THREAD: REMARKS BY MERRICK GARLAND: "Today, the Justice Department has filed suit against the state of Texas for violating section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 1/
"As the Supreme Court has observed, the core principal of our democracy is that voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires that state voting laws - including laws that draw electoral maps - 2/
"...provide eligible voters with the equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process and elect representatives of THEIR choosing. 3/
"The complaint we filed today alleges that Texas has violated section 2 by creating redistricting plans that deny or abridge the rights of latino and black voters to vote on account of their race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 4/
"As many of you know, in 2013 the Supreme Court effectively eliminated the pre-clearance provisions of The Voting Rights Act, which had been The Department's best tool for protecting voting rights. 5/
"Earlier this year I noted that this redistricting cycle would be the first to proceed since 1960 without the protection of pre-clearance, but I also said The Department would use all available authorities and resources to continue protecting the right to vote. 6/
"In Sept, The Department published guidance based on decades of precedent explaining that section 2 prohibits vote dilution. Vote dilution occurs when an electoral practice minimizes or cancels out the voting strength of members of a racial group or language minority group. 7/
"When we issued that guidance, I noted that discriminatory redistricting schemes are illegal, and that The Department would assess jurisdictions compliance with those laws during this redistricting cycle. 8/
"The Department's career voting law experts have assessed Texas' new redistricting plans, and determined that they include districts that violate the Voting Rights Act. 9/
"Last month we filed a separate lawsuit against the state of Texas alleging that Texas SB1 improperly restricts the assistance voters who have a disability or who are unable to read or write can receive in the voting booth. 10/
"Last week, we filed a statement of interest in Arizona litigation to explain that private plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that certain new voting laws in that state were passed with a discriminatory purpose. 11/
"We also filed a statement of interest in Florida litigation explaining - among other things - that private parties can bring claims to enforce the Voting Rights Act. In all these matters, we have carefully assessed the facts and the law before taking action. 12/
"I am grateful to the dedicated staff of the voting section for their work today and every day to protect the right of all eligible citizens to vote. I want to AGAIN urge congress to restore the Justice Department's pre-clearance authority. 13/
"Were that pre-clearance tool still in place, we would likely not be here today announcing this complaint." END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
RE: “We don’t have that kind of time” in reference to how long DoJ takes to successfully prosecute crimes:
Yes we do. We always have time for the rule of law, due process, and defendants’ rights. Can someone explain to me why we “don’t have time” to wait for the rule of law? 1/
The midterms don’t have anything to do with DoJ except they don’t indict political stuff within 60 days of an election. The 1/6 committee, on the other hand, could be in jeopardy. But if (god forbid) Dems lose the house, they will make criminal referrals to DoJ before 2022. 2/
DoJ is in place until at least January 2025. And if by “you don’t have enough time because of 2024” you are saying DoJ would stop investigating, that’s irrelevant because if a republican wins, they will simply pardon any charges anyhow and democracy will be in peril regardless 3/
BREAKING : THREAD: from @murraywaas: a federal grand jury investigating trump’s former attorney Sidney Powell has uncovered evidence that Powell filed false incorporation documents with the state of Texas. 1/
She listed two men as members of the board who were never given permission: Lin Wood and Brannon Castleberry. She’s also been known to list attorneys on Kraken lawsuits without notifying them. The grand jury is investigating whether she did this to attract donors 2/
As an aside from me personally, that feels like the old “wire fraud, computer fraud, conspiracy to defraud the US” chunk of charges Manafort faced. According to The Guardian, the federal grand jury has reviewed extensive documentation in this case. 3/
Step 1: give everyone unrealistic expectations: like calling for treason charges TOMORROW. Exploit the fact that justice is slow and DoJ can’t talk about investigations to sow displeasure with how long things take and why we haven’t heard anything.
Step 2: start bashing the DoJ with common, repeated phrases: Justice delayed is justice denied, where is Garland, Garland isn’t the right man for the moment, replace him with Sally Yates. I’m sure you’ve seen all those repeated over and over. Introduce a 3rd party candidate.
Step 3: when justice does eventually happen, it probably won’t be the big treason charge we wanted, so the trolls put out tweets that we should be ANGRY with the outcome and how LONG it took and how it wasn’t enough. It’s NEVER enough
THREAD: this is a great question. Let me answer based on what I know from years studying the complex investigations, and what I’ve learned talking to former federal prosecutors, US Attorneys, District Attorneys, public defenders, FBI directors, and DoJ folks 1/
In the Fulton County GA case, it does not bother me that trump or his kids haven’t been questioned because of the nature of complex investigations which start with the small players and move up the ladder to the leaders. 2/
Per public reporting on the DA case in GA, I believe they’re looking at state RICO charges, which take a long time (Willis’s last one took over 2 years), and she 1) is underfunded 2) has a backlog, and 3) is in the early stages having not yet even interviewed Raffensberger 3/
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/
BREAKING: THREAD: The new US Attorney for the SDNY has indicted two Iranian hackers pretending to be Proud Boys to interfere in the 2020 election on behalf of trump. This has potential implications for a lot of what we've been waiting for. 1/ justice.gov/usao-sdny/pres…
This indictment is signed by Damian Williams, the new US Attorney who took over at SDNY October 10th. The indictment was filed October 20th, and unsealed today by the DoJ. Why are those dates important? 2/
We've been waiting to see if the DoJ is going to indict donald in the Stormy Daniels hush money scheme in the SDNY, or if they would indict donald for the Mueller Obstruction charges in the DC USAO since Garland took over in March of this year 3/