NEW: You might have heard folks say, in the wake of the Supreme Court immunity argument, that sending this case down for the district court to parse what is official versus personal could substantially prolong the time to trial. Enter Ex. A:
This is an order entered tonight in three civil cases against Trump for his role in 1/6; in those cases, the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed former presidents are entitled to civil immunity for acts even on the "outer perimeter" of their official duties.
But they held Trump had not yet shown his entitlement to such immunity and would instead have a chance to prove in the lower court that "his alleged actions in the runup to and on January 6 were taken in his official capacity as President."
That opinion was handed down on December 1, 2023. And now, in the last days of April, Judge Amit Mehta, the district court judge to whom the case has been assigned, has allowed the parties to conduct "immunity-related discovery" through September 11, 2024.
Now think about the criminal case before Judge Chutkan: In a world where the Supreme Court similarly decides there must be further lower court proceedings to determine whether Trump can mount an immunity defense, can that case be tried before 2025? Increasingly, I think not--and that might be the only win Trump wants or needs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW: In opposing efforts to block the Anti-Weaponization Fund in not just one, but two courts, DOJ claims the case is now moot because acting AG Todd Blanche says they've dropped the fund. 1/
I'm not aware of any cases finding a dispute moot because of verbal promises by government officials. But more importantly, based on the cases they cite in their abbreviated legal argument about mootness, nor is DOJ. 2/
Ordinarily, the "voluntary cessation" doctrine requires the party claiming mootness to show "it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." 3/
The new DOJ investigation of E. Jean Carroll, according to CNN, stems from her testifying at her 2022 deposition that her lawyers were handling her case on contingency and that no one else was funding her case. But correspondence filed in the first-tried Carroll case reflects that it was always more complicated. 1/
In April 2023, as they were preparing for trial, Carroll’s counsel informed Trump’s team that E. Jean recalled that she had learned that a non-profit was helping defray the costs associated with her suit, costs that her lawyers assumed when they took the case on contingency. 2/
By the next day, having spoken with Trump’s counsel, Carroll’s lawyers wrote again to clarify the Trump side’s “misunderstanding of the facts.” 3/
NEW: DOJ sent Congress a six-page “report,” as required by Section 3 of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. But DOJ’s list of “government officials” and “politically exposed persons” included in the produced materials is, like the redactions themselves, too much and not enough. 1/
On one hand, the letter is missing multiple boldfaced names — like former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland and Steve Tisch — who are under fire because of their dealings with Epstein. 2/
And on the other? The inclusion of pop cultural figures who died decades ago, including Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Michael Jackson. 3/
NEW: As the FBI executes a search warrant at a Fulton County board of elections office, it's worth remembering that there is existing litigation between DOJ and Fulton County over DOJ's attempt to obtain records pertaining to the 2020 election. 1/
In October, and at the request of the Georgia Election Board, DOJ issued a subpoena to Fulton County for "all used and void ballots, stubs of all ballots, signature envelopes, and corresponding envelope digital files from the 2020 General Election in Fulton County." 2/
In its December 2025 civil lawsuit, DOJ claims it sought these records due to "unexplained anomalies in vote tabulation and storage related to the 2020 election.” justice.gov/crt/media/1420…
NEW: Folks have been asking why Attorney General Pam Bondi, in her letter to Tim Walz, fixated on DOJ’s obtaining MN’s voting data. The answer may lie in Trump’s public statements—and MN’s last three elections. 1/
On Jan. 9, Trump met with oil and gas executives at the White House in a meeting his administration then posted to YouTube. Roughly 54 minutes in, Trump was asked about the feds’ failure to share evidence of Renee Good’s killing with state officials. 2/
Trump started by criticizing Gov. Walz and complaining about the “$19 billion” fraud uncovered in MN and mostly, according to him, perpetrated by Somali immigrants. But within a minute or so, he was talking about the elections. 3/
NEW: Comey moves to dismiss on grounds of multiple alleged instances of grand jury misconduct, stating that because the two-count indictment was never presented to the full grand jury, there was no actual indictment within the five-year statute of limitations for the two charged crimes.
This is hardly Comey's only effort to dismiss the indictment. He has two fully briefed and already argued motions to dismiss: one on grounds of selective/vindictive prosecution and the other due to Lindsay Halligan's allegedly unlawful appointment.
Some expected that Comey would wait for Judge Michael Nachmanoff to decide whether, as a magistrate judge previously ruled, he should get the transcripts and other grand jury materials.