Roger Parloff Profile picture
Jul 12, 2024 7 tweets 3 min read Read on X
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 Image
... 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 Image
... 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
Image
Image
... 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 Image
... 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 Image

• • •

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

Keep Current with Roger Parloff

Roger Parloff 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 @rparloff

Feb 10
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 Image
... 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 Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 9
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 Image
... 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 Image
Read 15 tweets
Feb 8
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 ...

/1 documentcloud.org/documents/2551…Image
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 Image
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
Read 11 tweets
Feb 6
At today’s hearing in the FBI agents’ suits to enjoin the govt from disclosing the names of agents who worked on Jan. 6 cases, Judge Cobb’s most interesting comments related to her desire to know more about the survey that DOJ made agents fill out. ...
1/4
At future hearings, she said, she wants to know: “What's [the survey] for? Nothing on its face has anything to do with misconduct. What's being investigated?” (Quotes approximate.) What she’s getting at is that retaliation is the *only* explanation. ...
/2
... As @MarkSZaidEsq & @NormEisen wrote in their complaint, “Defendants do not have discretion to redefine the truth of Jan. 6, 2021 [or] to recast the lawful actions taken ... as illegal ....”
/3 Image
Read 4 tweets
Feb 5
At 3:00pm ET Judge Kollar-Kotelly will hold a hearing on whether to issue a TRO barring Treasury from giving DOGE access to its payment systems & ordering Treasury to claw back info already disclosed. Hoping to follow by telephone. You can too. See below ...
/1 Image
... Plaintiffs are a retiree group and 2 unions (SEIU & AFGE) who argue that Treas Sec Bessent is violating Privacy Act of 1974 & the Internal Revenue Code by letting DOGE “root” through their records. They say Bessent has also violated the Adm Procedure Act ...
/2
... As I’m writing this, & because of the rush, only the plaintiffs have filed a brief (below). When I get DOJ’s, I’ll post. ...

/3 documentcloud.org/documents/2551…Image
Read 47 tweets
Feb 5
Yesterday, in the FBI Agents Assn (FBI-AA) suit v. DOJ, Chief Judge Boasberg made one key preliminary ruling, but punted on another. He let the agents sue pseudonymously, because public exposure of their identities would risk subjecting them to physical harm. ...
1/4 Image
... That’s crucial since a key goal of the suit is to keep DOJ from exposing the names of agents, which might subject them to vigilantism. But the FBI-AA also wanted to keep the identities of the plaintiffs secret *even from the DOJ*. ...
2/4 Image
... CJ Boasberg denied that motion to seal “without prejudice,” so that decision will be revisited by the judge ultimately assigned the case by lot—which has turned out to be Judge Tim Kelly. As of right now, tho, DOJ still doesn’t have their names. ...
3/4 Image
Read 4 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!

:(