1. I've been pondering the disclosure that several members of Congress requested #pardons for their participation in the attempted coup. Specifically I've wondered where the Committee got the evidence. There were reports that #45 was not operating through the DOJ Pardon Attorney.
2. I presumed at the time of those reports it was because the #45 White House was engaged in #PardonsForSale and I expect that they would try to control the evidence being generated by their criminal conspiracy. But somehow the Committee has obtained evidence of Congressional
3. pardon requests. Perhaps the team, apparently led by #JaredKushner, who were selling pardons wanted to distance themselves from coup plotters. So rather than handling the requests in-house they simply referred them to Office of the Pardon Attorney at DOJ. That office has a
4. process for handing pardons that would generate documents that under federal law would have to be preserved. Could that be the source of the Committee's proof? And if the process even remotely followed the process that is currently being applied, the application makes the
5. petitioner disclose the crimes they committed. The @JoeBiden DOJ has returned to the practice under @BarackObama DOJ that requires five years after the completion of sentence to be able to apply for a pardon. I recall that under Obama it was seven years. There appears no
6. form or process to obtain a preemptive pardon pre-conviction. But if the Congressional petitioners were put in some cue to clear them from the Kushner pardon-sale conspiracy, they may have been required to articulate the crime that they believe they committed. If that is so,
7. then the @January6thCmte may have possession of what amounts to a treasure-trove of of @HouseGOP & @SenateGOP confessions. All of them admissible in court as admissions of a criminal defendant made under penalty of law.
Just in time for the mid-terms. 😎
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Patriot Front: At the start of the video, the voice says something about the feds. 8:50 I think officer says "conspiracy to riot" and may have mentioned an informant.
2. Informant usually means an ongoing investigation and the crossing of state lines with weapons to riot is and an FBI matter. The voice is saying he thinks the plain clothes guy in the shot at about 10:30 is a federal officer.
3. I don't think I've ever seen a slower mass arrest. Looks like 25+ arrested and only one officer processing. I guess in the time of video the need to do everything as a future trial exhibit makes it necessary. If I had to cast the guy he thinks is a federal officer I would cast
1. I reported in 2017 that I believed the evidence was pointing towards Mike Flynn being involved in a scheme to use Russian and other nations' spent nuclear fuel in a series of nuclear reactors in the Mid East. I believe it's likely both Flynn and Manafort's pardons refer to
2. this conspiracy. Today's reporting that retired four start John Allen has been a target of an FBI seizure related to his failure to register as a foreign agent for efforts he undertook after retirement formerly commanding high-level anti-terrorist forces may be evidence that
3. the conspiracy that I spotted in 2017 is about to be exposed. We are right at the five year statute for some of the underlying offenses. It's worth remembering that Flynn's conduct in January 2017 that put him on the radar was his undisclosed foreign agent work for Turkey.
1. I would be interested in knowing how many Fed Firearms License holders have committed acts of gun violence? I'm not a gun enthusiast but I try to keep current on issues mostly related to conflict reporting and watch YouTube about new weapons. The people in that space
2. are generally people who possess full automatic weapons but do so legally under the NFA. It's a very long and complicated process that requires fingerprints and an interview. atf.gov/firearms/apply…
3. If I was going to hold a hearing on gun control, I might include FFL holders. I think this group is actually proof that gun regulation not only works but gives the sporting enthusiasts more freedom to engage in their chosen past-time. The problem is putting guns in the hands
1. A couple of thoughts on the Proud Boys Third Superseding Indictment. It describes a document circulated that was entitled "1976 Returns." Here is a March 14th NYT article that discusses it. The allegations appear focused on this document as
2. the proof of the criminal purpose of the conspiracy. Here is where it appears in the 3rd Superseding Indictment. Not clear who drafted it and whether it was adopted by other groups and therefore evidence of their agreement, but I feel this document may be the key to proving
3. the agreement element of the seditious conspiracy. It's my understanding that the government seeks a written exhibit to use to prove agreement rather than piece one together from oral statements and actions. I think this is likely to be the key to charging other
1. I look for little signs in a war especially one as complex as the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. The Russian air defense systems and air force have been a factor that, on balance, has favored the aggressor. But yesterday Ukraine conducted air strikes in the
2. Kherson battle space. Remote from Russian SAMS and able to get in and out before Russia's air force can react, this is a very positive sign. And if they do get hit, the crew has good chance to bail out over Ukrainian held territory.
3. I hope we are able to supply the Ukrainians with our advanced weapons to make their attacks as successful as possible. I know @Textron has cut production but would think that any stocks of CBU-97 or CBU-105 would be useful against Russian armored force concentrations. @WHNSC
1. I looked at the three cases of House contempt referrals for Meadows, Scavino and Navarro and can identify one difference that may have influenced the decision to not bring a criminal charges in the Meadows and Scavino cases but bring them in Navarro's case.
2. Simply, #45 asserted Executive Privilege with both Meadows and Scavino and did not assert it in Navarro's case. I note that this does not take into account the validity of that assertion but simply that it was made in the two cased where prosecution was declined.
3. The DOJ has often acted in ways that run counter to public opinion on things related to #45 that may have a long-term impact on the functioning of the separate branches. I also think that both Scavino and Meadows may be teed up for a different level of hell.