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
Judge Crenshaw wants to make public his 12/3 ruling discussing the key role Dep AG Todd Blanche’s office played in deciding to prosecute Abrego Garcia. But Crenshaw is giving govt 'til 12/30 to appeal his rulings rejecting govt's atty-client & other privilege claims ... 1/4
Due to a redacting error in a defense brief, we already know that Crenshaw’s 12/3 ruling, still under seal, concluded that Blanche’s associate, Aakash Singh, played “a leading role” in deciding to prosecute Abrego. ... 2/4
In an effort to fend off Abrego’s vindictive prosecution claims, McGuire claimed he alone made the decision, and he was untainted by the vindictive motives attributable to Trump/Blanche. (Just like Halligan claiming that she, not Trump, decided to pursue Comey & James.) ...
3/4
In sealed order issued 12/3, Judge Crenshaw found that @DAGToddBlanche's deputy, Aakash Singh, played a “leading role in the govt’s decision to prosecute” Abrego Garcia. Abrego’s attys’ failed to redact that language in a brief, correcting the error shortly thereafter... 1/2
... The DAG office’s role, Abrego’s attys argue, conflicts with multiple assertions from US Atty McBride, who initially claimed that the Office of DAG was "not involved.” Later, when DAG's role emerged, McGuire said said it was just “appropriate oversight.” ...
/2
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