BREAKING: THREAD: to those who keep pushing for public testimony for the 1/6 committee & public release of documents and information pertaining to ongoing investigations: tonight’s filing by the new DC US Attorney Matthew Graves in the Bannon case explains the perils of that. 1/
As I have said multiple times: public testimony and public release of documents can jeopardize criminal investigations. In the Bannon case, the human cold sore has called for the documents in his case to be released to the public by opposing a protective order for discovery 2/
And DC US Attorney Matthew Graves agrees. “Specific harms will result if circulation of these materials is not limited to the individuals identified in the proposed protective order.” 3/
So what are the harms? FIRST: the hippopotamic land mass wants to disseminate the materials to argue his case publicly on the merits to undermine his indictment, and Graves argues that privacy serves important public and judicial interests. 4/
Namely, “The outcome of a criminal trial is to be decided by an impartial jury who know AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE of the case.” Public comments on evidence which might never be admitted at trial obviously threaten to undermine this basic tenant. 5/
Furthermore, SCOTUS emphasized the courts have an obligation to avoid a “carnival atmosphere” that might accompany a case receiving substantial public attention, such as this case. 6/
SECOND: public release of the documents is tantamount to WITNESS TAMPERING because it will expose witness testimony to the public, and it would allow witnesses to review each others’ testimony and get their stories straight. 7/
Finally, Graves says the bullshit nature of the blob fish’s claims of prejudice are just a cover for the REAL reason he opposes the privacy of the documents: that the defendant wishes to have trial through the press. 8/
From US v Lindh, 2002: “A defendant has no constitutional right to use the media to influence public opinion…to gain an advantage at trial.” 9/
So before you demand that ANY documents or testimony be made public, consider that both Bannon and Alex Jones want that, and think about WHY it’s damaging to criminal prosecutions to argue these cases in public before trial or during an ongoing probe. END
PS: I’ve been asked for my prediction. Easy. I’d bet my paycheck the judge will grant the full protective order sought by the DoJ in order to protect the case, the witnesses, and the grand jury material, and to prevent Bannon from trying the case in the court of public opinion.
THREAD: Okay, so after my JAWS thread, I asked which movie I haven't seen to watch next - and the winner by a mile was Hunt for Red October - which happens to be on right now. So here we go 1/
THREAD: BREAKING: JD Vance says he would consider privatizing Veterans health care. This is something I know a little bit about. 1/
I worked for the Veterans Health Administration for over a decade, and that entire time, republicans have been trying to privatize our healthcare. Spurred by private health providers, big donors, and lobbyist's money - the want to move Veteran care to the private sector. 2/
There are several reasons that is a terrible idea, and why for so long Veterans and Veteran Service Organizations and Unions continually push back on the idea. First and foremost, it increases the wait time to get an appointment. 3/
Tim Pool is claiming that $100K per podcast episode is the normal market value of a show that gets 100K-200K views. I own a podcast network with shows that outperform his, and that’s absolutely not true. 1/
Market average is about $9 CPM (per thousand spins) per brand. Even with a 100% fill rate (unheard of) with 6 brands (also unheard of), that’s about $7,200 per episode for 100K views. $14,400 for 200K. Reality is closer to half. And that’s gross (before the network, ad agency, and talent agents take their cut). $100K per episode is market value for a show that gets MILLIONS of downloads. 2/
Also, Tim would be wise to stop talking publicly about this. Not just because I’m personally tired of his lies, but because he’s part of a criminal investigation now. Just my two cents. END/
THREAD: GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN: The republicans are threatening to shut down the government by attaching the SAVE Act to the government funding CR.
The SAVE Act penalizes CITIZENS by forcing them to prove their citizenship in order to vote - when it's already illegal for non-citizens to vote. 1/
This is a voter suppression tactic designed to stop CITIZENS from voting - particularly marginalized communities. The goal is to wear people down with paperwork to get them to give up on voting, because republicans never pass bills that make it EASIER for citizens to vote. 2/
The other equally insidious goal of the bill is to give them pretext to shut down the government so they can blame Biden when working Americans are furloughed and Military Members don't get their paychecks. In fact, no government employees do. 3/
THREAD: SPACE BEANS: This is what I bet happened with the trump sham ceremony at Arlington. This is speculation based on past behavior (with some actual events peppered in.)
1. Trump got some internal polling numbers (I still don't get why the public gets different polling than the candidates, but I digress) - so the Trump campaign got some unfavorable polling numbers that show Harris is the candidate of freedom and patriotism (speculation) 1/
2. So the Trump campaign decides they need to hurt Harris with Veterans and the Military. They cook up an idea to create a wreath-laying ceremony on the anniversary of the Afghanistan withdrawal. So they call up Arlington, who abruptly tells them they are forbidden by law to create campaign ads at Arlington. (It's been confirmed that Arlington told Trump ahead of time that he couldn't film there.) 2/
3. After whining and crying about that for a while, they call up Mike Johnson and tell him to force Arlington to let them in with their private photographers and videographers. Johnson calls up a friend and pulls some strings and tells Trump he can come in, but he still can't use his own photos and video. (It's been confirmed Johnson pulled strings, but we don't have any details on how.) 3/
Okay, I'm going to do my best to ignore the Superman shirt thing for a second and answer the @AlanDersh question about how DoJ is going to prove trump knew he lost the election. 2/
From pp 6 of the superseding indictment: "The Defendant was on notice that his claims were untrue. He was told so by those most invested in his re-election, including his own running mate and his campaign staff." So testimony from these folks will prove it. 3/