Wait, is David French demanding that conservatives refrain from using government power to achieve conservative ends?
Must be a day that ends in -day
If this isn't a distillation of @sohrab Ahmari's great coinage - "David Frenchism" I don't know what is.
"Don't write new law to solve a novel problem, instead, rely on older law and hope that courts read a broad statute the way you want them to. And if they don't, oh well!"
Another aspect of David Frenchism:
"This old law that liberals wrote is good, right, and just. But this new law that conservatives would write is un-American. Never mind that they are based on the same principles and constitutional foundation."
Lol also didn't tag @SohrabAhmari properly and it's too late to fix the problem
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I read the Cosby opinion from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it's pretty persuasive
Bruce Castor publicly announced that he would not prosecute Cosby as a way of forcing him to testify in the civil case, unable to assert any Fifth Amendment rights
Then ten years later, Castor's successor went ahead and prosecuted Cosby, based on incriminating testimony that Cosby had given in the civil case
We really don't want a world where prosecutors can bait-and-switch defendants on their Fifth Amendment rights
About That Revolver Story Claiming FBI Agents/Informants Are the Unnamed "Co-Conspirators" in Jan. 6 Indictments redstate.com/shipwreckedcre…
I think this is an important one to get right
While it's likely that both Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were infiltrated by the FBI (they have a history of doing these things), @shipwreckedcrew is very persuasive in explaining that the unindicted co-conspirators wouldn't be feds
It's really easy to get the law wrong, I'm a lawyer and have done it plenty, and so I get why Darren/Tucker got out ahead of their skis
That's why it's important to check this stuff with people experienced in federal criminal procedure (which I am not)