DOJ's announcement about the Pennsylvania ballot investigation is so deeply wrong, and telling, that I'm gonna do a rare thread:
1) DOJ never publicly confirms a criminal investigation, other than in extremely rare, emergency situations. It's a written rule (in the Justice Manual) and an unwritten norm that anybody who has ever worked a day on the line knows (that would *not* include Barr, I suppose)
2) And you sure as hell never publicly announce the *details* of an investigation. Here, the "fact" that nine ballots were for Trump is entirely irrelevant to any criminal charge. (Spoiler: they got this wrong). There's only one reason to include that (non-)fact: politics.
3) The reasons for this policy are as basic as they are sound. By going public, you undermine your own work - subjects can flee, tamper w/ evidence or witnesses. There's a reason we investigate in secret. You also unfairly damage the reputation of people who haven't been charged.
4) And it's not as if there was some great public clamor asking about this case. Nobody had heard of it until DOJ just popped off on its own. Wonder why?
5) If you are going to breach policy and make an announcement, get your sh*t straight. But DOJ muffed the facts here, including the number of ballots and number that were for Trump. They later had to issue a "Revised Statement" walking it back.
6) Funny how all the mistakes always go one direction. Barr yaps about some federal case involving 1,700 ballots in Texas that actually was a "little tiny case" involving isolated ballots, per the actual Texas prosecutor. Now this trumped-up number in PA.
7) PA officials have now confirmed this was an administrative error, not any kind of Matthew Broderick-in-Election type tampering. (Voters sent in ballots using the wrong envelope, meant for ballot *requests*, which led officials to open them).
8) Mark it down. DOJ will never bring criminal charges here, or even a civil case. (And if they do force it, they'll never prevail). That press release (and the "Revised Statement") is all we'll ever see, barring further potential releases.
9) But guess what? It did the trick. Because before (and after) DOJ could fix this and get its act together, Trump, McEnaney, and Meadows all waved the false and misleading announcement around as proof of their bogus mass-fraud theories. Hard to un-ring that bell.
10) If you can't see that Trump will contest this election if he loses, I don't know what to tell you. And if you can't tell Barr will weaponize DOJ to enable that, then I also don't know what to tell you. They've both shown us who they are and what they will do.
The end.
Apparently there were local inquiries. Which happens all the time and in no way justifies or necessitates any of what DOJ did.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Just discussed the Fulton County grand juror’s publicity tour with @andersoncooper.
1) It is entirely clear the grand jury has recommended a Trump indictment; and
2) The grand juror is doing no favors to prosecutors with this giddy PR romp.
It’s a bad idea generally for a grand juror to speak publicly. The specific legal line in GA is whether the grand juror discloses “deliberations.” That’s debatable. She doesn’t discuss vote counts. But she does discuss specific witnesses and the grand jury’s findings as to them.
If and when there is an indictment, this will become a motion to dismiss, mark my words. It may not succeed - it’s a high bar legally - but she is causing a needless headache for prosecutors, at a minimum.
Some folks have asked if I read my own audiobook for #Untouchable.
I do. While I’m not a professional voiceover guy, I think it’s more authentic. (As does @MarkHamill, who sent a wonderful tweet last time encouraging me to read my own book; I’ll take that advice any day.)
Also I tell lots of first-person stories from my time as a prosecutor. They wouldn’t sound right coming from somebody else.
I write with a certain voice (stylistically, that is), so might as well accompany it with my actual voice. As my audiobook producer said when we were done recording: “Well, YOU definitely wrote this book.”
I’ve got stories from my time as a prosecutor, analysis of major recent cases, historical dives and revelations, and first-time scoops from inside the Justice Department and the SDNY, including this one:
It took genuine courage for Cassidy Hutchinson to break free of her original lawyer, who was selected and paid for by Trump-affiliated entities and who, she testified, tried to prevent her from cooperating fully against Trump. (Thread)
2. The original lawyer told her, “We just want you to focus on protecting the president” and to say she “did not recall” events that she actually did recall. As I’ve said on air, this crosses the line from a murky gray area into obstruction, if established by the evidence.
3. It eventually became clear to Hutchinson that the lawyer did not represent her personal interests first and foremost, as any lawyer is bound to do. The lawyer also became an obstacle against Hutchinson coming fully clean and cooperating fully and truthfully.
Of course, Trump’s announcement has no legal bearing and doesn’t formally insulate him from anything.
But DOJ and the Fulton County DA have now been beaten to the punch by Trump’s announcement, and those prosecutors have made their own jobs more difficult by their delay. (1/8)
Prosecutors - DOJ and locals alike - have dragged their feet and played paddy-cake for nearly two years now, on both January 6 and Mar-A-Lago (the search was just in August, but DOJ has known about the missing docs for far longer). (2/8)
Now, if Trump gets indicted - and that could well happen - it becomes substantially more difficult to actually convict him. (And an indictment without a conviction would be a prosecutorial disaster). (3/8)