There is not an Attorney General of either party who would not have brought today’s charges against the former president.
He has dared, taunted, provoked, and goaded DOJ to prosecute him from the moment it was learned that he had taken these national security documents.
On any given day for the past 18 months — doubtless up to and including the day before the indictment was returned — the former president could have avoided and prevented this prosecution. He would never have been indicted for taking these documents.
But for whatever reason, he decided that he would rather be indicted and prosecuted.
After a year and a half, he finally succeeded in forcing Jack Smith’s appropriately reluctant hand, having left the Department no choice but to bring these charges lest the former president make a mockery of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today, the North Carolina Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Moore v. Harper that the state’s constitution forbids excessive partisan gerrymandering. Moore v. Harper, pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, remains ripe for decision by the Supreme Court.
The North Carolina Supreme Court did not disturb its holding in Moore v. Harper with respect to the “independent state legislature” theory.
The court reaffirmed that the state legislature exercises its redistricting authority “subject to the express limitations in [the North Carolina] constitution." To hold otherwise, said the court,
The Divided Community Project of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and Mershon Center for International Security Studies recently published "Speaking Out to Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy."
"Speaking Out to Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy" is a "how to" guide for shoring up and reinforcing the bulwark of America's faltering democracy.
All of us concerned about American democracy should commit this practical guide to memory and "speak out" in support and defense of our democracy in the weeks and months ahead. This is terrific, moritzlaw.osu.edu. Thank you!
Forced to think about this for the first time today, time will tell whether Mr. Musk, in his calculation to require payment for the privilege of posting content on Twitter, underestimated the utter indispensability to the Twitter platform of the verified accounts
of the "notable" individuals, media, journalists, reporters, organizations, institutions, celebrities, and other meaningful content providers, on the one hand,
and overestimated the willingness of these critical account holders to Twitter's success to pay the hefty fees they now must pay, on the other.
This video clip by @LineintheStreet is a perfect visual explanation of the otherwise impenetrable issue before the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper and its fundamental importance to America's democracy.
The U.S. Constitution assumes and contemplates that state legislatures will engage in partisan gerrymandering whenever possible.
The Supreme Court has held that such partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures is of no concern under the U.S. Constitution, except in the limited circumstances where such gerrymandering violates the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission to plan the commemoration and celebration of the 250th anniversary of our country’s founding in 2026 apparently epitomizes all that our Founders feared about government.
The President and Congress need to get control over this important Commission today. With our Semiquincentennial only three years hence, it's already too late. The Commission has squandered six years and millions of taxpayer dollars with little, if anything, to show for it
and six years later and three years before the commemoration and celebration, the Commission is mired in controversy and paralyzed.
The Solicitor General has filed the views of the United States in Moore v. Harper (Harper I) on the question whether there is a “final judgment” before the Supreme Court, in light of the NC SC’s grant of rehearing in Harper II.
I don’t recall a brief by the Solicitor General so ill-reasoned and confused, so convoluted and obtuse.
All toward the end of telling the Supreme Court that the Solicitor General of the United States “is not aware of any of the Court’s 'final judgment' precedents addressing" what the SG says are the “unusual” circumstances of Moore.