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
Devastating first-hand witness to Alex Pretti's killing
Declaration filed in federal court:
"I don't know why they shot him. He was only helping. I was five feet from him and they just shot him."
2/ "The agents pulled the man on the ground. I didn't see him touch any of them-he wasn't even turned toward them. It didn't look like he was trying to resist, just trying to help the woman up. I didn't see him with a gun."
"I have read the statement from DHS about what happened and it is wrong. The man did not approach the agents with a gun. He approached them with a camera. He was just trying to help a woman get up and they took him to the ground."
Here's what the Justice Department actually told the Supreme Court, and how DOJ defends ICE's use of racially profiling.
Full analysis on my YouTube and Substack
🧵
2/ Shareable link to full analysis⤵️
A close look at what the DOJ left undisputed.
And how DOJ admitted to the courts that stopping racial profiling would “upend immigration enforcement efforts” in the way ICE currently carries it out.
3/ Document
U.S. Solicitor General to the Supreme Court arguing to allow racially profiling as a factor supporting ICE's "reasonable suspicion."
A time for choosing, from main street to wall street.
"This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It is not about Congress’s oversight role. .... Those are pretexts."
2/ "I have served at the Federal Reserve under four administrations, Republicans and Democrats alike. ... Public service sometimes requires standing firm in the face of threats."
3/ "I will continue to do the job the Senate confirmed me to do, with integrity and a commitment to serving the American people."
An initially-secret report for Customs and Border Patrol in 2013 found:
In many cases, the “driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby … creating justification for the use of deadly force.”
🧵
2/ I discuss this report at greater length on my YouTube channel and Substack
3/ "Applying even the OLC’s expansive view from its recent opinions to Operation Absolute Resolve, the Executive action clearly crosses the threshold for requiring congressional authorization."