Things I learned working as an Assistant US Attorney prosecuting violent crime in St Louis, America’s murder capital:
1/11
Police officers in dangerous cities deal with challenges that the rest of us can only imagine.
A detective I worked with missed taking a bullet to his head by literally an inch.
Every stop, every interaction can turn deadly in an instant.
2/11
Would you chase an armed bad guy (or two or three) down a dark alley in the middle of the night with no backup?
Would you run through a door knowing that someone could be waiting to shoot you on the other side?
Police officers do regularly.
3/11
I’ve seen officers assaulted for no reason, had guns drawn on them, had calm situations blow up in an instant.
Society should be on bended knee that, after all the criticism they’ve taken over the last few years, police officers are still out there keeping us safe.
4/11
Fentanyl is killing far more people even than is being reported. There is no heroin left in St Louis. It’s all fentanyl, and it’s all deadly. And dealers are regularly lacing cocaine and other drugs with the stuff
We need to close the border, and we need to confront China.
5/11
Have you taken ecstasy recently? Guess again. It was meth. There is no ecstasy anymore. It’s all just meth cut with other stuff.
Meth destroys lives. It used to be cooked in small batches. Now it’s trucked in by the ton from megalabs in Mexico.
Close the border now.
6/11
Prisons are not full of “nonviolent drug offenders.”
The drug trade is totally suffused with violence and threats of violence. Violence is a necessary tool of the drug trade.
And selling fentanyl is violence in and of itself. It’s monetizing someone’s deadly addiction.
7/11
If you’re getting a long sentence in this day and age, it’s very, very likely for one of three reasons:
A) violent crime
B) you moved a lot of drugs
C) you’re a career offender with an extensive criminal history.
Nobody is serving 20 just for selling dime bags of weed.
8/11
Which leads to my next point:
Crime is highly Pareto efficient—a very small number of criminals commit almost all the crime, especially violent crime.
Each shooter you take off the streets, each dealer, each thug means likely dozens of fewer felony offenses per year.
9/11
Police, prosecutors, and the courts all need to be working effectively to beat back crime
If your police aren’t making quality arrests—failure
If your prosecutors are blowing cases—failure
If your judges are bonding out and then giving soft sentences to killers—failure
10/11
I could go on in this vein for a while. I’m incredibly grateful to have had the opportunity to work in an outstanding US Attorney’s Office, and to support the efforts of truly outstanding law enforcement officers.
Go thank a cop. Seriously.
Any questions?
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The complaint by the Center for American Rights clearly lays out how CBS has broken the law:
Through their editing process, they effectively transformed Kamala’s answer into a totally different answer.
Under FCC and legal precedent, that constitutes illegal news distortion.
Center for American Rights has a very simple demand:
The American people have a right to know what Kamala’s actual answers were to the questions she was asked by CBS — so CBS should release the full, unedited transcript of its interview.
BREAKING: President Trump files motion to dismiss D.C. case
A short while ago in federal court in Washington, D.C., President Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case pending against him there for his alleged actions in the aftermath of the 2020 elections. The motion cites presidential immunity as a ground to dismiss the case in its entirety. This is a very big deal.
The motion persuasively argues that the D.C. case should be dismissed, and if past practice is any guide all proceedings could and should be stayed while this issue is litigated fully. Notably, this same reasoning should apply to the ongoing Georgia prosecution as well.
A number of legal commentators have anticipated this move, and in this thread I’m going to get into the weeds and review the core argument made—that presidential immunity is an absolute bar to the prosecution of President Trump for his alleged acts in office that underlie the federal prosecution in D.C.
1/6
(A) Presidential Immunity
At its heart, President Trump is arguing that presidents, even after their terms in office are over, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions arising out of their acts in office that fall within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities as president, unless they have first been both impeached and convicted by the House of Representatives and Senate. And he’s arguing that all of the acts he is alleged to have committed fall within this absolute immunity.
This view, as the motion filed today makes clear, is deeply rooted in bedrock legal principles, in caselaw, in the Constitution, and in actual practice dating back centuries.
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from civil liability for acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibilities. In short, you cannot sue a former president personally because his official acts harmed you. This is unquestioned Supreme Court precedent, based on very serious, core separation of powers concerns. If a president were susceptible to civil suit for his official acts, the Court held that this would “raise unique risks to the functioning of government” in light of the “singular importance of the President’s duties.” The purpose of presidential immunity, the Fitzgerald Court’s view, is to prevent concerns about being sued clouding the president’s judgment and crippling his ability to act—presidents need to be able to discharge their duties to the best of their abilities without having to worry about being haled into court when their terms expire.
This well-established immunity doctrine has never been tested in the criminal context, for the simple reason that no president has been subjected to the sort of relentless prosecutions that President Trump has now been faced with, but the motion persuasively argues that the reasoning in Fitzgerald should still apply.
2/6
(B) Impeachment Clause
This view is also rooted in the actual text of the Constitution. The Impeachment Clause of Article I provides that, although impeachment proceedings do not themselves carry a punishment beyond removal from office, a party convicted after impeachment "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
By specifying that a president impeached and convicted could be subject to indictment, etc., the Constitution plainly and clearly implies that absent impeachment and conviction a president cannot be criminally prosecuted for his official acts.
Democrats impeached President Trump twice, and on both occasions the Senate acquitted him. Absent a conviction at an impeachment trial, presidential immunity applies to all of President Trump’s acts that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and for these acts at least he cannot be prosecuted.
3/6
I am a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, worked on two Supreme Court confirmations, and clerked for two federal appellate judges.
The indictment and case against President Trump is outrageous and shocking.
But let’s get into the details.
Here are my 6 key points on the case:
(1) Interplay between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act
A lot of my friends have spoken insightfully about the scope of the Presidential Records Act. I’d direct you to Mike Davis’s (@mrddmia) commentary on the subject, and also Michael Bekesha of… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
(2) Classification and National Defense Information
I want to reiterate this point because it’s really important:
Just because something is classified—even Top Secret, SCI, NOFORN, FISA, pick your alphabet soup—does not mean that it is National Defense Information (NDI) within… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
He's going to lose, and it's not going to be close.
Missourians are going to stand behind Josh Hawley.
But let's dig a little deeper on Wesley.
The receipts are telling.
1/8
Bell was first elected as St. Louis County prosecutor in 2018, unseating Bob McCulloch, whose offense in the eyes of the woke left seems to have been prosecuting violent criminals and supporting the police.
Bell was supported by some of the most radical leftists in America.
2/8
Bell took $57,500 from Real Justice PAC.
That PAC was funded largely by Cari Tuna, the radical leftist wife of Facebook founder Dustin Moskovitz. Tuna and Moskovitz have contributed tens of millions to radical left wing causes.