Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture
@MuellerSheWrote
Nov 9, 2021 • 10 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
BREAKING: EXCLUSIVE: THREAD: Pence, his aides, and staff were locked out of their offices in the capitol complex during the insurrection because their access badges had been DEACTIVATED the morning of the attack, according to sources familiar with the incident 1/
According to one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to an ongoing investigation, Pence's team huddled in a loading dock, unable to access their offices, and started planning contingencies for a constitutional crisis and how to remove the president. 2/
The access badges worked that morning before the mob entered the capitol, but once Pence was removed from the chamber floor, their badges no longer worked. Access was restored later that night after the threat was over. 3/
Access had been shut off to the VP Office Complex and the White House as well during the same time frame. That is where the new information I have ends, however, I want to remind everyone of a few publicly available details 4/
In "I Alone Can Fix It" by Leonnig and Rucker, Pence refused to get into a car with secret service during the attack. He said "I trust you, Tim, but you're not driving the car. If I get in that vehicle, you guys are taking off. I'm not getting in the car." 5/
Additionally, in the book "Peril" we learned that Pence asked Dan Quayle multiple times if there was ANY way he could do donald's bidding. After 3 rebuffs, Pence finally said to him "You don't know the position I'm in."
I will add any new info to this thread if I get any. END
PS: don’t forget this information we learned last night. Jon Karl says there are photos of Pence’s team in the loading dock. huffpost.com/entry/mike-pen…
PPS: check this out.
PPPS: My guess as to whom is responsible for the access badges is McEntee - who was subpoenaed today, or the USSS. I don't have any confirmation on that from any source. Just my guess.
Join me tomorrow morning on the @dailybeanspod to discuss, then join us every weekday morning for all the best news with swearing :)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mueller, She Wrote

Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MuellerSheWrote

Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture
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 Profile picture
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 Profile picture
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
Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture
Apr 16
THREAD: I’m sorry. But this filing is shady AF. This is Hankey Subprime’s filing proving that knight insurance can guarantee Trump’s bond. I’m very much looking forward to the April 22 hearing on the matter. 1/ iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
The reason it seems shady to me is that Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) only has $138M in cash, and is relying on a trump Schwab account that’s supposed to be worth just about exactly $175M 2/ Image
I’m no expert, but I think to back a bond, the guarantor has to have at least enough cash to cover it. But here, they say trump is covering it and they have access to Trump’s Schwab account 3/
Read 10 tweets
Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture
Apr 16
THREAD: I think it's brilliant that Jack Smith crafted his 1/6 indictment of trump to withstand 1) a court determining that a former president is immune for some official acts and 2) a court determining 1512(c)(2) must involve a document or documents. 1/
Smith's indictment works EVEN IF the Supreme Court decides that some presidents have immunity for some official acts because the charges are against him as a CANDIDATE for office, not as a sitting president. 2/
The indictment also works EVEN IF the Supreme Court decides that 1512(c)(2) can only be charged if the defendant tampers with or impedes a document because the fraudulent elector certificates and the certified legit elector certificates are documents. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Mueller, She Wrote Profile picture
Apr 15
NEW: Jack Smith has responded to Trump’s delay attempt in the documents case. You can see what I posted about Trump’s request to delay here: 1/
Jack Smith opens by reminding the court that she set the May 9 deadline very recently. April 10th to be exact. 2/ Image
Just as I had mentioned in my original thread, Smith says Cannon was well aware of the NY trial date, and posits that trump assigned the same lawyers to multiple cases to use overlapping criminal proceedings to delay one another. 3/ Image
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

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

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(