I won't re-tweet any of this garbage, but the suggestion that the new acting head of DOJ's Criminal Division, Nick McQuaid, is somehow biased because he once worked at a huge firm that also employed a lawyer who once represented Hunter Biden is beyond ridiculous.
I know Nick well; we were SDNY colleagues, in the Organized Crime Unit together. He's the epitome of a straight shooter, the picture of a non-partisan prosecutor, and he would never play politics with this or any case.
Also -- understand how DOJ works. The Hunter Biden investigation reportedly is in the US Attorneys' Offices for Delaware and the SDNY -- different shops altogether than Nick's, and not within his supervision or purview.
And if ethics require Nick to recuse, I'm sure he will. (Unlike, for example, Bill Barr).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How does the House impeachment managers' request for Trump to testify at trial play out? (Started to explain this just now with @brikeilarcnn but, understandably, had to yield the floor to the President of the United States).
THREAD:
1) Today's document is technically an informal request for Trump's testimony. We're in the "polite invitation" phase.
2) Trump has two choices: (A) "Ok, I'll testify," or (B) "No thanks."
(A) would be absolutely reckless. No decent lawyer would ever let him testify. He'll either perjure himself or incriminate himself. It's one of the few ways he could get convicted.
The 25th Amendment is a mind-boggling Constitutional back-and-forth. Here's how it works (and why it's inferior to impeachment right now).
THREAD:
1) If the VP and a majority of Cabinet officers ("principal officers of the executive departments") certify in writing to Congress that the President is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," the VP immediately assumes power as "Acting President." But wait:
2) The VP remains Acting President only UNTIL the President declares in writing to Congress "that no disability exists."
As soon as the President does that, he takes back his office and power. Trump presumably would do this right away.
Still lots of concern about what happens on January 6, given the recent conduct of President Trump and many in the House and Senate.
Bottom line: It'll be a ridiculous (maybe worse) political circus but legally it absolutely will not change the outcome of the election.
Thread:
1) Let's start with this VP business (Trump saying he hopes Pence "comes through," the Gohmert lawsuit). That's a big nothing. Under the Constitution, the VP's only role is to "open all the certificates" and, under federal law, to "read" them. It's entirely ceremonial. That's it.
2) Imagine if the VP actually did have the power to unilaterally reject votes. Any VP, in any year, could simply declare his own party the winner. Biden could have declared Hillary Clinton in Jan. 2017 over Trump; Cheney could have declared Romney in Jan. 2009 over Obama; etc.
I’m about to challenge my son in a special Christmas Day game of Madden on XBox. I was good at Madden ‘94 but haven’t played in decades. He’s 15 and plays all the time. I’m the KC Chiefs and he’s gonna be Jacksonville.
Post your predictions below. Prize to the closest guess.
My brother, a high school teacher, is having me guest-teach a class next week.
Gave me this idea: Teachers, DM me and (schedule permitting) I'll Zoom in to your class next week and speak about law, criminal justice, media, writing, etc.
A very small holiday thanks to teachers.
Thank you all for the overwhelming response. I am booked solid next week now. Will post updates from my virtual / living room tour of schools around the United States.
First stop on the 2020 Substitute Teacher Tour: Mr. Kamps and Mr. Chung’s classes, Hightstown, NJ. @TeacherKamps (full classes of smart, engaged students but I’m only showing the teachers here). Thanks for having me!
I'm still seeing a lot of concern about the Texas Supreme Court filing, which is understandable. From a certain angle, it looks imposing.
So here, in sum, is why there's no need for alarm (thread):
1) The case asks the Supreme Court to exercise "original jurisdiction," skipping lower courts. The Court rarely does this. The Court *can* exercise this jurisdiction in state v. state disputes, but doesn't have to.
It takes 5 justices to hear this case, rather than the usual 4.
2) Usually original jurisdiction applies to state v. state disputes over borders, etc. - for example when NJ and NY sued over control of Ellis Island (Jersey!).
The TX case is something else entirely and could have been heard in lower courts (many have rejected similar claims).