3. As for Meadows's criminal liability for false electors scheme.
Week of November 18:
Meadows gets "a spreadsheet that the Trump Campaign had compiled. It listed contact information for nearly all of the 79 GOP nominees" who could serve as false electors (#January6thReport).
4 What did Meadows do with spreadsheet?
Ans: Got himself in legal trouble
Cassidy Hutchinson:
"confirmed Meadows’s significant involvement in the plan"
"Meadows followed the progress of the fake elector effort closely"
"frequently having calls, meetings, and outreach"
"Dozens”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As I discussed with @ErinBurnett@OutFrontCNN, it’s 100% a crime if Trump-affiliated lawyer Mr. Passantino said to Cassidy Hutchinson what she testified.
= suborning perjury
Only question is if DOJ could prove it.
As discussed, looks like significant proof at hand…
<thread>
2. Evidence
Hutchinson _contemporaneously_ confided in a friend about what Passantino was telling her to do.
Hutchinson _contemporaneously_ confided in former Trump WH official @Alyssafarah and former Republican Congresswoman @BarbaraComstock obtaining their assistance to address what Passantino was telling her to do.
Individuals involved in obstructing J6 investigation: Many.
Tony Ornato needs a very good defense attorney.👇
2. "Again, as with Section 1512(c), the conspiracy under Section 371 appears to have also included other individuals such as Chesebro, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mark Meadows, but this Committee does not attempt to determine all of the participants of the conspiracy..."
3. “Others working with Eastman likely share in Eastman’s culpability. For example, Kenneth Chesebro was a central player in the scheme to submit fake electors ...”
With news that the #January6th Sub-committee has proposed criminal referral of Trump for, among other statutes, 18 USC 2383 (assisting an Insurrection) (@kyledcheney@nicholaswu12 reporting)
Read this expert analysis of why that statute might best fit.
“Among the charges that subcommittee proposes for Trump: 18 U.S.C. 2383 Insurrection; 18 U.S.C. 1512(c) obstruction of an official proceeding; and 18 U.S.C. 371 Conspiracy to defraud the United States government.” politico.com/news/2022/12/1…
3. Plus a second article by same criminal law expert @UChicagoLaw’s Al Alschuler:
2. "One of the key areas of disagreement centers on the Trump legal team’s repeated refusal to designate a custodian of records to sign a document attesting that all classified materials have been returned."
2. "Its presence there indicates Mar-a-Lago was not the only place where Trump kept classified material."
"The unit was needed to store items that had been held at an office in Northern Virginia used by Trump staffers in the months just after he left office."
3. Reminder that since at least early October, one of the reasonable new attorneys on the case, Christopher Kise, advised setting up this kind of firm to search for such documents.👇
2. "The authors have decades of experience as federal prosecutors and defense lawyers, as well as other legal expertise. Based upon this experience and the analysis that follows, we conclude that there is a strong basis to charge Trump."
Key: Tables of DOJ precent.
3. What do ALL these past Espionage Act prosecutions tell us?
"The DOJ precedent indicates that to decline to bring a case against Trump would be treating Trump far more favorably than other defendants, which would be antithetical to the rule of law and the ... Justice Manual."