Now, I wonder who Eastman was calling from his private cell phone?
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
It looks like most of his argument rests on the same arguments that Trump is trying in his executive privilege case: Challenging the legitimacy of the select committee itself.
1/
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
It looks like most of his argument rests on the same arguments that Trump is trying in his executive privilege case: Challenging the legitimacy of the select committee itself.
1/
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1470908391132381184
About these subpoenas: lawfareblog.com/does-carpenter…
He's gonna lose this.
I get that it's a stall technique, but it can't work for long.
It also makes him look super guilty.
2/
He's gonna lose this.
I get that it's a stall technique, but it can't work for long.
It also makes him look super guilty.
2/
The subpoena looks narrowly tailored to me. Without seeing it (and I've only read up to page 2) it looks like they want to know who he was talking to in the months leading up to the insurrection.
He gives a few arguments for why the subpoena should be held to be invalid.
3/
He gives a few arguments for why the subpoena should be held to be invalid.
3/
First, he argues (as in Trump's executive privilege lawsuit) that the committee is illegitimate and (in issuing this subpoena) is acting as a law enforcement body.
No, it isn't.
But anyway, the standards for getting call records is very low.
4/
No, it isn't.
But anyway, the standards for getting call records is very low.
4/
Oh, I see what the fuss is about. (This is what happens when I tweet as I read)
It's not just the list of calls from Verizon, but they want the content of communications of individuals involved in the planning of the rallies on January 5 and 6th.
5/
It's not just the list of calls from Verizon, but they want the content of communications of individuals involved in the planning of the rallies on January 5 and 6th.
5/
This means that Eastman and unnamed people were involved in planning the rallies on January 5 and 6.
When you call the "stop the steal" rally a "constitutionally protected rally" you're in trouble.
Veeeerry interesting 🤔
6/
When you call the "stop the steal" rally a "constitutionally protected rally" you're in trouble.
Veeeerry interesting 🤔
6/
One argument he makes is that "The J6 Committee’s Law Enforcement Purpose" and Congress isn't law enforcement.
This argument is: "They really just want to hold people accountable, not investigate, and all they're allowed to do is investigate." 🙄
7/
This argument is: "They really just want to hold people accountable, not investigate, and all they're allowed to do is investigate." 🙄
7/
What's weird about this as a delay tactic is it will be super easy for law enforcement to get the records and law enforcement and the committee are sharing information to avoid "duplication of effort" so this isn't just an ineffective stall tactic but a cry of I'M GUILTY!
8/
8/
"Your honor, Congress shouldn't have these records because they're trying to find out if I'm guilty of a crime," seems sort of lame to me.
Why not just show the records to demonstrate there was no crime if in fact there was no crime? (I know! I know🙋♀️)
9/
Why not just show the records to demonstrate there was no crime if in fact there was no crime? (I know! I know🙋♀️)
9/
He says that there is nothing in the committee to protect his clients. He also says that the subpoena seeks information about his contacts with people planning the rallies.
Well . . . were any of his "clients" involved in planning the rallies? Is there more he's not saying?
10/
Well . . . were any of his "clients" involved in planning the rallies? Is there more he's not saying?
10/
A congressional investigative committee looking at how the insurrection happened is clearly entitled to communications from those who planned the rallies.
He wants a stay while the issues are litigated.
(Meanwhile, law enforcement can get them so this does no good.)
11/
He wants a stay while the issues are litigated.
(Meanwhile, law enforcement can get them so this does no good.)
11/
In #10 I said, "He says that there is nothing in the committee to protect his clients."
I meant nothing in the subpoena to protect his clients.
If you knew what I meant, I bet you could also decipher my handwriting.
12/
I meant nothing in the subpoena to protect his clients.
If you knew what I meant, I bet you could also decipher my handwriting.
12/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
