immunity from criminal prosecution.
4. Mueller “trusted his friend Barr to play it straight, not realizing that Barr had gone crooked.”
(that quote is from George Packer’s description of book)
“Barr,” Weissmann writes, “had betrayed both friend and country.”
5/5.
“Where Law Ends describes numerous instances, large and small, when Mueller declined to pursue an aggressive course for fear of the reaction at the White House.”
- George Packer
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
USG has a new explanation on why they (now admittedly) intentionally killed 2 shipwrecked men. It does not pass the laws-of-war smell test
Worse for Hegseth, NYT: "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth approved contingency plans for what to do if an initial strike left survivors."
🧵
2/ The Hegseth-approved contingency plan:
US military could try to kill shipwrecked survivors if "they took what the United States deemed to be a hostile action, like communicating with suspected cartel members."
3/ First it's absurd on its face that communicating to be RESCUED is a hostile act.
That's the definition of being shipwrecked and helpless.
The whole point of a legal prohibition on killing people who are shipwrecked is that they must be rescued or left to be rescued instead.
"Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck. The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack ... ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions."
reporting by @AlexHortonTX @nakashimae
2/ "Killing any of the men in the boats 'amounts to murder,' said Todd Huntley, a former military lawyer who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign."
3/ "Even if the U.S. were at war with the traffickers, an order to kill all the boat’s occupants if they were no longer able to fight 'would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime,' said Huntley."
Hard for USGs to claim ‘mistake of law’ or ‘advice of counsel’ – when they’re firing lawyers who wouldn't sign off on the strikes.
WaPo's new revelations on firing/removal:
CIA General Counsel
NSC Legal Adviser
CIA Mission Center’s lawyer
🧵
2/ CIA Acting General Counsel, career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force."
What happened next?
CIA Deputy Director Ellis took over as acting GC and still held his policy position. He then approved the ops.
3/ The National Security Counsel's Legal Adviser Paul Ney (who earlier served loyally as Trump 1.0 Pentagon General Counsel) "had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes."
Boat strikes put U.S. service members in legal jeopardy:
"Some junior officers have asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general or JAGs, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes .... It does not appear that such memos were furnished."
2/ "Career military and civilian lawyers in the Defense Department and lawyers at other agencies who might otherwise be involved in the deliberations have left government or been excluded from the discussions."
3/ "Lawyers at the NSC, State Department, Justice Department and the Pentagon earlier this year questioned the legal basis for military strikes on cartels without authorization from Congress, and for a while were able to forestall action."