THREAD: What does today's news that law enforcement executed a search warrant at Rudy Giuliani's apartment tell us?
1/ Today federal prosecutors reportedly executed a search warrant at Rudy Giuliani's apartment. They also seized his electronic devices during the search.
This is a major move that indicates that the criminal investigation of Giuliani is very far along.
nytimes.com/2021/04/28/nyr…
This is a major move that indicates that the criminal investigation of Giuliani is very far along.
nytimes.com/2021/04/28/nyr…
2/ To obtain a search warrant, federal law enforcement had to present evidence to a federal judge sufficient for that judge to conclude that there is good reason to believe:
1) A federal crime was committed
2) Evidence of that crime is in Rudy's apartment and electronic devices
1) A federal crime was committed
2) Evidence of that crime is in Rudy's apartment and electronic devices
3/ A "good reason to believe" is called "probable cause" and it's a lower standard than 51% or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But it's not good enough for law enforcement to have a hunch. A judge is going to require something substantial to approve these warrants.
But it's not good enough for law enforcement to have a hunch. A judge is going to require something substantial to approve these warrants.
4/ Also, the criminal investigation of any lawyer is a sensitive matter due to the complexities caused by attorney-client privilege.
Those complexities are heightened when the lawyer is a criminal defense attorney because DOJ does not want to appear to be targeting opponents.
Those complexities are heightened when the lawyer is a criminal defense attorney because DOJ does not want to appear to be targeting opponents.
5/ That means that these warrants were not just approved by a federal judge, but that they were reviewed by high-level Justice Department officials.
That suggests to me that DOJ is convinced they have significant evidence and that these searches will likely bear fruit.
That suggests to me that DOJ is convinced they have significant evidence and that these searches will likely bear fruit.
6/ One interesting tidbit from the @nytimes story is that senior political appointees in the Trump Justice Department sought to block these warrants, and that the DOJ's objection was withdrawn after he left office.
Congress should conduct oversight of this matter.
Congress should conduct oversight of this matter.
7/ To be crystal clear, that behavior would be difficult to prosecute as "obstruction" but would be an abuse of power and corrupt because the DOJ is supposed to represent the people of the United States, not protect the President's personal lawyer.
8/ The article also states that as part of the investigation into Giuliani, prosecutors have explored whether he was working for Ukrainian officials or businesses who wanted Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch removed, which Trump did.
9/ Technically speaking, the federal offense here would be that Giuliani illegally lobbied the Trump Administration on behalf of Ukrainian officials and oligarchs, who were at the same time helping Giuliani dig for dirt on Joe Biden's family.
10/ So one interesting aspect of this investigation is that it is related to the first impeachment inquiry. The Trump White House's efforts to obstruct that inquiry, while unlikely to be chargeable, may have been meant in part to stymie an investigation of Giuliani. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
