2. Jacob Glick's synthesis of the expert statements is its own wake up call.
A threat assessment for U.S. democracy with white Christian nationalism and anti-government violent extremism, and political leaders willing to exploit. Also places United States within global trends.
3. The extraordinary list of experts includes (alphabetically 1-8):
Re: Special Counsel investigation into Jan. 6th Big Lie fundraising
"The Justice Department, with its ability to bring criminal charges, has been able to prompt more extensive cooperation from a number of witnesses" compared to select committee.
I happened to speak with @ErinBurnett@OutFrontCNN on Friday about this part of the criminal case.
It potentially sweeps in several Campaign/RNC officials who, with criminal jeopardy, have reason to cooperate.
3. As discussed @CNN, this part of the criminal case is bolstered by new reporting that outside firms -- hired by Trump Campaign itself -- reported to the campaign that all the election fraud claims were bogus.
I spoke with @ErinBurnett@OutFrontCNN about potential significance of Pence testimony before grand jury.
All Pence needs to do is repeat — under oath — what’s in his book, and it’s impactful.
Here are some examples from the book (hat tip: @thomasjoscelyn’s research)…
<thread>
2. Exhibit one.
From Pence's book (and now presumably under oath):
In Jan 5 Oval Office meeting with Trump, the VP insists the Constitution does not give him authority to interfere with the certification.
Trump counters: "You want to play by Marquess of Queensberry rules."
3. Exhibit two.
From Pence's book (and now presumably under oath):
Pence tells Trump he opposed (bonkers) lawsuit by Rep. Gohmert because Pence did not believe he had constitutional authority to reject electoral votes.
Judge in Dominion case ruled against Fox's claim that it was just reporting the news.
Less well known: FEC determined the National Enquirer/AMI was not covered by "press exemption" and, by its own admissions, company violated campaign finance laws.👇
3. As an aside: that determination by Federal Election Commission nonpartisan staff is highly relevant to Manhattan DA Bragg's indictment.
It is further support for the claim that the 2016 hush-money scheme violated federal campaign finance law.
3. Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney @rroiphe:
"we used the felony falsification statute to charge people with the broader definition of intent to defraud the government (Banking laws etc) and we did not require submitting the records."
8/25/22: @AWeissmann_ predicts DA would press Weisselberg to flip by threatening new charges while in Rikers
3/29/23: @Jose_Pagliery reports DA "prosecutors in recent weeks have discussed applying additional pressure to Weisselberg" with charges while in Rikers
2. Also note, from @Jose_Pagliery reporting, that the specific charge DA prosecutors are contemplating is insurance fraud, pivoting off NY AG Complaint on Sept 21, 2022.
One person, very quickly noted a remarkable passage in the AG Complaint.
Andrew👇
3. Seven days ago, @AWeissmann_: "is DA Bragg contemplating charging Weisselberg for insurance fraud (spelled out in Letitia James civil suit) and Weisselberg may finally flip on Trump?"
"Boasberg ruled that while Pence does have some limited protections because of [Speech or Debate], the immunity does not prevent him from testifying about conversations related to alleged 'illegality' on Trump’s part."
"The judge said ... that Pence can still decline to answer questions related to HIS ACTIONS on January 6 itself, when he was serving as president of the Senate." (my emphasis added)
"Judge Boasberg also said that Mr. Pence would have to testify to the grand jury about any potentially illegal acts committed by Mr. Trump, the person familiar with the matter said."