You’ve likely read many of the powerful passages from Judge Chutkan’s ruling yesterday holding that Trump enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for his acts as president. I’ll just draw attn to one more. ...
1/7bit.ly/3sZl559
To underscore the need to fulfill “our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law,” Chutkan highlights George Washington’s Farewell Address. “His decision to voluntarily leave office after two terms marked an extraordinary divergence ...”
/2
“from nearly every world leader who had preceded him, ushering in the sacred American tradition of peacefully transitioning Presidential power—a tradition that stood unbroken until January 6, 2021.” ...
/3
... Chutkan then quotes Washington’s famous “sober warning: ‘All obstructions to the execution of the laws’ ... are destructive of this fundamental principle.” (That’s what this indictment charges in a nutshell.) “Such obstructions would prove ‘fatal’ to the Republic, as ...
/4
‘cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of govt, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.’ ” ...
/5
... If anyone’s missed the point, Chutkan then spells it out: “In this case, Defendant is charged with attempting to usurp the reins of government as Washington forewarned.” She seals the point with a line from Justice Felix Frankfurter:...
/6
... “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.”
/7-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts on today’s DC Circuit ruling, affirming that police officers’ and Congress members’ civil damages suits against Trump for injuries sustained on Jan. 6 are not barred by presidential immunity—at least for now. ...
/1 bit.ly/3R2MI5j
... Formally the judges expressed no opinion on whether Trump has immunity against *criminal* cases against him—an issue not before them. Still, the ruling cannot but weaken Trump’s audacious claim that he’s immune from criminal prosecution for any & all acts as president ...
/2
... Here, police officers charge Trump with conspiring to prevent Congress from performing its duty by inciting the J6 riot. The hurdle is a 1982 SCOTUS case saying presidents are immune from damages suits for acts “within the outer perimeter” of their “official" duties.
/3
Two nights ago Trump filed 2 voluminous, overlapping motions to compel. They take us deep inside Trump’s paranoiac mind, which his attys are zealously channeling. ...
/1
... The motions are requests that the court order prosecutors to scour thru millions of pages of docs throughout every corner of the federal govt—DOD, CIA, DHS—looking for nuggets that might help his case, at least when viewed thru the funhouse mirror of advocacy. ...
/2
... Some requests appear to run far afield. Trump wants vast documentation relating to the SUNBURST hack of SolarWinds software, whether or not Trump was even aware of it during the relevant time period. ...
/3
Voters seeking to keep Trump off Colo ballot as an insurrectionist filed a 67-page appeal to the Colo supreme court last night. As you recall, the judge found Trump *did* engage in insurrection but that presidents weren't covered by § 3 of 14th Am.
/1bit.ly/47nTiui
Interestingly, altho Trump won the case below, his attys actually beat the petitioners' to the supreme court in seeking review of the ruling. They want to review the "multiple grave jurisdictional & legal errors" they see in the judge's ruling ...
I should say, Trump's filing above seeks opportunity for extended briefing—a 19K-word brief—& is not their appellate brief itself. They want to raise 11 issues on appeal. Below is my own simplified summary of some of the key contested issues Judge Wallace ruled on:
/3
Some notes on today’s D.C. Circuit arguments on Judge Chutkan’s limited gag order in the DC case. My highly subjective read is that the panel will narrow the order further, and tweak its language, but approve it in some form. ...
/1
Many observers had expressed concern over the vagueness of Chutkan’s use of the word “target” in her original order (below). Judge Nina Pillard (an Obama appointee) proposed substituting the words “comment about a witness because of witness’s participation in trial.” ...
/2
Assistant special counsel Cecil VanDevander said he had no problem with Pillard’s proposed language. Trump’s appellate lawyer, D. John Sauer, said it would be “equally bad” as the original phrase and “trade one vagueness problem for another.” ...
/3
Yesterday a Mich. judge denied 2 suits seeking to keep Trump off the ballot as an insurrectionist. Formally, judge only denied efforts to keep Trump off the primary ballot, but he wrote a lengthy opinion that would bar keeping Trump off the general, too./1 bit.ly/3spLFo0
At first, the ruling is similar to the recent MN supreme court ruling: Political parties get to decide who to put on the primary ballot, even if ineligible. Since winner of primary might not be the party’s ultimate candidate, general election challenges are not yet “ripe.” ...
/2
... But then Judge James Redford goes on to opine broadly that judges should never rule on the ultimate question under § 3 of the 14th amendment—was Trump an insurrectionist? —because that's a “nonjusticiable political question” left to Congress. ...
/3
8 days ago Trump’s attys conveyed to Judge Chutkan, thru prosecutors, that Trump took “no position” on whether DC trial should be televised (below). Last night his attys spun 180° & demanded that his trial be televised while spewing a fire hose of attacks at prosecutors ...
/1
... The filing is so extreme that one wonders if it is intended to achieve the opposite of the relief it nominally seeks. It tends to reinforce the rationale behind existing rules *against* cameras by showing the circus that a trial could become. ...
/2bit.ly/47tGSk5
Trump's filing makes 0 references to pertinent rules or cases. Instead, he levels 14 attacks on Biden for politically prosecuting him, with 3 references to “show trials,” 3 to “political trials,” & 1 to a trial bearing “all the ... badges of ... an authoritarian regime.” ...
/3