THREAD: There were major clues that dropped this weekend indicating DoJ is prepping to pursue a Bannon indictment for criminal contempt of congress that the MSM isn't talking about. 1/
Let's start back on 10/23 when multiple sources were reporting that DoJ might be hesitant to indict Bannon until a legislative purpose could be established for seeking Bannon's testimony in the first place. 2/
You'll recall that one of the main reasons trump listed for blocking the release of National Archives documents is that the January 6th committee doesn't have a legislative purpose. Now, WE know they do, but a court hasn't determined that yet 3/
You'll also recall trump has used the "legislative purpose" argument to successfully delay his tax returns & Mazars' documents from being handed over to congress. There was legislative purpose, but that didn't stop the cases from languishing in court 4/ lawfareblog.com/summary-suprem…
Interestingly, as we learned that NARA, the House, AND the DoJ filed to oppose trump's attempts to block the committee from receiving the documents, the committee ALSO began work on modifying legislation to clarify the electoral count process. 5/ cnn.com/2021/10/30/pol…
So In that article from CNN, they mention that the fact congress is now working on legislation gives legislative purpose to the committee where the national archives case is concerned. What they DON'T mention is that it ALSO gives legislative purpose to the Bannon case. 6/
In my original thread in the top post, I was concerned that a ruling on legislative purpose in the trump case might not provide a legislative purpose for Bannon's testimony, but CHECK THIS OUT. 7/
In the filing from DoJ supporting NARA against trump, Acting Assistant AG Boynton MENTIONS Bannon's role, thereby making his testimony relevant to the same legislative purpose in the trump case. 8/
So the combination of the DoJ filing in the trump case citing Bannon’s role, and the committee taking steps to draft legislation by modifying the electoral count act, it’s CLEAR to me that DoJ is going to move to indict Bannon. So when? 9/
When is hard to nail down because the last time this happened was 1983, so we don't exactly have an established pattern for the timeline on DoJ indictments for criminal contempt of congress. In the 1983 case, the indictment took 9 days. 10/
The DC USAO received the referral October 22, so we are on day 9. The DoJ may still wait for a ruling in the courts on the trump case, which now covers Bannon's testimony per the DoJ filing from the weekend. 11/
But the inclusion of Bannon in the trump filing has convinced me that whether they do it now, or wait for a court ruling in the NARA case, I believe DoJ is setting up the legal guardrails to indict Bannon. 12/
A parting note: anyone telling you that Garland is shielding trump in the coup attempt has now been proven incorrect. DoJ is FULLY backing Biden and the national archives against trump. I recommend you give the filing a read. END context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def….
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hate to break it to you, but even if Garland had appointed a special counsel in 2021 and trump was indicted a year earlier, there still would not have been a trial before the election. Let me explain. 1/
We know that last year, donald filed for immunity. That's interlocutory, which means it has to be solved before trial. That whole appeal and oral argument process from district court to circuit court to SCOTUS, took nearly a year. 2/
The way SCOTUS set up the process is that they sent it back to the lower court to determine what's immune and what's not under their new immunity rules, and then THAT second immunity decision is interlocutory, too. 3/
Allow me to go through Tim Pool’s sad excuses for why he’s quitting two weeks before an election. 1/
1. “It’s not a financial thing. We make a lot of money.”
Okay, but you want to start a family and you’re gonna quit the big ol’ money maker? Or is your wife the bread winner? Kinda woke, isn’t it? 2/
2. “The structure becomes bigger and bigger and bigger until it becomes impossible to manage.”
Then you expand and hire people and pay them well and give them benefits. Sorry you’re unable to run a small business. I started at my kitchen table with 10 downloads. Now I run a network and have over 50M. But I don’t get millions from Russia. 3/
THREAD: Despite the overwhelming support for telling my story, I want to address some of the pushback I've received from Republicans on this site. First, "This is pure propaganda. Florida has exceptions for rape. You support killing babies so much you’re willing to lie to unsuspecting people about it." 1/
Let me address the "Florida has an exception for rape" point first. Florida does have an exception for rape if you provide a "police report, restraining order, medical record, or other court order." That requires the service member to report their rape. Let me tell you what happened when I tried to report my rape. 2/
I was wrapped in a blanket and bleeding because my rapist's friends had stolen my clothes. It was still dark, around 0400. I snuck out and went to the on-base law enforcement office to report the rape. I was seated in an interrogation room under one of those fluorescent lamps at a metal desk, where I waited for about 30 minutes. 3/
Um, wow. The evidence and testimony Jack Smith has is DAMNING. For instance, the government has testimony that Donald said of the voter fraud claims that the "details don't matter." There is also testimony that trump said it didn't matter if he lost, he would just declare he won. 1/
There are also multiple conversations Pence had with his running mate that they'd lost and it was time to "take a bow". I'm just digging into this, but Trump is cooked. None of this is immune (or the presumptive immunity can be easily rebutted.) 2/
HA! When Trump was on the phone with Michigan, lying to them about voter fraud, Trump was corrected and reminded he lost two counties becuase he "underperformed with educated females", which pissed him off. 3/
NEW: THREAD: A new ruling from Judge McBurney in Georgia overturning the abortion ban and allowing the procedure to continue has some REMARKABLE quotes. Let's take a look at just a few. 1/
"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman." 2/
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have." 3/