Share this page!

Jed Shugerman Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Feb, 4 tweets, 2 min read
March 2018:

“@ManhattanDA Vance wasted no time indicting Manafort on 16 state counts...
Most of the charges seem to violate New York’s double jeopardy law...
A damaging setback for New York’s civil liberties and the rule of law.”
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Shot 👆
Ambulance chaser 👇
Cy Vance has been a disaster for the rule of law, underprosecuting the Trumps and corruptly enabling Trump’s crimes.
Then partisan-hack abusing his power:

nytimes.com/2021/02/08/nyr…
Sorry, March 2019:
(Thanks to @JeremyStahl for strong edits)
slate.com/news-and-polit…
NY state changed its statute only after Manafort’s trial verdict. It would likely violate “ex post facto” constitutional clause (but not fed double jeopardy) to prosecute Manafort for same crimes. See Stogner v California 1990 (in my @slate piece above)
slate.com/news-and-polit…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Jed Shugerman

Jed Shugerman 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 @jedshug

Jed Shugerman Profile picture
19 Jan
This is too alarmist, @Lawrence.
Pardons don’t have to be announced or publicized by noon tomorrow, but like all official acts, they have to be documented by noon, and Congress can subpoena all pardons on Thursday to get a final record.
As an example of the Framers’ concern about executive secrecy, the Secret Treaty of Dover between Charles II and Louis XIV was suspected and scandalously discovered years later in 1770s and condemned by the Framers during the impeachment debate on July 20, 1787.
Congress can issue subpoena for all White House pardon records and to private citizen Trump himself. If they have no official record or provide no official record of such a pardon, then it doesn’t officially exist.
Read 6 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
17 Jan
Can an ex-president be tried by the Senate? The Constitution’s text may not be clear, but the 1787 Convention indicates the answer is yes:
Shugerblog, "The Originalist Case for Impeaching Ex-Presidents: Mason, Randolph & G.Morris"
shugerblog.com/2021/01/16/the…
A reply to @judgeluttig (link below) & @rossgarber.
Adding to textual & historical arguments by @steve_vladeck @ProfBrianKalt @FOBowman3 @kewhittington. @jacklgoldsmith Sorry if someone else noted Mason, Randolph, Gouv. Morris on July 20, 1787. Cc: @TheGNapp @JoshuaMatz8
Randolph at the Convention on presidential insurrection:
"Guilt wherever found ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power... Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly inflicted by tumults & insurrections."
Read 4 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
16 Jan
This exchange is the bigotry of low expectations of conservatives in the Trump era.
@DavidLat, @judgeluttig: The notion that Mike Pence was a "profile in courage" for not participating in a coup, but AWOL & passively enabling that coup to build for 2 months, is outrageous.
2/ Trump suggested Pence could overturn the electoral college on Jan 6, and we witnessed right-wingers online eagerly believing this nonsense.
Instead of shooting it down, Pence waited silently until the last day to reject it. He played a direct role in sparking this disaster.
3/ @Mike_Pence had a duty to acknowledge Biden's win at least by mid-December (after the legal challenges had failed on the merits, when the states certified by the Safe Harbor Dec 8, when the Electors were formally voted Dec 14).

Pence's cowardice *increased risk of violence*.
Read 5 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
14 Jan
For Senate trial, I tentatively think the Chief Justice should preside.
Best reading of Art I S 3 is original+purposive:
It’s not just the direct conflict problem for VP to preside in removal.
Trying presidential conduct is fraught w/ political, partisan & personal conflicts.
2/ There is also a textual practical reading for the Chief to preside:

In a normal Senate trial, who would preside during any *disqualification stage* after removal vote?
When the sitting president has already been removed? He/she would be formally no longer the president...
3/ The formalistic textual reading (the Chief presides only for formally sitting presidents) would lead to the strange conclusion that the Chief Justice can never preside over Disqualification, even after presiding after the entire trial up to that point.
There’s formally no VP!
Read 4 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
13 Jan
I was genuinely stunned by how thin and unpersuasive his analysis was here. It's not an attempt at original public meaning, but rather, very weak textualism that he overclaims.
He is a smart guy. What is he doing here?
I meant this as a reply agreeing w/ @jadler1969 on @judgeluttig's remarkably weak op-ed, arguing that impeachment will be invalid.
The textual argument is silly; thin textualism is less appropriate than originalism here; he offers no historical evidence.
*He acknowledges the historical evidence against him:
Sen.Blount 1797 impeachment (already a confusing debate about officers v. member of Congress, yet he was out of office), and Belknap 1876.
@judgeluttig offers no historical evidence for his view here:
washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Read 5 tweets
Jed Shugerman Profile picture
13 Jan
I made a Google Sheet tracker of the House GOP members most plausibly to impeach today:
86 who voted No on the challenge to PA's electors (a smaller number than the AZ challenge).
I noted 26 signers the SCOTUS brief TX v. PA, leaving 60 to track closely:
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
1/ Starting a live thread on impeachment now.
@LeaderHoyer is praising 3 of the GOP members who already announced votes to impeach:
Most praise for @Liz_Cheney
@RepJohnKatko
@RepKinzinger
2/ Read the full Judiciary Report linked here.
I disagree with using the word "incitement," because it muddles/confuses the debate and gives an excuse for a valid legalistic argument to vote No.
But Judiciary report is excellent summarizing the facts.
judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/…
Read 50 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

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @jedshug has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @jedshug!

Read all threads by @jedshug