1/Senators John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, and Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, cosponsored S. 3250, “An Act to provide remote access to court proceedings for victims of the 1988 Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.”
2/ S. 3250 was introduced in the Senate on 11/8/23 & passed by unanimous consent on 12/6. It cleared the House Thursday. Now it just needs President Biden’s signature. Once that happens, the bill, as they say, will become a law.
3/The tragic 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland took the lives of 270 people, including 190 Americans & 43 from the UK. Also people from Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Philippines, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland & Trinidad & Tobago.
4/In December 2020, DOJ charged Abu Agila Mohammad Mas’ud Kheir Al-Marimi with the bombing. Subsequently arrested & brought to the US, he's scheduled for trial in 2025 for his role in building the bomb.
5/The bill provides victims' family members access to court proceedings no matter where they are located.
6/ Apparently, it's just that easy. Congress can pass a bill, along bipartisan lines, in just a couple of months to give victims in an important criminal case access to proceedings, even if they live far away. The technology exists, or this bill would not have sailed through.
7/I've written repeatedly in my newsletter about how important public access to the Trump trials is. But currently in federal court, that won't happen. The bill for the Lockerbie bombing victims shows it can happen-if we make it happen. Join me here: joycevance.substack.com/p/if-congress-…
8/It's a good thing that family members of the victims of flight 103 will be able to hear all of the evidence in this trial. They deserve that. They have a right to know. And so do we.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/Donald Trump Says Nikki Haley can’t be president. He's advanced the argument that the former South Carolina Governor and his own ambassador to the United Nations isn’t eligible to hold office because she’s not a “natural born citizen.” He's wrong. But it's worse than that.
2/I wrote about it for @cafedotcom I know it's behind a paywall but I hope you'll read it anyhow. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution establishes the eligibility criteria to be president. cafe.com/notes-from-con…
@cafedotcom 3/The Constitution says only a natural
born citizen can be president. The courts have never defined what that means. Haley was born in South Carolina and has been a U.S. citizen since birth.
1/Donald Trump made some predictable comments after yesterday morning's oral argument. As he finished, a reporter shouted out a request that he use the moment to tell his followers, “No violence.” The former president walked out of the room without responding.
2/That was the only exchange he was in control of yesterday. The top line from the argument: a broad consensus among observers that the panel didn’t buy Trump’s immunity argument. None of the Judges seemed to believe Trump should be immune from prosecution.
3/The lawyer for the Special Counsel began by telling the court no other president in history claimed his immunity from prosecution extended beyond his time in office. A president’s role is unique, Pearce said, “but not above the law.” That's the entire argument in a nutshell.
1/ Jack Smith filed a motion in limine Wednesday morning. That's a type of motion used to obtain a pre-trial ruling from the judge regarding the admissibility of certain types of evidence at trial. The motion gives us insight into what Smith expects Trump's team to do at trial.
2/Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are within the trial judge’s discretion. They are only reversible error (the kind that can invalidate a conviction) if the court of appeals believes the judge abused their discretion when they admitted a piece of evidence. This means prosecutors must be careful. On the one hand, they must ensure they can put in all of the evidence that is essential to prove their case. But they must also take care that they don’t push the envelope too far when it comes to either admitting their evidence or efforts to exclude evidence a defendant wants to offer.
3/Given that context, prosecutors & courts are usually fairly permissive when it comes to evidence a defendant wants to offer. But there’s a clear line. Defendants can’t offer evidence that is designed to suggest to the jury, “even if you think I’m guilty, you should vote to acquit me anyway.” This is called jury nullification & it’s an effort by a defendant to convince jurors to ignore the law and refuse to convict.
1/ An important insight about voting, to share with folks around you who say Biden is too old or not their perfect candidate: choosing not to vote is as much participation in the outcome of the election as voting is.
2/Biden will need to win with overwhelming numbers as protection against what will come from Trump in the wake of a loss. We do all remember January 6, right?
3/Dislike Biden's stance on Israel or any number of issues? You're going to love Trump's policies in his 2.0 administration. I woke up to this lovely subtweet. Trump has been explicit that this is part of his plan for debasing democracy.
1/Supreme Court tells Jack Smith no--they won't jump over the court of appeals and consider Trump's immunity motion expeditiously
2/This is bad news for Judge Chutkan's March trial date, because even if the court of appeals rules quickly, Trump gets 90 days to file for cert, and he can ask for the full appellate court to rehear the appeal en banc, with all of the judges present, as an intermediary step.
Special Counsel laid out the potential for delay is his reply brief yesterday
1/Depending on where you live, it may seem impossible for the country to reelect Donald Trump. I hear that from a lot of people. But the truth is, it’s not. Some of our fellow citizens, inexplicably, do not see the fraud & risk of fascism in front of them. Here's Reno last Sunday
2/Trump told the crowd in Reno: “We're going to win 4 more years in the White House, then after that we'll negotiate. Based on the way I was treated; we're probably entitled to another four after that." That's the leading GOP candidate saying he'll end the Constitution.
3/Here's the appeal to Christian nationalism & fascism in case the one above is too subtle.