Ryan Goodman Profile picture
Aug 28, 2023 14 tweets 6 min read Read on X
What a high risk gamble.

Mark Meadows takes the stand to support his motion to move Fulton County case to federal court.

Even this statement alone gets him into deeper trouble for involvement in the alleged conspiracy.👇
2. Mark Meadows testifies: "In my role as Chief of Staff, I recommended that the president reach out to Ms. Watson" (via @CNN report).

In his own words, that is an incriminating admission that he recommended Trump make the call to Watson that is part of the alleged conspiracy.👇 Image
3. More trouble for Meadows.

He admits he "had no reason to doubt Mr. Barr's" assessment that the fraud allegations were meritless.

Meadows adds that he believed at the time “further investigation” was still warranted. That's not enough to help him.

cnn.com/politics/live-…
4. I have long said Meadows in some respects has even more criminal exposure than Trump.

That's because Meadows confided in people he knew the election was lost.

Now he has admitted in testimony he had no reason to doubt Barr's assessment.
5. CNN's great reporting on Meadows testimony is by @jeremyherb @MarshallCohen @kpolantz @jasonmorris @JMOCNN

Live updates here:
cnn.com/politics/live-…
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.👇

washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/…
Image
8. Yet another problem for Meadows.

He says call he set up with Trump-Raffensperger was Trump hoping to figure out "a less-litigious way of resolving" concerns.

Prosecutors: That's Campaign litigation. Why are you as Chief of Staff directly involved?

cnn.com/politics/live-…
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.👇

I think he is toast tbh.

cnn.com/politics/live-…
Image
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.
Image
Image
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." Image
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.
Image
Image
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."

via @MLevineReports @wsteaks
abcnews.go.com/US/live-update…
Image
14. "As chief of staff, no I did not coordinate those efforts."

Reflect on that.

"As chief of staff," he didn't. Indeed, it was not within a chief of staff's official authority.

"I did not coordinate:" Okay, then what would you call what you did do?

Select committee report.👇 Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

Ryan Goodman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rgoodlaw

Oct 6
What was the real message at Quantico?

Janine Davidson (former Undersecretary of Navy and former Chair of Defense Policy Board) discusses:

The domestic paradigm shift in President Trump's addressing Active Duty military leaders with National Guard Adjunct Generals excluded.
🧵 Image
2/3 source:

Trump’s Outline of a Domestic War - The real message from Quantico
justsecurity.org/121940/trumps-…
3/3 audio version via Just Security's Out Loud series

buzzsprout.com/2509956/episod…
Read 4 tweets
Oct 6
Judge Immergut in Oregon v Trump now:

"I grant plaintiffs second motion for a TRO."

Federalized Texas and California Guard to Portland is a "DIRECT CONTRAVENTION" of court's TRO from Saturday.

Both on 12406 statute and Tenth Amendment grounds.
2/ Your reminder that Judge Immergut was appointed to the bench by President Trump.
3/ The new Temporary Restraining Order bars the deployment by the Trump administration of any federalized National Guard -- eg California or Texas National Guard -- in Portland.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 2
“This is not stretching the envelope,” Geoffrey Corn said. “This is shredding it."

On Administration's confidential note to Congress

Completely right

Drug cartels not = "armed conflict"
People killed are civilians

Corn is retired JAG, Army's former law-of-war senior adviser Image
2/ source:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told

A notice calls the people the U.S. military recently killed on suspicion of drug smuggling “unlawful combatants.”

By @charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT
nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/…
@charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT 3/ "The administration has also stressed that about 100,000 Americans annually die from overdoses.

However, the focus of the ..attacks has been boats from Venezuela. The surge of overdose deaths...has been driven by fentanyl that drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico" Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 25
Comey's testimony in 2020

On left:

In hearing, Senator Cruz erroneously claimed McCabe had said Comey "directly authorized" leak to press. Comey denied that.

On right:

McCabe did not say Comey authorized the leak (source: Inspector General Report, on which Cruz relies) Image
Image
2/ Grassley's question to Comey in 2017 focused on authorization.

(In 2020, Comey testified that he stands by his 2017 testimony.)

So, Comey should be able to stand on that as being truthful and consistent with McCabe's account.

Grassley: "have you ever authorized..."⤵️ Image
3/ Also note the discrepancy in Cruz's letter to DOJ making criminal referral.

On left:

At hearing, Cruz asked Comey whether he was aware AND authorized the leak

On right:

Cruz letter to DOJ falsely frames it as Comey testifying he NEITHER was aware NOR authorized the leak. Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 15
With terrific team, I just published large study looking at all court cases involving the Trump administration.

Shows basis for courts no longer giving a so-called "presumption of regularity" (a legal doctrine involving a strong benefit of the doubt) to the administration.
🧵 Image
2/ source

The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…
3/ We document over 15 cases in which judges have explicitly found the administration violated a court order.

Below are some of the very-strong statements by judges.
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…Image
Read 5 tweets
Sep 3
1/ I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat.

Hard to see how this would not be "murder" or war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.

Read this expert analysis⤵️ Image
2/ The author of the expert analysis worked at the State Department under several administrations with these types of use of force issues as his portfolio.

justsecurity.org/119982/legal-i…
3/ The best line of argument for the administration might be that the law of armed conflict somehow applies.

But if so (and it doesn't), that means the US War Crimes Act applies too, including the prohibition on murder.

Finucane spells out that implication here: Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(