1/ With due respect to National Review Editors - who've been good and strong on MAL indictment etc - this Editorial on #TrumpIndictment is very flawed.
2/ NRO gets wrong federal fraud statute, and thus wrong Supreme Court precedent.
NRO claims DOJ fraud charge must involve deprivation of money/tangible property👇
Sure, if Smith charged Trump for wire fraud (18 USC §1343)
But Smith charged Trump for defrauding US (18 USC §371)
3. On left:
Supreme Court case NRO cites - which addressed wire fraud statute §1343 (a law that includes "obtaining money or property")
On right:
Supreme Court case NRO does not cite - which addressed conspiracy to defraud §371 (and held it is NOT limited to money/property)
4. Next up.
NRO says Smith's §241 charge "bears no relation to what the statute covers" saying §241 is "designed to punish violent intimidation and forcible attacks."
Flatly wrong.
Over 100 years of Supreme Court cases and DOJ charging §241 for not counting ballots properly.👇
5. That long excerpt is from a recent article @AWeissmann_ and I wrote @just_security.
@AWeissmann_ @just_security 6. Back to NRO Editorial
On left:
NRO claims §241 is designed for violence and attacks.
On right:
Department of Justice Manual on Election Offenses - listing off exemplary §241 cases, several of which are direct match for Trump Indictment allegation of not counting ballots.
@AWeissmann_ @just_security 7. NRO asserts indictment based on "flimsy legal theories."
Opposite is true.
Federal court already held Trump-Eastman engaged in criminal conspiracy under the two main statutes. 👇
That was a civil suit.
Smith is saying he can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Which he can.
8. As former U.S. Attorney @BarbMcQuade notes 👇- her "model prosecution memo" using these same twin statutes closely matched actual #TrumpIndictment.
Her memo was also close match for J6 committee brief in that civil case and for Judge Carter's opinion.
10. I also recommend the latter model prosecution memo's section discussing, in good detail, how §371 does not require depriving victims of money or tangible property.
Including how Supreme Court and courts have interpreted §371 "for more than 100 years."
https://t.co/bBuaZPbaqCjustsecurity.org/87236/trump-on…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ A premise of SCOTUS opinion is that POTUS has "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" over the Justice Department.
This should unsettle Americans, regardless of party.
Take a gander at what that means in Chief Justice Roberts' own words.⤵️
3/ Potential effects for aggrandizement of power in executive branch.
Listen to @marty_lederman spell out potential implications for congressional legislation for DOJ (Roberts having sub rosa overruled/cast aside Morrison v. Olson, a 7-1 decision by Chief Justice Rehnquist).
2/ Report by Director of Economics at Yale's @The_Budget_Lab @ernietedeschi:
Analyzes the risk of a "‘black swan’ event outside of the realm of US experience, such as ... military intervention in domestic politics" with profound impact on US safe harbor investment premium.
@The_Budget_Lab @ernietedeschi 3/ "It is also reasonable to assume mass deportation of millions of migrants, the demolition of departments and agencies, and many other planned autocratic-leaning policies risk producing similar [black swan] results."
Breaking: Trump admitted to probation officials he has a gun in Florida
Convicted felon possessing firearm =felony
Indicted person receiving firearm in interstate commerce =felony
Condition of release for Trump in DC , FL, GA is not committing a felony cnn.com/politics/live-…
2/ Donald J. Trump condition of release in District of Columbia:
"IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's release is subject to these conditions:
The defendant must not violate federal, state, or local law while on release."
3/ Florida arraignment:
THE COURT: Subsection B requires the release to be subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state or local crime during the period of release .... I assume the Defendant, former President Trump, has no problems with that condition?
MR. BLANCHE: I assure you he does not, Your Honor.
Explaining why bill to sanction #InternationalCriminalCourt would damage US national security
“I come before you today a combat veteran, a supporter of the American Servicemembers Protection Act, a longtime supporter of Israel's security...”
2/ Congressman Crow outlines several pieces of recent congressional legislation and U.S. government support for the vital work of the International Criminal Court including on #RussianWarCrimes in Ukraine, #Darfur, Cote d’Ivoire, #Myanmar, the #DRC, and elsewhere.
3/ "The ICC’s largest funders are amongst our closest allies -- the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France, and Japan. This bill puts us at serious risk of being forced to sanction many of our closest allies and partners, including: 30 out of 31 of our NATO allies; 6 of out 9 major non-NATO allies who have obligations to the Court like Argentina, Australia, Japan, Jordan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea."