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
Hard for USGs to claim ‘mistake of law’ or ‘advice of counsel’ – when they’re firing lawyers who wouldn't sign off on the strikes.
WaPo's new revelations on firing/removal:
CIA General Counsel
NSC Legal Adviser
CIA Mission Center’s lawyer
🧵
2/ CIA Acting General Counsel, career lawyer, "was among those who had raised questions about the legality of the agency’s use of lethal force."
What happened next?
CIA Deputy Director Ellis took over as acting GC and still held his policy position. He then approved the ops.
3/ The National Security Counsel's Legal Adviser Paul Ney (who earlier served loyally as Trump 1.0 Pentagon General Counsel) "had been among the lawyers who had raised concerns about the legality of lethal strikes."
Boat strikes put U.S. service members in legal jeopardy:
"Some junior officers have asked military lawyers, known as judge advocates general or JAGs, for written sign-off before taking part in strikes .... It does not appear that such memos were furnished."
2/ "Career military and civilian lawyers in the Defense Department and lawyers at other agencies who might otherwise be involved in the deliberations have left government or been excluded from the discussions."
3/ "Lawyers at the NSC, State Department, Justice Department and the Pentagon earlier this year questioned the legal basis for military strikes on cartels without authorization from Congress, and for a while were able to forestall action."
It’s important to understand why DOJ indictment of John Bolton seems very different than Letitia James and Jim Comey indictments.
1. Biden administration opened the criminal investigation of John Bolton in 2022. It's been detailed investigative work ever since.
CNN⤵️
🧵
2. Yes, the Biden DOJ did not indict Bolton. But they also did not close the investigation.
Plus CNN reports: “Unlike prosecutions brought against Comey and James, the Bolton case has maintained the support of career prosecutors and investigators.”
3. The Bolton Indictment is signed by career prosecutors (unlike James and Comey indictments).