Lots to digest today but this is an interesting legal issue. Is the Committee seeking the actual comms between insurrectionists? Or are they doing oversight of the tech cos to determine what they did to stop the insurrs’ efforts to overturn the election? This matters a lot.
The (outdated) Stored Communications Act generally requires a search warrant to obtain comms between people. Congress does not have authority to get a sw, but its position is that it is exempt from the SCA so subpoena is sufficient. Tech cos disagree. It has never been litigated.
So if conducting oversight, the tech companies must respond to the Committee about their actions. If the requested info is part of the investigation and unrelated to tech cos actions, the tech cos will resist and dare Congress to go to court. Will be interesting to watch.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Daniel Goldman

Daniel Goldman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @danielsgoldman

21 Sep 21
As I discussed with @maddow tonight, a few observations from today’s Trump Org hearing:

1) As I’ve been saying all along, it still does not appear that Weisselberg will cooperate, nor do I think Trump or any of his children will be charged. W seems eager to fight the charges.
2) Of note, the prosecutor referred to Weisselberg as the “boss” of the financial records at issue. Obviously we know Trump is the boss, but that is an indication that W is at the top of THIS scheme. This, without W’s cooperation, I don’t think Trump or his kids will be charged.
3) according to W’s lawyers (who know a lot about the investig), the ADA told them that tax docs were found in co-conspirators’ basements. That means the ADA has evidence that 1) there are co-conspirators 2) whose residences were likely searched pursuant to a search warrant.
Read 4 tweets
10 Jul 21
My friend ⁦@AWeissmann_⁩ provides excellent perspective on the Trump indictment. But I think there are some unique variables that separate this case from the organized crime or federal fraud cases he references. (Of course, only time will tell.) justsecurity.org/77369/how-to-r…
First, Weisselberg already received immunity from the SDNY, and whispers were that he was unhelpful even if truthful. That may be one reason why the SDNY gave the investigation to the DA. But the prospect of him being cooperative in the grand jury seems unlikely to me.
Second, my experience investigating the TO leads me to believe that Weisselberg would be the linchpin to any prosecution of Trump or his children. There are clearly lower level employees in the crosshairs — hence the protective order — but they are unlikely to get to Trump.
Read 7 tweets
2 Jul 21
A short explanation of my analysis of the Trump Org indictment:

1) the allegations laid out in the indictment are powerful, persuasive and backed up by a lot of evidence. The scheme was premeditated and blatant cheating over a long period of time. The indictment is impressive.
2) Weisselberg and the other unidentified employees referenced in the Indictment should be charged with these crimes. But this is not a typical case against a corp, even tho the heightened bar required to charge corporations is met. The consequences for the Org could be dire.
3) I spent some time learning about the Trump Org and I spent a lot of time with Michael Cohen, including deposing him. Based on my knowledge and experience, it is my belief that Weisselberg’s cooperation is likely necessary to charge Donald Trump, who does not email or text.
Read 11 tweets
13 May 21
Some quick thoughts on the McGahn settlement:

1) McGahn testifying behind closed doors doesn’t move the needle much, because it will merely provide us with another transcript that we can read, similar to the Mueller Report.

2) Since Trump is no longer in office, McGahn’s testimony is mostly (if not only) relevant to a potential criminal prosecution for obstruction of justice. So there isn’t much to be gained by having him testify, particularly behind closed doors.

3) There is a lot for Congress to lose, however, if the appeals court were to issue a bad ruling that undermined congressional subpoena authority. A lot more downside for Congress in a bad opinion (for it) than upside in his public testimony.

Read 4 tweets
28 Apr 21
Lots to unpack about the Giuliani search warrants, which I will do with @NicolleDWallace at 4pm. But a couple of notes that aren't getting much attention:
1) I would bet a lot of $$ that the SDNY already obtained Giuliani's emails pursuant to search warrants, which helped provide probable cause to get these search warrants. They would have sent preservation requests to service providers so he could not erase his emails.
2) Many people in Giuliani's situation would remove or erase any relevant docs once reports of attempts to get a search warrant surfaced. Agents would have to show PC that evidence of a crime would be found at the location. It could just be elec devices, but could be more too.
Read 4 tweets
14 Feb 21
Short thread on impeachment witnesses:

First, let’s remember that this case had unusual and powerful evidence in the public record. If you are prosecuting a bank robbery and you have the surveillance camera footage, you don’t need witnesses to tell you what happened.

Second, the only areas where witnesses could help was confirming what the circumstantial evidence already showed about Trump’s knowledge and intent, both before and after the riot. Mgrs did great job of using his own tweets to show his knowledge but witnesses could confirm.

The case was really strong as is but new witness testimony would very likely become the sole focus of the media and the public. For that reason, it is especially important to avoid taking risks with witnesses a) who are adverse to you and b) whose testimony is unknown.

Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!