6."On several occasions, Mark Meadows claimed to have no knowledge of the Trump campaign’s efforts to contest the election results" (via @AmyEGardner)
a) Shows prosecutors what cards he'll play
b) If prosecutors can show he's lying, he's in deeper trouble washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/…
@AmyEGardner 7. Here's the more full report by @AmyEGardner on Mark Meadows' - in testimony - denying knowledge of various Trump Campaign efforts to contest election results in Georgia and Pennsylvania.👇
9. Meadows who has testified he was the gatekeeper now says he can't recall details of arranging for Cleta Mitchell and two other Trump Campaign lawyers to be on the Raffensperger call.👇
10. Note the DA subpoenaed both Trump Campaign lawyers who were on that Trump-Raffensperger call for today's hearing, Kurt Hilbert and Alex Kaufman.
11. This claim by Meadows does him some good (but won't work on Raffensperger call in which he actively participated).
"He said he attended numerous meetings and listened in on many phone calls that were political in nature simply to end the conversations at the right time."
12.
On left:
Among most damaging evidence showing Meadows' conduct was political is Act 96 in indictment. Meadows texted GA official if they can speed up their work "if the trump campaign assist financially."
On right:
Meadows' testimony on this, riddled with problems.
13. DA saved strongest question for last: Meadows' involvement with false electors.
That has no nexus to presidential duties.
Meadows' response is perhaps telling:
"As chief of staff, no I did not coordinate those efforts."
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).