Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
@CREWcrew
Apr 25 • 8 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
We just heard some very alarming arguments from Donald Trump’s lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Trump is asking for total immunity for former presidents unless they’ve been impeached and convicted by Congress.

Here’s what that could look like. THREAD:
- Trump could lie on his financial disclosures about his foreign sources of income.

- Trump could order the release of sensitive tax information of business rivals like Meta or Twitter to cripple their operations and benefit Truth Social.
- Trump could block military aid for an ally like Ukraine in order to get business or political favors from Russia.

- Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes.
- Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts.
But this isn’t just about what Donald Trump could do. It’s really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances.

Here’s how:
- The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court Justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act.
- The president could order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or the military detention of members of Congress before votes, including for impeachment and election certification.

- The president could order the occupation or closure of the United States Supreme Court or military detention of justices to avoid rulings against him.
The Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Citizens for Ethics

Citizens for Ethics 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 @CREWcrew

Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Apr 4
One year ago on Saturday, @propublica published a damning report revealing that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted luxury vacations for 20 years from billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow.

Here’s what we’ve learned since: 🧵
Clarence Thomas did not disclose that he accepted Crow's payments for his grandnephew's private boarding school tuition .propublica.org/article/claren…
Clarence Thomas did not disclose his family’s sale of three properties to Crow .propublica.org/article/claren…
Read 9 tweets
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Apr 1
We read the SEC filing for Trump’s new public company, Trump Media & Technology Group, so you don’t have to.

Here are some things that stood out. THREAD: Image
The value of the stock is widely understood to be massively inflated, with the true draw being the chance to invest in Trump himself, not Truth Social’s technology or user base. Image
There’s a real risk inherent in a stock if its value is all tied to an individual who is under several indictments.

That’s disclosed in the filing: Image
Read 9 tweets
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Feb 1
A week from today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in our case barring Donald Trump from the ballot.

It’s been a long road to SCOTUS, with an insurrection, a precedent setting win in New Mexico, and a five day trial in Colorado along the way. 🧵
It all started on January 20, 2017, when Donald Trump swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

(It’s the fact that he swore the oath to support the Constitution before inciting insurrection that disqualifies him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.)
Nearly 4 years later, on December 19, 2020, after it was clear that he lost the election, Trump tweeted “Big Protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!”

Then, on January 6, 2021, insurrectionists stormed the U.S. Capitol while Trump refused to call them off for hours.
Read 17 tweets
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Jan 25
In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments on Trump’s disqualification from the ballot in Colorado, established legal scholars and advocacy groups have submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Court to shed light on the case and the weight of the decision.🧵
According to several groups who submitted to the Court in support of neither party, Section Three is self-executing and functions precisely to bar insurrectionists like Trump from office. Here are a few key highlights:
Election law experts Edward B Foley, Richard L. Hasen, and Benjamin L. Ginsberg—a leading Republican election lawyer—wrote in their joint brief that Section 3’s language “constitutes an independently operative legal bar.” Image
Read 7 tweets
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Jan 23
"Don't bar Donald Trump from the ballot, just let the voters decide"

That gets it wrong on several levels. We can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution should be enforced. And we can't depend on Trump to accept the choice of the voters. 🧵
Trump was defeated at the ballot box once before. We saw what happened: he refused to concede and incited a violent insurrection.

He’s only escalated his claims of voter fraud and authoritarian rhetoric since. Why should we believe he’ll accept the results if he loses again?
The Constitution has a protective measure in the form of Section 3, which ensures that insurrectionists who took an oath aren’t given a second chance to be a part of--or run--the government they tried to overthrow.
Read 7 tweets
Citizens for Ethics Profile picture
Jan 4
Before Donald Trump became an insurrectionist, he was a grifter.

He cemented that reputation by using the presidency for profit and corruptly accumulating more than 3,700 conflicts of interest. Let’s break it down 🧵
We sued Trump under the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution on his first day in office and tracked his conflicts of interest from that moment on.

The report released today by House Democrats draws on our work—and we’re glad to see continued accountability.
The report found that Trump brought in at least $7.8 million from foreign governments while he was president, mostly from China.

And that’s likely a significant underestimate because the committee was blocked from looking into certain countries.
Read 8 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!

Send Email!

:(