1/ During his press conference, Cameron suggested the grand jury made the legal determination: "My job is to present the facts to the grand jury and the grand jury then applies those facts to the law."
Today he concedes that his team recommended the charges to the grand jury.
2/ During the press conference, Cameron was specifically asked whether his team made a recommendation to the grand jury, and he refused to answer the question because grand jury proceedings are secret.
That's true. But what he said next was highly misleading.
3/ The next sentence out of his mouth was: "What I will say is that we presented all of the information and they ultimately made a determination about whether to charge."
His words suggest that his team neutrally laid out the evidence and that the jury decided on its own.
4/ That's not who grand juries typically work. Usually the prosecutor presents facts but don't include points that a defense attorney would make if the defense was able to participate.
Then the prosecutor recommends charges and explains why the evidence supports those charges.
5/ I don't fault Cameron's team for using the grand jury in the same way that prosecutors typically do.
But it sure looks like he misled the public by suggesting that his team merely presented facts and the jury figured out on its own what charges were supported under the law.
6/ If it weren't for a brave grand juror who came forward, we wouldn't know that Cameron deceived the public.
I'm interested in hear that recording. What's there was so troubling that a grand juror felt compelled to come forward, which I've never heard of before. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This election feels different than 2016, when we weren’t sure what a Trump presidency would bring.
Trump has indicated he will take direct control of the DOJ and FBI. A “cleansing” of the ranks, and abuse of prosecutorial power, may follow.
But the Constitution remains intact.
If Trump prosecutes his political rivals, they’ll be entitled to due process and a public trial overseen by a judge with life tenure.
Ultimately they can’t be convicted unless 12 ordinary citizens unanimously find them guilty. Even one person on the jury can derail the verdict.
Our criminal justice system is highly imperfect, as I tell my own clients when they face unjust results. But it has fundamental protections against tyranny that matter.
Those protections can’t just be “set aside” with the wave of a hand. Our institutions and laws still exist.
THREAD: What are the key issues in the criminal trial of Donald Trump.
1/ Trump has been charged with Falsifying Business Records, *not* with making the hush money payments themselves.
That’s why the defense is going to focus on whether Trump knew about the false statements in business records.
2/ Prosecutors will try to prove his knowledge in two ways.
First, they’re introducing documents and testimony proving that Trump signed checks to pay Michael Cohen, and arguing that Trump knew that these checks were falsely suggesting Cohen was paid for legal services.
1/ Donald Trump’s testimony today is not moving forward a purely legal strategy.
His legal team’s strategy was always defensive and focused on limiting liability elsewhere, which is why he took the Fifth hundreds of times in his deposition.
2/ You don’t frequently take the Fifth in a civil case if you plan to win.
Trump’s team likely saw the need to essentially concede defeat here and mitigate collateral damage coming from a loss.
But Trump’s ego has forced a change in strategy. But it’s not a *legal* strategy.
3/ You don’t attack the judge constantly if you want to win the trial.
The primary focus today is about PR/spin/politics. Trump wants to convince his followers that the trial is rigged and that he’s a victim, not a fraudster.
THREAD: Why did the Hunter Biden plea deal fall apart?
1/ Earlier today, during a hearing when Hunter Biden was expected to plead guilty, the plea deal was scuttled after the judge asked whether he would be immune from prosecution for other possible crimes as a result of the deal. nytimes.com/live/2023/07/2…
2/ After prosecutors said that it would not do so, Hunter Biden’s lawyers said that the deal was off.
Why did they do that?
To borrow the name of my podcast with @AshaRangappa_, it’s complicated.
1/ The Michigan AG’s charges against fake electors are more important than you might realize.
Our electoral system is run at the state level, and as we saw in the last election, there is room for bad actors to get to subvert the process.
These charges will be a real deterrent.
2/ Remember that the “fake electors” aren’t billionaires. They’re not raising money off of these criminal charges. These charges won’t lead to fortune or fame.
They’re GOP party operatives who will be devastated by an indictment like a typical person is.
3/ Getting indicted isn’t fun. It is a stressful, costly, and humiliating experience.
Just like the charges of individual January 6th insurrectionists, these charges may deter foot soldiers who would consider joining an effort to overturn the *next* election.
THREAD: What should we make of today's Ripple #XRP decision?
1/ Earlier this afternoon, federal judge Analisa Torres issued a long-awaited decision in SEC v. Ripple, a case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against Ripple Labs, a company that issues a token called #XRP.
Why should you care about this decision?
2/ Right now, the U.S. has no established regulatory framework for crypto. Other countries, like the UK, are working to create new, comprehensive regulatory regimes.
In the U.S., Congress hasn't done that, so the courts have to sort this out using existing law.