DUE PROCESS: A THREAD: (I know you're sick of me saying this) Let's say committee asks Perry to come in for a voluntary deposition and to please hand over relevant documents. Perry refuses. The committee probably asks one more time under threat of a subpoena. 1/
If Perry refuses again, they issue the subpoena with a reasonable time frame for him to respond. If Perry fails to appear, they send another letter saying YOU SURE BRO? You're in contempt, and if you don't cure that contempt by coming in this week, we will refer you to DoJ. 2/
If Perry still refuses, the committee schedules a vote for three days from then (per house rules), then the next day the rules committee considers it and votes, then the next day the full house can vote. Then they can send the referral to the DoJ c/o the DC USAO. 3/
The DC USAO must present it to the Grand Jury (already impaneled), but must follow the rules of federal criminal procedure which require the ability to obtain AND maintain a conviction on appeal in order to indict. 4/
If the committee misses any of the good faith due process steps in the first 3 tweets, the DoJ may not be able to indict under the requirements set forth in the rules of federal criminal procedure. 5/
Further, if DoJ indicts without preparing for all possible defenses, no matter how stupid and wrong those defenses may be (speech and debate clause, 1A, privilege), they run the risk of losing at trial. That would send a message that it's easy to skirt a subpoena. No bueno. 6/
Some may want congress to use inherent contempt and arrest him. I agree, however, congress does not have a resolution in place outlining constitutional due process like they do for criminal contempt. If they arrested Perry without having that in place, he could win on appeal 7/
That's IF it even makes it past pre-trial motions for dismissal. Ted Lieu HAS written a resolution establishing constitutional due process for inherent contempt, but it hasn't been brought up for a vote. I do not know why. 8/
And yes, the house could change the rules requiring a three-day notification to vote on criminal contempt referrals, but that would require a rule change, which would require a vote, which would require a three-day notification under current rules. 9/
This ENTIRE song and dance is in place to PROTECT your rights and the rights of all criminal defendants in the United States per the constitution. And I agree, not all Americans are granted such deference. That is a HUGE problem in our country. 10/
But rather than lower our standards and treat everyone like shit, we should be advocating to RAISE our standards to ensure ALL Americans are granted the same due process - lest we slide further into autocracy. 11/
We should be fighting for all Americans to receive equal justice under law. Democracy is at stake, but circumventing constitutional rights is not the answer. You can't save democracy by fucking it. END/
PS: I’m not a lawyer. Please, lawyers, correct me if I’ve gotten any of this wrong. That happens sometimes :)
* federal principles of prosecution
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
BREAKING: after a trump judge recused herself from Flynn’s lawsuit, it was given to a GW appointee (Judge Scriven) who has just DENIED Flynn’s motion for a temp restraining order to block the 1/6 committee’s subpoena of his phone records.
First, Flynn failed to notify the committee he was filing the restraining order as required by rule 65(b)(1)(B)
Second, Flynn failed to show irreparable injury, loss, or damage pursuant to rule 65(b)(1)(A).
BIG: @RepRaskin says Gohmert’s 12/27 lawsuit against Pence is a “significant detail in that it was part of a plan to isolate and coerce Pence.” That suit was backed by Sidney Powell. THAT CONNECTS THE PENCE COUP ATTEMPT TO AN ONGOING DOJ PROBE. 1/ politico.com/news/2021/12/1…
Powell’s two orgs were established a month or so before Ghomert filed suit, and the DoJ out of the @USAO_DC has been investigating Powell for at least three months. The 1/6 committee is also investigating her PAC per a source familiar. 2/ thedailybeast.com/feds-are-askin…
One thing DoJ prosecutors are looking into is what she did and didn’t spend money on in order to determine whether she defrauded donors. That would mean the DoJ would have to determine whether any donated money paid for the Gohmert suit. 3/ washingtonpost.com/investigations…
THREAD: A couple of interesting things. I'm sure you've noticed by now the deliberate legalese used by Liz Cheney repeatedly during recent hearings. "Whether trump by action or inaction corruptly sought to obstruct or impeded Congress' official proceeding." This is no accident 1/
Liz Cheney's refrain is nearly word-for-word 18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)(3): "Whoever corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so." I find it interesting that a MoC who can't bring criminal charges is using prosecutorial language. 2/
If you listen to @dailybeanspod or watch @glennkirschner2, you've heard us talk frequently about the importance of the DoJ charging JanSixers with Obstructing an Official Proceeding because by pleading guilty, they admit that they were there to stop the certification. 3/
Zoe Lofgren: I knew and served with Meadows. We got along reasonably well. It's shocking that we have to face the fact that Meadows admits he played a role in trying to undermine the results of the 2020 election.
Leading up to the attack, the white house was instructing the DoJ to investigate conspiracy theories to benefit trump. We need to talk to Meadows about that.
Meadows interacted with - allegedly - some of our own colleagues in congress. Meadows has acknowledged he has non-privileged documents and communications.
NOW: the hearing to consider contempt referrals for Mark Meadows is underway. I'll be live tweeting...
Bennie Thompson (BT): we are north of 300 witnesses, 30K documents and over 350 tips on the tipline. We are making progress and our finding will be out in the open soon. We will have public hearings once we have the entire story.
BT: the report referring Meadows is clear and convincing. Meadows played a role. Don't let lawsuits or op-eds about privilege claims confuse you. He started by cooperating and handed over records, but that's just the first step.