Many conservatives now accept with bored acquiescence the near certainty that Trump, if elected, will dismiss both federal indictments against himself. Yet it would be an abuse far greater than the Saturday Night Massacre that once shocked the nation...
1/6
In Oct 1973, Nixon fired AG Elliot Richardson & then Dep AG Wm Ruckelshaus for refusing to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, who was subpoenaing Nixon’s White House tapes. The firings galvanized bipartisan support for impeachment proceedings ...
/2
... which began 10 days later. Quaint though it may now seem, US District Judge Gerhard Gesell even ruled, later on, that the Cox’s dismissal had been illegal. ...
/3
... Yet the SCOTUS majority in Trump v US contemptuously chided the bipartisan lower courts for trying to let justice be done before Trump has a chance to abuse power to derail it. They even purported to be acting expeditiously ...
/4
... though we are, right now, pointlessly counting 32 more days off the calendar for SCOTUS’s ruling to become final, because the court declined to make it immediate. (The pause permits the losing party to seek rehearing—inconceivable here as the Court well knows.) ...
/4
... Is the president now above the law? Half-heartedly, the majority claims (s)he is not—with asterisks galore. They say the dissents are “fear-mongering” with “extreme hypotheticals”—which they tellingly don’t deign to refute. ...
/5
... Justice Thomas disdains that tack. He quips that the once-revered notion has been largely meaningless all along. Immunity from prosecution for official acts *is* the law, he writes, archly. Silly Nixon, silly us, silly forefathers for imagining otherwise.
/6-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today’s Third Circuit ruling that Alina Habba was unlawfully appointed casts doubt on @AGPamBondi 's back-up theory for Halligan—the notion that Bondi could appoint her a “special atty” (under 28 USC § 515) who could do everything a US atty could. ... 1/4
... The situations were not identical. Halligan’s original appt was under 28 USC § 546; Habba’s was under Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Still, key gist—that a “special atty” appt under § 515 can’t circumvent Congress’s more specific statutory scheme—is the same. ... 2/3
... Anticipating this, Bondi alternatively appointed Halligan under § 515 as, in effect, a hand-picked prosecutor for just Comey & James (left). That might stand. But it would strengthen Comey’s & James’s claims (right) that their prosecutions are vindictive & selective. ... 3/3
If you read the precedents Abrego Garcia is citing in seeking release from detention, you begin to realize the unreported horrors Trump's DHS/ICE is quietly committing throughout the country. Take Zavvar v Scott, for instance. ... 1/7 law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
Reza Zavvar, 52, came to the US from Iran when he was 12 (so 40 yrs ago). He was granted asylum & permanent residence. Then, in the 1990s, when he was in his 20s, he had 2 misdemeanor convictions for possession of pot. ...
/2
In 2004, because of those, the GWBush Adm got an order of removal against him, but removal to Iran was withheld because of threats to his life or freedom there. He was then allowed to live & work in MD without incident *for nearly 18 years.* ...
/3
Judge Immergut (my new favorite judge) issued her 31-page opinion, barring federalization of 200 National Guard troops in Portland, <48 hrs after entering the case. It’s a model of restrained but powerful prose & reasoning. Read it yourself ... 1/3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Without hyperventilating, she lays out in ¶ 1 the huge stakes here. The case is about "3 of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy": * federalism; * the relationship between the military & domestic law enforcement; * and judicial review. ...
/2
Her ruling is also a model for how a judge can use Trump’s unhinged words (“war-ravaged Portland”) against him without going off the rails him- or herself. E.g., “The president’s own statements [show] that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith.’”
/3-end
Given that @DowJones is not seeking a merger that @BrendanCarrFCC can block, Trump’s suit against the @WSJ (re the Epstein Birthday book note) seems destined for swift dismissal + assessment of attys fees. ... 1/6 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Yesterday, @WSJ moved to dismiss on 3 seemingly iron-clad grounds: The article is (1) true; (2) not defamatory; & (3) lacks any whiff of “actual malice.” It’s true in that it only describes a note “bearing Trump’s name” & includes his denials in the subhead & in 3 ¶s of text.
/2
It's not defamatory because a bawdy note to a friend—even one later convicted of crimes—is not defamatory. In 2002, Trump admitted his 15-yr friendship with “terrific guy” Jeffrey Epstein, and in 2016 he admitted the Access Hollywood tape was just his “locker-room banter.” ...
/3
Last night, in the Ghana pass-thru case, Judge Chutkan found that the govt’s actions appeared to be part of a “pattern & widespread effort to evade [its] legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.” But she denied relief due to likely lack of jurisdiction ...
1/4
She noted that immigration judges have found that the 5 plaintiffs face “persecution, torture, or death” if returned to their home countries, as one already has been. US officials allegedly told plaintiffs on planes to Ghana that they would ultimately be sent to home countries.
/2
Chutkan noted that “this case is not an outlier,” listing 6 other examples of suspicious or abusive govt conduct. She says the deal with Ghana appears to be “hasty & unwritten” & suggests that the govt knew all along what it was doing. ...
/3
Judge Chutkan just finished a phone conference hearing in D.A. v. Noem. Plaintiffs allege the govt is sending African aliens to Ghana knowing Ghana will forward them to home countries where US courts have barred govt from sending them directly ... 1/5 courtlistener.com/docket/7132371…
... due to reasonable fear of torture or persecution. Judge Chutkan fears she lacks jurisdiction—4 plaintiffs are already in Ghana & one has already been forwarded to Gambia—or that she should transfer the case to Judge Murphy in Boston as part of the DVD class action on 3d country removals. ...
/2
The @ACLU 's Lee Gelernt argued that DVD challenges general procedures whereas DA's claim is narrow: Ghana gave the US diplomatic assurances that it would not forward aliens to countries where they face persecution/torture, yet it's doing exactly that with US acquiescence/connivance. ...
/3