WaPo still seems unaware that DOJ confirmed it had found 3 classified docs in a desk drawer in Trump's office, including one "compiled" with docs that post-date Trump's WH departure. That's been public for 6 months.
This WaPo story (as an earlier one) likes to imply this is an obstruction investigation. It reads "obstruction obstruction obstruction mishandling obstruction obstruction obstruction obstruction."
This is another instance where WaPo is struggling to describe Espionage Act evidence as obstruction evidence.
Showing people not cleared to see docs is a more serious violation of 18 USC 793(e).
And that's if they're nice Americans who love their country.
Here's a detail that really important for weedy reasons. Calamaris were interviewed abt gaps in surveillance footage. We can now be sure (we already were, but whatev) that those gaps don't include June 2.
I've proposed the gaps may hide something more serious than obstruction.
Maybe the gap in the surveillance footage is from this "dress rehearsal."
That might explain why it would show up in a court opinion.
But THAT might explain why DOJ asked for the business records.
This, tho, is the most intriguing bit in the story.
Fresh off creating subpoena compliance theater, Nauta loaded up the SUV where Trump was hosting [bum bum BUM] the Saudis.
Remember: Boris Epshtyen tried to obstruct the Bedminster search.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Barry Loudermilk, page 18: Liz Cheney had too much authority.
@RepLoudermilk, page 12: @Liz_Cheney didn't have enough authority.
Loudermilk relied on Trump's Truth Social posts, rather than sworn testimony. I guess @RepLoudermilk is so stupid he believes everything Trump says on Truth Social?
A big part of @RepLoudermilk's attack on Cheney amounts to insinuation that @realJodyHunt acted unethically, which seems like something he might want to avoid.
Note that, contrary to common myths about the investigation into Trump, this subpoena PRECEDED Cassidy Hutchison's public testimony (and even Greg Jacob's, by a day).
The precedents were all set before Jack Smith was appointed.
Here's an interesting, almost entirely argument that bears on the immunity case. Trump was invoking Executive Privilege but (as Howell laid out) he was having such convos w/people outside of Exec, like Rudy.
Howell ordered second batch of witnesses to testify on November 19. Trump asked for a stay on December 7. In the interim, witnesses testified. That almost certainly means they are 2 Pats & likely Eric Herschmann (which is consistent w/public timeline).
Liz Cheney, Maria Shriver, and Kamala Harris sitting on a stage talking about bipartisanship.
One dynamic of this I've been tracking is this: Harris SHOULD NOT be talking nitty gritty abt Jan6 bc of the prosecution. Well, Cheney is the expert. And she speaks it well.
As she did, guy in back was nodding over and over.
Cheney: In this election, we need to elect the responsible adult.
We learned last week (from the NYT, among others!) that Trump is bypassing transition laws, meaning he--and his sons, the Saudi business partners and transition team members--could just get payments from the Saudis all the way until inauguration.
This is a legit question. First, gap arises from delays that were inevitable w/president and first attempt to prosecute one. That took 21 months at least.
Also, it's POSSIBLE Smith is avoiding indicting anyone else until he's sure Trump can't pardon them.
There are VERY subtle suggestions in the immunity filing that several people started cooperating after being exposed in state cases. But Mueller investigation is testament to why you can't cooperate your way up to Trump.
Or let me sum up delay better: 1) Trump conspired through lawyers. Each lawyer's phone/email took 9 months of privilege review. 2) Trump hid behind exec privilege: That took 10 months. 3) Immunity Q had to be decided. That has taken a year, so far.