THREAD: Should we expect Trump to be prosecuted for trying to overturn the election? Why or why not?
1/ Today I wrote a column for @POLITICOMag explaining why I think, based on what we know now, Trump is unlikely to be prosecuted for attempting to overturn the election. politico.com/news/magazine/…
2/ His actions were heinous and have done lasting damage to our democracy.
They merit investigation. But they don't fit neatly into existing statutes. There isn't a law on the books that was aimed at the sort of thing Trump did because his actions were unprecedented.
3/ That means that any prosecution of Trump would be a "first of its kind" case that tries to fit his actions into a statute that has never been used to prosecute this sort of activity.
I'm not saying that the DOJ would never bring such a case, but it's not likely it will.
4/ Why does this matter? Because our expectations can shape how we view what DOJ is doing (or not doing).
If we understand how hard it would be to prosecute Trump for undermining our democracy, we won't be shocked or angry when the DOJ fails to do so.
5/ The focus on a potential prosecution of Trump for this activity also takes the focus away from activity that is more readily prosecutable, like Trump's obstruction of justice as set forth in the Mueller Report.
6/ And if Trump won't be prosecuted, robust Congressional investigations that uncover what Trump did are even more important, because the outcome of a criminal investigation would not become public.
We need Congress to pass criminal statutes to ensure this never happens again.
7/ This column was the most challenging one I've ever written. Trump's actions were more heinous than activity that can be readily prosecuted under existing criminal statutes. We need to come to grips with how our existing criminal laws do not fit conduct like his. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What will the legal challenges to the Biden Administration's recent actions to encourage vaccination look like? Will courts rule that any of them are unlawful?
Professor @RickHills2 answered these questions and more on today's new episode of my #OnTopic podcast!
Check out past episodes, learn about our guests, submit feedback, and learn how to gain access to more content at our website (link below).
We'd love to get your feedback and suggestions. Suggest other topics, or leave feedback, here: ontopicpodcast.com
2/ Avenatti is getting a new trial because the government did not provide evidence that could be exculpatory to Avenatti before the trial.
But this case looks very difficult for Avenatti to win, and it doesn't look like the evidence is a game-changer.
3/ Avenatti could have suggested to the judge that the violation would be cured if the government was prevented from making certain arguments and offering certain evidence, and that may have been a better move.
It's hard to tell for sure without knowing all of the specifics.
THREAD: What should we make of today's indictment of the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg?
1/ Today the Manhattan DA charged Allen Weisselberg and two entities that are commonly referred to as the "Trump Organization" with a tax fraud scheme spanning from 2005 to the present.
2/ The scheme at issue here is very simple. The Trump Organization paid money (in the form of rent, tuition, cars, and other items) to executives under the table and hid those payments from tax authorities.
This is a common tax scheme that any jury could get its head around.
THREAD: What should we make of the news that the Trump Organization and its Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg were indicted by a Manhattan grand jury?
1/ Today a Manhattan grand jury returned criminal indictments against the Trump Organization and its CFO, Allen Weisselberg.
This was anticipated, given that defense counsel was given the opportunity to "pitch" prosecutors to convince them not to charge. washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…
2/ The charges are reportedly related to unpaid taxes on benefits for Trump Organization executives.
Bringing narrow charges now, with months of time remaining for this grand jury, suggests that prosecutors don't have the evidence to bring more serious charges at this time.