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
There’s a hearing before Judge AB Jackson right now regarding the dismantling of CFPB. I can’t monitor it because of phone line problems, but wanted to describe the extraordinary exchange of declarations that’s occurred in that case in the last 2 days. A short thread. ... 1/6
... Yesterday, the day before the hearing, CFPB’s COO filed an affidavit admitting that, early on, he referred to the impending “closure of the agency” & its being in “wind-down mode.” But he claimed everything later changed on 2/7, when Vought was appointed acting chief... /2
... The COO claimed in his declaration that Vought was now merely “right sizing” the agency. But plaintiffs then submitted 5 affidavits from current CFPB employees asserting that Vought ordered all work to stop on 2/10, with no exception statutorily req’d functions. ... /3
Judge Alsup has issued his written TRO, directing that OPM’s terminations of probationary employees across govt be stopped & rescinded. “No statute—anywhere, ever—has granted OPM the authority to direct termination of employees in other agencies.” ... 1/3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Though acting OPM director Ezell claimed agencies made independent decisions, Judge Alsup found a "mountain of evidence" to the contrary, from DOD, the VA, USDA, IRS, NSF, & others. ...
/2
Yesterday, in declining to enter a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring DOGE from accessing data systems at the Dept of Labor, CFPB, & HHS, Judge Bates actually delivered a blow to DOGE—though it may only be felt in other cases. A thread. ...
Different suits challenge DOGE on different grounds. The suits challenging its access to data systems in Treasury, Labor, CFPB, & HHS focus on the Privacy Act. The claim is that DOGE is rooting around in our ultra-sensitive data without our permission. ...
/2
... The hurdle for plaintiffs is that DOGE is structured so that DOGE cadres are “detailed” from US DOGE Service to the agencies and then become “agency employees.” (I’m simplifying.) It’s set up that way so that DOGE cadres appear to fit into ...
/3
Trump Adm brings emergency motion to dissolve NY judge's TRO re DOGE; claims it bars TreasSec from access [based on comma ambituity]; threatens mandamus to appeals court arguing no executive action can be insulated from political appointees. ...
/1 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
... Judge Vargas (the judge now assigned to the case, not the emergency motions judge who entered TRO) has ordered parties to confer to see if they can narrow issues. If not, plaintiff state AGs respond by tonight at 5pm, with govt reply by 11pm tonight. ...
/2
... Trump Adm eager to tee up key "unitary executive" claims—that no executive function can be insulated from political appointees of President—for appellate courts. ...
/3
The challenge that all the DOGE-related lawsuits face is that DOGE has a formalistic structure that’s designed to look benign, but which appears to be a charade. Proving it’s a charade in court in a compressed time-frame will be hard. A thread: ...
1/14
As originally described in Nov. in the WSJ, DOGE was about saving trillions of dollars through vast “regulatory recissions, administrative reductions, & cost savings.” ...
/2
... Yet when unveiled in Trump’s executive order, DOGE’s purported purpose mentioned none of those goals. Instead, the EO claimed that DOGE was about “modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency.” ...
/3
Here is Judge Paul Engelmayer’s remarkable TRO barring (in effect) DOGE from accessing Treasury’s payment system & ordering (in effect) any DOGE person who has had access to destroy anything already copied. A short thread ...
This is broader than the “consent order” entered Thurs. by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in DC. Latter allowed 2 DOGE “special govt employees” (SGEs) to keep working but not send data out of Treas. This one bars access to SGEs & orders them to destroy anything already copied ...
/2
The new TRO is supposed to be served on DOJ by noon today. Unless challenged or altered, it would last till 2/14, when a different judge, Jeannette Vargas (a federal judge in Manhattan) would hold a hearing on whether to issue a preliminary injunction. ...
/3