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
Randall Eliason Profile picture
@RDEliason
Jun 26 • 2 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
I have no problem with the Snyder decision, that 18 USC 666 covers only bribes and not gratuities. I think that makes sense.

I won’t be saying the same about Fischer and obstruction of justice, if the government loses there.
The key distinction is not timing but the intent to influence. A bribe requires corrupt intent to influence the official action (or to be influenced, if you’re the official). A gratuity can just be a “thank you” for an act already taken - no intent to influence required.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Randall Eliason

Randall Eliason 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 @RDEliason

Randall Eliason Profile picture
Jun 22
If Judge Cannon dismisses the indictment because she finds Smith was unlawfully appointed, here’s what DOJ should do:
1) Don’t appeal
2) Have US Atty in FL refile the same charges in a new case - it would be very easy and fast
3) case gets reassigned- hopefully to a new judge 1/
4) Smith’s prosecution team are designated as Special AUSA’s in FL to continue prosecuting the case.

I can’t see any reason this wouldn’t work - it’s faster than an appeal and gives them a chance of drawing a new judge without having to argue for removing Cannon. 2/
This is probably one reason she won’t grant the motion.

But if she did, it could actually turn out to be a good development for the prosecution. 3/end
Read 4 tweets
Randall Eliason Profile picture
May 6
Trump's NY defense and why it could work: a longish 🧵.

Many scoff at the defense suggestion that Trump didn’t know about the scheme at the time it happened. But that’s their best possible defense - and it’s far from crazy. Here’s why. 1/
Remember, it’s not enough for the DA just to show that the documents were false or that Trump signed the checks to Cohen. They have to show that at the time the payments were made, Trump personally knew the records were false, and 2/
That he caused them to be entered in the records of his company with intent to defraud, including the intent to cover up another crime, at the time the false records were made.

So here's the defense argument: 3/
Read 19 tweets
Randall Eliason Profile picture
Apr 26
If the CJ believes there should be POTUS immunity for core Art. 2 powers like appointments, there's an easy answer to the concerns in his hypo about bribery. It can be analogized to Speech or Debate immunity.

You can't prosecute a Senator for voting on a bill, but you can 1/
Prosecute him for taking a bribe to vote a certain way. With bribery the crime is the agreement to act in exchange for the bribe. So prosecutors can prove the "deal" - but they can't introduce evidence of the Senator actually voting. And that's OK, because 2/
Carrying out the deal is not an element of the crime and is not necessary. Prosecutors don't need to prove it to convict. The crime is the deal itself.

So if POTUS had immunity for core official acts the same would be true. You could prosecute for a bribery agreement w/out 3/
Read 5 tweets
Randall Eliason Profile picture
Apr 17
OK #lawtwitter - your thoughts on keeping a lawyer on the jury? There are two of them on the Trump jury so far.

In my own experience prosecuting in DC, conventional wisdom/trial lawyer folklore was that you didn't want lawyers on your jury. 1/
The concern was that they would think they were smarter than you and second guess your case or presentation. And because they were lawyers, the other jurors might give their opinion undue weight. I usually would strike them.

I only made an exception one time. 2/
In a bribery prosecution where there was an entrapment defense, I kept a young attorney on the jury who had been a law clerk. I figured she would see the defense was BS and could help explain that to the other jurors.

She ended up as foreperson and they convicted. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Randall Eliason Profile picture
Feb 22
A thread on the NY criminal case:

Now that motions to dismiss were denied & the case is moving forward, I'm seeing lots of takes that the critics were wrong & that it clearly is a solid and important case.

As one of those critics, let me explain why I'm still not convinced. 1/
Supporters say the case is not really about hush money, it's about election fraud. Through the scheme, Trump hid critical information from the voters in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape. In a close election, if that info had come out, it could have made the difference. 2/
DA Bragg suggests he also will try to frame the case as about election fraud. Trump deceived the voters to try to steal the election in 2016, just like he tried to steal it in 2020.

I think that framing is fine. My concern is how these charges fit into that framing. 3/
Read 12 tweets
Randall Eliason Profile picture
Feb 17
A longish thread on my takeaways from the two days of hearing in Georgia.

BLUF - I'd be very surprised if Judge McAfee ends up disqualifying Willis and her office from continuing with this prosecution. 1/
The only direct evidence of when the romantic relationship began was the testimony of Willis and Wade. The defense witnesses relied on a combination of hearsay, gossip, and their own impressions to suggest the relationship began earlier. 2/
It’s possible W & W dated occasionally prior to 2022 but did not consider themselves in a romantic relationship. If people observed them together or one of them spoke to someone about a date, that could explain impressions by others that the relationship began earlier. 3/
Read 12 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!

:(