Ryan Goodman Profile picture
Sep 21, 2020 5 tweets 2 min read Read on X
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.”

Mueller’s decision

<thread>
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
2. They had the President on obstruction.

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
 

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

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!

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 @rgoodlaw

Dec 4
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."
🧵 Image
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." Image
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.
Read 12 tweets
Nov 28
Textbook war crime/extrajudicial killing

"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 Image
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."

washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
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."
Read 7 tweets
Nov 22
On patently unlawful boat strikes

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
🧵 Image
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. Image
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."

He was cast out in May. Image
Read 7 tweets
Nov 21
A Thursday in U.S. courts

1) "This Court has grave concerns about the government’s apparent willingness to disregard this Court’s orders, even after previous admonition."

- Judge Stephanie Gallagher, Trump appointee, Nov. 20, 2025
2) "At some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe almost anything that [U.S. Government] Defendants represent."

- Judge Sara Ellis, November 20, 2025
3) "There's no way to sugarcoat it, it was in defiance of my order."

- Judge Paula Xinis, November 20, 2025 (re Government witness in Kilmar Abrego Garcia case)

(via @JaredForetek)
law360.com/articles/24121…
Read 4 tweets
Nov 3
Today, Trump-Hegseth run out of time on War Powers Resolution and boat strikes.

DOJ has come up with a theory why the law does not apply.

It's wrong, and per this article, several GOP Senators and a Trump cabinet member flat rejected that theory when Obama tried it in 2011.
1/ Image
2/ In 2011 Libya operation, Obama tried the same theory as part of a four-factor test. Trump does not even have three of those four factors.

On the fourth one, which Obama tried (and now Trump does) there was very strong bipartisan pushback including from ...

Kristi Noem... Image
3/ In 2011, those in Congress who flat rejected the Obama (now Obama-Trump) theory of "hostilities" on War Powers Resolution included:

@SenMikeLee
@SenBillCassidy
@JohnCornyn
@SenRonJohnson
@SenRandPaul
@SenatorTimScott
@SenCapito

@KristiNoem

Standing by principle, ...
Read 7 tweets
Oct 24
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." Image
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."
Read 4 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!

:(