THREAD: I'm sorry to have to share this bad news (again), but dems on the Senate Judiciary can't block the advancement of Amy Coney Barrett for confirmation in the full senate. Yes, senate rules say they must have a quorum in committee, and the rules go on to say... 1/
...it must be 9 members with 2 in the minority. HOWEVER, Lindsey can simply gavel past this rule and move to advance. Graham has done it in the past, and DiFi even wrote him a letter in 2019 imploring him not to. NOW, if Graham does ignore the minority member requirement 2/
Dems COULD challenge this by going to the senate parliamentarian and arguing that the rule change is out of order. BUT, Mitch could simply call a quorum in the full senate to overturn the parliamentarian. He's done this before with the SCOTUS filibuster rule... 3/
As we have discussed on @dailybeanspod, there is no stopping this nomination. There's a complete outline of all the options and how the GOP can defeat them here: END justsecurity.org/72521/senate-p…
PS: The only way to get the majority back on the court is to impeach Kavanaugh for lying and impeach ACB for lack of candor for omitting significant records from her time at Notre Dame. OR: by expanding SCOTUS and the federal bench. Or both.
PPS: I do think the dems should go through with the fight and arguing the rule change with the parliamentarian. I just don't want people to get the idea that it will work. But it still should be done.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
WELL, that was a hell of a hearing. I'll be putting this all together for the @dailybeanspod and will drop the episode first thing tomorrow morning (tonight for patrons). Overall? That didn't go well for Powell. And she's an idiot. Topline takeaways:
1. Neither the court OR the DoJ seem to want to prevent future prosecutors from bringing charges against Flynn for FARA violations and the multitude of other lies he told the FBI.
2. Flynn's lawyers and the DoJ seem to think the court always has to do what the executive branch wants and Gleeson says that's stupid because it is.
3. Sydney Powell wrote a LETTER to Barr trying to get him to appoint new prosecutors that would be sympathetic to Flynn
Kohl from the DoJ: Gleeson suggests we're just giving opaque reasons, but we are giving very specific reasons that any prosecutor would find troubling and be unwilling to proceed. if three different IG's have found your only witnesses were lying under oath, misleading
or misleading the court, how can you go forward. Then when Comey was asked if flynn was lying, he said "it's close, you can make an argument". That's not definitive. Finally, with these sorts of facts where the agents themselves aren't convinced he's guilty...
career prosecutors wouldn't bring charges, and it's interesting because when the agents were done interviewing him, it came over to DoJ and there were discussions whether or not to do another interview. The DAG asked the agents if his recollection was accurate
DOJ: let me five you two facts. On the question about whether this is a witch hunt. what if trump was right? in the new notes, the notes from the FBI chief of CI, he wrote down "what is the goal of this interview. To get truth, or to get him to lie so he can prosecute him...
or get him fired". How can DoJ plow ahead and prosecute when the only point of the interview is to get flynn fired. Second is whether flynn knowingly lied. From the new evidence, the agents contemporaneous notes say
that either flynn was not lying or didn't think he was lying. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone because flynn, before the interview, told McCabe he assumed that the FBI knew every word of his communications. it would be astonishing for him to know that and then...
SULLIVAN: has anyone filed a motion with Contreras to withdraw the plea with him? POWELL: we've provided it to this court and we included it in the mandamus petition.
SULLIVAN: when can a court review a rule 48 a motion: the court is required to grant it. POWELL: It's in the government's sole discretion and it has to be dismissed WITH precedent to prevent continued harassment by the court and Mr. Gleeson.
SULLIVAN: Well i have not appointed Gleeson as special prosecutor, if you want to argue that you can file it in a week or so. How is the court to determine any motives? POWELL: it can look at the pleadings by the government, we're up to 150 pages of new eviccende
GLEESON: I would like to walk through the stated reasons for the motion to dismiss and how they hold no water. Materiality: Flynn was a campaign advisor, he had traveled to and had business ties with Russia, and just a month prior he had inappropriate backchannel
communications with the Russians. When asked about those communications, he lied. That's about as straightforward case of materiality as you can get. if the false statement can effect the function of the agency, flynn's lies effect it according to the government itself.
His statements prevented the FBI from learning why the communications occurred, why he lied about them, and fundamentally influence the investigation going forward. The government said that and the court agreed with it.
SULLIVAN: if the court were to deny the government motion, would we then address the motion to withdraw the pleas? GLEESON. Yes. And I can’t believe some of the things I’m hearing...
This defendant pled guilty not once but twice. And I’m not prone to hyperbole but I can’t believe what I’m hearing here. People can’t plead guilty then show up for sentencing and see how the wind is blowing. Not for nothing but this crime was committed in the west wing.
You didn’t appoint me for this but that motion to withdraw the plea has no merit. SULLIVAN: what about the tweets? GLEESON: you should give a lot of weight to that material.