Meet Elizabeth Deutsch. She's currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer.
And, in my humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
🧵
But first, a disclaimer:
I have no inside information. This thread is speculation, based almost entirely on publicly available information. I could easily be wrong.
Cool? Cool.
Her academic background isn't that uncommon for Supreme Court clerks. Yale undergrad, Yale law, and 2 British Master's degrees, from LSE and Cambridge.
Do note the Master's degree in Gender.
Here's where things start to get interesting. Every law student has to write a note - a long legal research paper, usually making a novel argument about the law.
Elizabeth Deutsch wrote hers about reproductive rights and abortion.
Specifically, she argued that Obamacare's non-discrimination provision should be interpreted to *force* Catholic hospitals to perform "emergency abortions."
Aggressive argument - and hey, law students make aggressive arguments.
While in law school she wrote a NYT op-ed about reproductive rights. Sensing a theme here.
Her career page on LinkedIn doesn't reveal that much...until we start digging a little further.
First, thanks to her NYT wedding announcement (of course), we know that she clerked for judge Nina Pillard.
Pillard was one of the DC Circuit judges appointed by Obama and forced through by Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster.
She's stridently pro-choice. Perhaps not shocking.
After her clerkships, she got a Gruber fellowship at the ACLU for a full year.
What was she working on?
You guessed it. Abortion and reproductive rights.
But none of this proves anything. Yes, Deutsch's career seems pretty focused on abortion. But without some connection to Josh Gerstein (the journalist who received the leak opinion) there would be no reason to suspect her.
Isaac Arnsdorf just got hired by the Washington Post as a national political reporter. (Of course he's on the Trump beat).
But where has he written in the past?
Oh, look. He wrote for POLITICO.
SHARING A BYLINE WITH JOSH GERSTEIN.
Looks like Gerstein and they are still bros - chatting on Twitter, interacting as recently as last year.
So, to conclude:
We have a currently-serving Supreme Court law clerk whose career has been almost solely focused on abortion.
She wrote her law school note on abortion.
She wrote op-eds about reproductive rights.
She spent a year working on abortion for the ACLU.
She clerked for a stridently pro-choice appellate judge.
And it just so happens that her husband is a journalist, who shared bylines with Josh Gerstein at Politico, and it looks like they are still buds.
I don't know that Elizabeth Deutsch leaked the draft opinion.
But I certainly think someone who has spent much of their academic and professional life fighting to expand the right to get an abortion could be desperate enough to do so.
FIN
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the indictments of James Comey and Letitia James on the grounds that Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed as US Attorney.
She got it wrong, quite clearly, and will almost certainly be reversed.
Here's the relevant statute. The provision authorizing AG Bondi to appoint Lindsey Halligan to a 120-day term as interim US Attorney is subsection (a). The grant of authority is broad; if "the district in which [an] office of United States Attorney is vacant," Bondi can make an appointment, with the ONLY specified exception being subsection (b). That subsection prohibits Bondi from appointing someone who has been voted down by the Senate.
Comey argued, and Judge Currie agreed (both wrongly) that subsection (d) overrides this, by saying that "if an appointment expires...the district court...may appoint a United States attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled." That's a *concurrent* authority. If it were an *exclusive* authority (meaning Bondi had no right to make consecutive appointments), it would have been mentioned as an exception to her authority in subsection (a).
Judge Currie should have been aware of all these points. This is from the introduction of DOJ's response to Comey's motion to dismiss. In a single page it explains why Halligan was clearly appointed properly, and why Comey should have lost his motion.
Yesterday, Rep. Cory Mills (@RepMillsPress) voted against censuring Ilhan Omar for suggesting Charlie Kirk was to blame for his own murder.
Rep. Mills must resign. He has a conflict of interest and cannot represent his constituents faithfully.
A thread.
Ilhan Omar is loathed by Republican voters, and her comments about Charlie were beyond the pale. This should have been straightforward.
But Rep. Mills claimed that First Amendment concerns guided his vote - and implied that Charlie himself would agree.
One doubts that this is Rep. Mills' actual rationale. For one, Nancy Mace claims that he threatened her over text last night. (Rep. Mace authored the censure resolution against Omar.) Hard to imagine he cares about Ilhan Omar *that much*. So what's really going on here?
With Kilmar Abrego Garcia back in the news, we are already seeing a mountain of bull coming from lefty immigration advocates.
Let's go back into the weeds a bit, and go through some of the falsehoods put into the press by his lawyers and agitators.
🧵
First, there were claims that Abrego Garcia had legal status in the United States. These were always false. Abrego Garcia only had withholding of removal to El Salvador. He is an illegal alien whose asylum claim was denied.
Second, there were (and are) claims that there is no evidence that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13. This is false. There is substantial evidence that he was a member, as I demonstrated in this thread.
Under @RepMariaSalazar's bill, the wife-beating illegal alien MS-13 gang banging human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia could be granted citizenship by a future Democrat administration, with no further changes to American law.
A thread with citations explaining how.
Let's start with the basics of his admissibility. Abrego Garcia entered the United States in 2011 at the age of 16.
That makes him eligible for the Dreamer program under the bill. It doesn't matter that he came on his own volition.
At this point, you might note that he hasn't been continuously present in the United States because he was removed to El Salvador.
Lucky for Kilmar, there's an exception to the continuous presence requirement if you were previously removed.
Let's tell YET ANOTHER story about Kilmar Abrego-Garcia and his alleged membership in MS-13 - and his lawyer playing fast and loose with the facts.
In last night's thread, I explained how Abrego-Garcia's lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, underplayed the evidence that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 contained in the Gang Field Interview Sheet (GFIS).
One of the key parts of the GFIS was the assertion of a confidential informant that Abrego-Garcia was a member of the "Westerns clique" of MS-13, including his rank and moniker. This would be pretty definitive, if true.
How did Sandoval-Moshenberg deal with this in his complaint? Well, he asserted, without equivocation, that the Westerns Clique of MS-13 "operates in Brentwood Long Island, in New York, a state that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia has never lived in."
If true, that would be pretty devastating to the credibility of the confidential informant! And indeed, both Judge Thacker's 4th Circuit opinion and Judge Xinis' district court opinion cite this specific point to discredit the evidence that Abrego-Garcia is in MS-13.
Given how fast and loose Sandoval-Moshenberg played with the GFIS, I decided to try and find the basis for his claim that the DOJ said the Westerns Clique only operates in New York.
When you search "Western Clique" on DOJ's website, all that comes up is one particular MS-13 double murder. But there's no claim by DOJ here that the Western Clique only operates in Long Island - it just says that two particular members of the Western Clique were murdered in Long Island.