Thread by @rparloff

To comply with SCOTUS’ immunity ruling, SC Jack Smith’s superseder is conservative; it doesn’t push the envelope. That’s wise, but painful. I think the case survives, but SCOTUS has req’d suppression of highly probative evidence of grave crimes. ...
1/14

Two caveats: 1st, the cuts were not nec’ly Jack Smith’s decisions; DOJ was involved. 2d, it’s possible that stuff that was cut might resurface later, offered as “evidence” of unofficial acts. But not much, IMHO. A few tweets, maybe—if that. ...
/2

Clearly, the whole DOJ/Jeff Clark chunk of the case had to go; SCOTUS was explicit about that. But all parts of the case have been watered down, due to suppression of damning conversations Trump had with DOJ, WH counsel, & WH advisors. ...
/3

Particularly decimated is proof that Trump knew his election falsehoods were lies. Over & over, Trump brought claims of election fraud to DOJ; DOJ refuted them; then Trump spewed the same false claims immediately or soon thereafter. All that is cut. ...
/4

Other smoking-guns were suppressed. Here, Mark Meadows reports back to Trump that officials conducting signature verification in GA are acting in an “exemplary fashion”; Trump tweets that the officials are hiding fraud & are “terrible people.”
/5

Another casualty: Trump’s iconic conversation with Kevin McCarthy during the riot on Jan. 6: ~Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.~ That’s been suppressed.
/6

That last examle is also important because it’s part of a series of deletions during the J6 riot itself. There’s now a gaping hole in the indictment from 2:25pm, when Pence is evacuated, and “evening” when legislators return after the riot. ...
/7

... That’s because everything we know about how, during those hours, Trump was rebuffing the pleas of WH counsel & advisors to tell his followers to leave the Capitol has been suppressed. ...
/8

... That artificial gap in the proof is particularly worrisome because the govt has the burden of proof. The jury will want to know what Trump was doing; it’s the govt’s burden to tell them. Trump’s silence can’t be used against him. ...
/9

... That brings us to another crucial question: If Trump’s lawyers claim he was doing everything he could to stop the riot, has he “opened the door” to allowing prosecutors to rebut his claim by presenting all the “official acts” evidence proving he wasn’t? ...
/10

... While that’s what would ordinarily happen—the defendant isn’t allowed to lie to the jury by exploiting the fact that incriminating evidence has been suppressed—I’m not sure how it plays out here. Immunity *is* a form of fraud on the jury. ...
/11

... Unless Trump’s attys simply stand silent, almost anything they say in Trump’s defense would “open the door,” using ordinary standards of fairness. So, unfortunately, I don’t think ordinary rules *will* apply, lest immunity be illusory. ...
/12

... E.g., suppose Trump’s atty argues in his opening that Trump really believed the election was stolen; sought to ensure election integrity; did everything he could to stop the riot—he’ll have “opened the door” to every single thing that’s been cut. ...
/13

... So, sadly, I don’t think that’s how it will work.
The evidence of Trump’s Jan 6-related crimes is so abundant that the indictment may survive these dilutions & hurdles. But there’s no sugar-coating just how unjust SCOTUS’ ruling is. ...
/14

... For thorough discussion of the superseder & its impact, see my @lawfare colleagues’ analysis below.
The “green-lined” version of the superseder, created by colleague @S_R_Anders, is here:
/14-end
drive.google.com/file/d/1YhZc5v…
lawfaremedia.org/article/the-su…