“Trump’s claims that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) justifies his behavior doesn’t pass muster because that statute doesn’t actually have anything to do with the critical question of whether his possession of these documents was authorized — the EO covers that.” 3/x
“Yet Trump and his legal team claim that the PRA applies, arguing that the PRA, which provides in general terms for the handling of government documents by ex-presidents, allows Trump to decide unilaterally if any document is personal, and thus legally hold onto it.” 4/x
“But the statute nowhere stretches the definition… to encompass our nation’s most sensitive secrets. On the contrary, personal documents are defined as “purely private” ones which “do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the … duties of the President.”” 5/x
“Trump’s position ignores that, trying to dodge the actual law that applies — the executive order. Even though Obama was no longer in office when Trump allegedly took documents.. his executive order was and is still in effect, and nothing in the PRA contradicts it.” 6/x
So what’s going on here? 7/x
Cannon seems inclined to push the case to trial but is basically asking if she can stack the deck so Trump wins
It’s clumsy & amateurish—seems to know she’s wobbly & she’s asking the parties for help with threshold things that are normally figured out by the judge 8/x
If she persists in this course, special counsel Jack Smith can & will go to the 11th Circuit
And while he is there, this & several other recent (threatened) blunders give him ammo to have her reversed & removed
My thoughts on SCOTUS' universal injunctions decision, a thread: Unfortunately there has been widespread misunderstanding of what the Roberts court did today. (1/x)
Although I certainly take exception to the majority’s decision, this is yet another compromise opinion from them that occupies a middle ground and denies the Trump administration the full extent of their lawless and authoritarian worldview. (2/x)
That is because for all the flaws in the decision, it leaves in place, it leaves in place the underlying injunctions of the blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order as to the particular plaintiffs. (3/x)
BREAKING: Donald Trump filed his motion 2 dismiss the 34 guilty verdicts & Manhattan prosecution
This effort to overturn the jury's verdict fails 4 many reasons...above all bc the pros wasn't based on official conduct protected by Trump v. US (1/x)
Trump starts off by referencing Biden's pardon of his son yesterday
Whatever u may think of that (I support it)...it has abs nothing to do w the conviction on 34 counts here
I was in court every day of the trial & the evidence was overwhelming (2/x)
Mark ur calendar for 9/26 when the govt's opening brief on immunity will drop
As we discussed in Just Security, the big fight will be over whether the VP Pence allegations are official or unofficial - they're official, but it will be a brawl👇2/x
Trump is seeking removal under the federal removal statute—28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)
The statute allows federal officials to remove a state prosecution to federal court—but ONLY if their alleged conduct was part of their official duties 2/x
But the fundamental problem with this ploy is that Trump already tried to remove the case & lost—no second bites at the apple!
Judge Hellerstein who has the case & who denied him before should shut him down on that basis alone 3/x