Tweet

@maddow

More from @danielsgoldman

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

10 Jul

@AWeissmann_

My friend ⁦@AWeissmann_⁩ provides excellent perspective on the Trump indictment. But I think there are some unique variables that separate this case from the organized crime or federal fraud cases he references. (Of course, only time will tell.) justsecurity.org/77369/how-to-r…

First, Weisselberg already received immunity from the SDNY, and whispers were that he was unhelpful even if truthful. That may be one reason why the SDNY gave the investigation to the DA. But the prospect of him being cooperative in the grand jury seems unlikely to me.

Second, my experience investigating the TO leads me to believe that Weisselberg would be the linchpin to any prosecution of Trump or his children. There are clearly lower level employees in the crosshairs — hence the protective order — but they are unlikely to get to Trump.

Read 7 tweets

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

2 Jul

A short explanation of my analysis of the Trump Org indictment:

1) the allegations laid out in the indictment are powerful, persuasive and backed up by a lot of evidence. The scheme was premeditated and blatant cheating over a long period of time. The indictment is impressive.

2) Weisselberg and the other unidentified employees referenced in the Indictment should be charged with these crimes. But this is not a typical case against a corp, even tho the heightened bar required to charge corporations is met. The consequences for the Org could be dire.

3) I spent some time learning about the Trump Org and I spent a lot of time with Michael Cohen, including deposing him. Based on my knowledge and experience, it is my belief that Weisselberg’s cooperation is likely necessary to charge Donald Trump, who does not email or text.

Read 11 tweets

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

13 May

Some quick thoughts on the McGahn settlement:

1) McGahn testifying behind closed doors doesn’t move the needle much, because it will merely provide us with another transcript that we can read, similar to the Mueller Report.

1/

2) Since Trump is no longer in office, McGahn’s testimony is mostly (if not only) relevant to a potential criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice. So there isn’t much to be gained by having him testify, particularly behind closed doors.

2/

3) There is a lot for Congress to lose, however, if the appeals court were to issue a bad ruling that undermined congressional subpoena authority. A lot more downside for Congress in a bad opinion (for it) than upside in his public testimony.

3/

Read 4 tweets

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

28 Apr

@NicolleDWallace

Lots to unpack about the Giuliani search warrants, which I will do with @NicolleDWallace at 4pm. But a couple of notes that aren't getting much attention:

1) I would bet a lot of $$ that the SDNY already obtained Giuliani's emails pursuant to search warrants, which helped provide probable cause to get these search warrants. They would have sent preservation requests to service providers so he could not erase his emails.

2) Many people in Giuliani's situation would remove or erase any relevant docs once reports of attempts to get a search warrant surfaced. Agents would have to show PC that evidence of a crime would be found at the location. It could just be elec devices, but could be more too.

Read 4 tweets

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

14 Feb

Short thread on impeachment witnesses:

First, let’s remember that this case had unusual and powerful evidence in the public record. If you are prosecuting a bank robbery and you have the surveillance camera footage, you don’t need witnesses to tell you what happened.

1/

Second, the only areas where witnesses could help was confirming what the circumstantial evidence already showed about Trump’s knowledge and intent, both before and after the riot. Mgrs did great job of using his own tweets to show his knowledge but witnesses could confirm.

2/

The case was really strong as is but new witness testimony would very likely become the sole focus of the media and the public. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid taking risks with witnesses a) who are adverse to you and b) whose testimony is unknown.

3/

Read 10 tweets

Daniel Goldman

@danielsgoldman

2 Dec 20

My quick take on the bribery-for-pardon judicial order:

1) There was a separate ongoing investigation that involved (likely multiple) search warrants that yielded 50 electronic devices seized. That’s a lot of devices, so I’m guessing it was an office that was searched.

1/4

2) upon reviewing these devices, agents identified separate crimes from those under investigation, incl a bribery-for-pardon scheme. They sought permission from the judge to search the devices for further evidence of that scheme. (SW’s are limited to specific offenses.)

2/4

3) that scheme involved a lawyer who, the judge concluded, did not have an attorney-client relationship with the person seeking the pardon. It appears that that lawyer served as an intermediary with the WH, but did not represent the briber, who is currently in jail.

3/4

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Daniel Goldman

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @danielsgoldman

Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?