This isn't a hair-on-fire moment. Mainstream media has been responsible not reporting it as such.
I’ve written Meadows has significant criminal exposure
But this is not strong evidence of that.
A few key points to consider…
<thread>
2. All we know is Mark Meadows had the slides on this phone.
Not that he plotted it, not that he or any administration officials created it, not that he did something nefarious (or did anything) with it.
3. Meadows’ lawyer says the reason they voluntarily turned over the document is because Meadows did nothing with it -- and is accordingly not claiming it is ‘privileged’ info that should be kept from congressional investigators.
It looks like Fox News’ Laura Logan was openly sharing the 36-page version of the document on January 5 via Twitter for anyone to download. The link has remained active since.
Note: The New York Times report from last night showcases careful and responsible reporting (by @lukebroadwater@alanfeuer).
7. NYT fairly points out: Meadows did use other outlandish conspiracies (eg that Italian military satellites altered US ballots) in his and Trump’s apparent scheme to push the Dept of Justice to overturn the election.
The House Oversight Committee (@OversightDems) summary.👇
8. Finally, one upshot:
Meadows at an absolute minimum needs to testify before the @January6thCmte about matters that his attorney fully acknowledges are not privileged. His failure to show up should appropriately land him in criminal contempt with an indictment to follow.
9. New reporting
Phil Waldron, who contributed to and circulated PowerPoint, reportedly
- met with Meadows 8-10 times
- briefed Lindsey Graham in Meadows' office
- briefed GOP mmbrs of Congress on Jan 5
- worked with Giuliani and Eastman at Willard hotel washingtonpost.com/investigations…
10. Some briefings appear to be Waldron claiming to show election fraud, etc.
Not clear which of these (except for Jan 5 briefing to GOP members of Congress) was about PowerPoint presentation.
Re timing: "A version of the presentation made its way to...Mark Meadows, on Jan. 5"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Bannon "in deep legal trouble…executive privilege would at best allow him to refuse to answer specific questions. The claim of executive privilege in no way shape or form allows a witness to refuse to show up at all" msn.com/en-us/news/pol…
2. In addition to criminal contempt, Congress could directly pursue escalating fines against Bannon.
Key passages of testimony in Senate Judiciary report — showing the scheme to threaten acting Attorney General to pitch in with effort to overturn the election or be replaced.
3. Senate Judiciary Committee investigation also uncovers New Year's Eve meeting in Oval Office.
Trump directly threatens acting AG Rosen and Donoghue: threatens to fire and replace them with Clark for failing to help overturn the election.
2. The internal memo breaks down for policy clients the ways in which the current Trump-Biden policy raises profound legal problems both in terms of US international legal obligations and domestic law.
3. The Koh memo also outlines for administration officials several options to avoid or minimize these legal problems, including fundamentally changing the policy course.
As @ICRC explains, the presumption of civilian status is a part of binding laws of war. Isn’t it true that @DeptofDefense has highly anomalous view that considers this rule NOT part of binding laws of war? Does the US government as a whole agree with DoD’s position?
3. Who were the most senior DoD officials who authorized or signed off on the strike?
Before taking the strike, what did DoD estimate would be total number of civilian casualties killed?
What did DoD consider would have been acceptable level of civilian casualties?