2. First, let's talk about what Trump said. After E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room in the mid-90s, Trump claimed he never met Carroll, accused her of lying to sell books, & suggested she was conspiring w/the Democratic Party
4. The DOJ tries to avoid defending what Trump said (which it calls "crude and disrespectful") and focuses on what Trump was doing, which is interacting with the media.
They say interacting with the media is part of the president's job
5. The DOJ relies on a case called Ballenger which involves a Congressman who said he was separating from his wife because she was uncomfortable living across the street from @CAIRNational, which he claimed funded terrorists
6. In Ballenger, the court found that the Congressman was acting with the scope of his employment because answering questions from the media is part of a Congressman's job.
But here is where everything breaks down for the DOJ's argument
8. The DOJ also makes clear it is not arguing that Trump would be immunized from anything he said. But, citing Ballenger, argues the rape allegation was a matter of "concern" to Trump's constituents.
9. The standard the DOJ is creating would immunize everything a president said to the press because a president has 300M+ constituents and everything about their life is of "concern" to someone
The DOJ is doing exactly what it says it should not do
1. On May 31, Texas Republicans were fully prepared to pass a sweeping voter suppression bill
But the bill failed because House Democrats walked out, denying the GOP a quorum
The GOP will take the bill up again in a special session
But something EXTRAORDINARY is happening
2. Republicans are COMPLETELY UNPREPARED to defend the substance of the bill and are abandoning major provisions.
First, the GOP claimed the ban on Sunday voting before 1PM was a typo
This isn't credible because they defended the ban as the bill was debated
But its OUT
3. Now Republicans are scrapping a provision to allow Texas judges to void an election based on thin evidence of fraud (w/o regard to whether the alleged fraud changed the result)
A chief House sponsor of the bill now calls the provision "horrendous"!
1. Manchin's rationale for opposing the For The People Act, which would thwart state efforts to undermine voting rights, underscores the central role of the @USChamber.
Manchin is essentially quoting the Chamber's talking points
3. The @USChamber is engaged in an aggressive lobbying campaign against federal action to protect voting rights that is financed by the same corporations who say they support voting rights.
1. A constellation of obscure websites — populated with content stolen from outlets like @Politico, @Axios, & @BuzzFeedNews — has played a significant role in the fundraising success of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Hawley, and other Republicans
Manchin's justification for opposing to the For The People Act tracks closely to the talking points of the @USChamber
The Chamber, funded by millions from major corporations that claim they support voting rights, is engaged in an aggressive lobbying campaign against the bill
"In Donald J. Trump’s final weeks in office, Mark Meadows, his chief of staff, repeatedly pushed the Justice Department to investigate unfounded conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election"
"In 5 emails sent during the last week of December and early January, Meadows asked Rosen, then the acting attorney general, to examine debunked claims of election fraud in New Mexico and an array of baseless conspiracies that held that Mr. Trump had been the actual victor"