Post

https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1451932400376745991?s=20

More from @MuellerSheWrote

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

May 14

THREAD: Here's what the Mueller Report has to say about Cohen: "After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip,” contacted him directly to tell him to “stay strong,” and privately passed messages of support to him." 1/

"Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes." 2/

This is from Volume II - the Obstruction of Justice Volume. The treatment of Cohen was part of a larger pattern of obstructive behavior by Donald Trump. Eventually, Bill Bar would write a memo declining to charge Trump for Obstruction even if he weren't the president. 3/

Read 5 tweets

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

May 11

THREAD: all in all a great summary here, but I take issue with some of the language. First, none of these electors are being treated as “dangerous criminals”. None are in pretrial detention. Several have been given leeway on violating bail conditions. And none are charged with violent crimes. 1/

The reason some have been charged and others haven’t is because some broke the law and others didn’t. It’s not because prosecutors have special feelings about whether they’re “dupes” or “dangerous criminals”. I don’t see any “dupes” being charged in any state. In PA and NM, the electors said “we will not sign something that says we are the official electors. Put some contingency langue in here” and in AZ and MI they said “fuck yeah we’re the real electors even tho we know we aren’t. Keep this quiet.” The rest took plea deals. None of that is weird or inconsistent. 2/

Also, to say Chesebro is getting off with a slap on the wrist while others aren’t doesn’t make any sense. None have gone to trial, been convicted, or received a sentence. It’s weird to compare their punishments when they haven’t been doled out. Plus, chesebro is cooperating. Generally speaking, cooperators get less jail time than non-cooperators. Third, MI just issued new search warrants for Cheaebro because his cooperation might not have been truthful, so his investigation isn’t even over. 3/

Read 5 tweets

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

May 4

BREAKING: Merrick Garland opened an investigation into Trump as soon as he got to the DoJ in March 2021.

Actually, this news is over a month old. But I bet you haven't heard about it much in the media. 1/

According to multiple sources familiar with multiple conversations in the first months of Garland's tenure, "Garland gathered his closest aides to discuss a topic too sensitive to broach in bigger groups: the possibility that evidence from the far-ranging Jan. 6 investigation could quickly lead to former President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle." 2/

"At the time, some in the Justice Department were pushing for the chance to look at ties between pro-Trump rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his allies who had camped out at the Willard Hotel, and possibly Mr. Trump himself." 3/

Read 4 tweets

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

Apr 25

New thread. Dreeban is up for DoJ. The existing system is a balanced framework, it protects POTUS but not at the high cost of blanket immunity.

Thomas: are you saying there's no immunity for official acts? D: yes, but for today, our position is POTUS as head of art II branch can assert art II objections to criminal laws that interfere with a POTUS power or that prevent him from his constitutional functions. What petitioner wants is blanket immunity absent impeachment and conviction which has never happened in our history and we submit that isn't necessary to assure POTUS can perform his tasks.

Roberts: The DC Circuit says "a former POTUS can be prosecuted for his official acts if he's acted in defiance of the laws". Doesn't that seem tautologically true? It sounds like the circuit court is saying a POTUS can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted. That concerns me. D: I wouldn't suggest that's the governments position. R: You know how easy it is to get an indictment. Relying on the good faith of a prosecutor and a grand jury, and if those are the only protections the court of appeals gave, and that's no longer your position, why shouldn't we send it back to the court of appeals? (That would be bad), or issue an opinion that's not the law?

D: I do support the circuit court's ruling and I think there are layered safeguard that will emiliorate the concern of chilling the POTUS. A politically driven prosecution would violate the constitution. I don't want to overstate your honors concern with relying on good faith, but that's an ingredient, and the courts stand ready to provide oversight.

R: yes but the appeals court didn't get into what acts or what documents we're talking about. Because the fact of prosecution takes away immunity according to the appeals court, they had no need to look at what acts were immune and which weren't.

D: (this is great) Well i take issue with the idea of taking away immunity. There is no immunity in the constitution unless this court creates it today.

D: one of the chief concerns of the framers was abuse of power. They departed from the British model that you could be impeached and convicted criminally at the same time. The framers created impeachment as a political remedy separate from criminal prosecution.

Alito: you recognize the POTUS has a special form of protection, that status that are applicable to everyone, they must be applied differently to POTUS sometimes:

Dreeben: it's true b/c the courts construe statutes to avoid serious constitutional questions. that's longstanding practice of OLC

A: this is more than a quarrel about special protection. If statues are interpreted differently for former presidents than that can be litigated at trial. He can make a motion to dismiss, and he may cite OLC, and the judge says lets go to trial, and that may involve great expense, and during the trial, the former president might not be able to engage in activities he wants to, and then there's a jury and appeal, so protection is greatly diluted if it takes the form you propose. Why is that better:

D: it's better because it's more balanced. Blanket immunity takes it all off the table. IF the conduct takes place at the end of a term, and impeachment is difficult, and we don't know whether a POTUS can be impeached after he leaves office...

Read 14 tweets

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

Apr 25

Good morning! I'll do my best to live tweet the SCOTUS immunity arguments starting now. John Sauer, for trump, says "Without immunity, there can be no presidency." Which makes no sense because we've had plenty of presidents and no immunity 1/

He brings up some hypotheticals about drone strikes and border policy, and how every president from now on will face blackmail and prosecution. Thomas asks to clarify what the source of the immunity is. Sauer says the executive vesting clause - that it encompasses all the powers of the president. (That's wrong. The executive vesting clause actually limits the term to four years so that cuts against trump.) He then cites (and cherrypicks) Marbury v Madison 2/

Fitzgerald v Nixon "outer perimeter" gives us what the president is immune from. What if the act is appointing an ambassador, and the president took a bribe? Sauer says bribery is not an official act. (interesting, neither are other crimes). Roberts: yeah, accepting the bribe isn't the official act, appointing the ambassador is. So how do you square that? Sauer says the indictment has to be expunged of what is official and what isn't official. (lol, that's a reach) 3/

Read 22 tweets

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

Apr 16

THREAD: Good morning! Oral arguments are about to begin in Fischer v US. This is the case about the interpretation of Title 18 USC 1512c2 Obstructing an Official Proceeding. I'm going to do my best to live tweet the arguments. 1/

For background, over 300 insurrectionists and trump himself are charged with 1512c2. It carries a maximum 20 year sentence. Several insurrectionists challenged the meaning of this law, but only ONE judge out of 14 went along with this nonsense. 2/

The nonsense being that the word "otherwise" connects 1512c1 and 1512c2 in such a way that the "documents" mentioned in 1512c1 apply to 1512c2. Fischer argued "since I only attacked the capitol and didn't mess with documents, I shouldn't be charged with this" 3/

Read 40 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Mueller, She Wrote

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @MuellerSheWrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!