While voters have many reasons for their choices, and I respect their right to make them and accept the outcome of the election, so much of what I hear from Trump supporters is that “the left” looks down on them.
🧵1 / 4 This is an us-vs-them narrative spun by Trump, who has convinced some voters that he is the proxy for their grievances. He tells voters, “they” are not after me, they are after you. I’m just standing in the way to protect you. 2/4

As jury selection begins in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, here are some things to keep in mind. 
🧵 /1 First, it is called jury selection, but it really should be called jury “de-selection.”  That’s because potential jurors are called to the box randomly, and then questioned by the court and lawyers. The lawyers challenge jurors they find unsuitable.  If the judge agrees, he will excuse them.  /2

I’ve been receiving some questions about why it matters whether Judge Cannon decides all issues under the Presidential Records Act BEFORE trial. /1 Judge Cannon recently denied Donald Trump‘s motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago indictment on the grounds that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) precludes charges under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to willfully retain national defense information. /2

Here’s a thread on the public’s right to a speedy trial, which explains why the Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule and will work to decide the immunity question promptly in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump. /1 The right to a speedy trial is not just the defendant’s right. The PUBLIC’S right to a speedy trial has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A). /2

Jack Smith responds to Trump’s motions and explains why they fail as a matter of law. THREAD /1 washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/… First Amendment provides no protection for speech that amounts to crimes of deceipt, receipt, conspiracy. Non-starter. /2

Trump’s new motions to dismiss on First Amendment, selective prosecution, and double jeopardy grounds are all losers. THREAD. 1 washingtonpost.com/national-secur… The First Amendment is not absolute. Many crimes that involve speech are crimes — perjury, fraud, and conspiracy to name a few.

🧵1 Here is my take on yesterday’s removal hearing, in which former chief of staff Mark Meadows wants to move his state RICO case from Georgia state court to federal court. 2 Why seek removal? Federal court offers a larger jury pool that draws from predominantly Republican areas, no TV cameras in the courtroom, and nicer prisons, but the real reason is to assert governmental immunity and get the whole case dismissed. And Trump will tag along.

THREAD: 1 of 6. Trump’s comparison of his case with Bill Clinton’s sock drawer is not only incorrect, it is nonsensical. Here’s why.

The Presidential Records Act says presidential records belong to the government, not the individual who served as president. … 2. Presidential records in general are those made by or for the president for use in official business. The statute contains detailed definitions of what is and is not a presidential record. …

1 Durham Report is in. After four years, review of 1 million documents, 490 interviews, his conclusion is that FBI should have opened a preliminary investigation (PI) instead of a full investigation (FI) in 2016. THREAD 2 The only difference between FI and PI is the duration and the authorities that may be used. This is a hairsplitting quibble, and one on which FBI officials routinely disagree.

This week’s epic snowball fight on @UMich Diag was a study in strategy. As a lifelong resident of cold-weather climate, here are some observations about good and bad techniques. First, the good. Goggles - excellent for eye protection from stray snowballs that violate the normal rules of no throws above the head.

Facts will be important in determining whether Biden’s classified documents were criminally mishandled, but there appear to be several distinguishing factors between this case in the Mar-a-Lago documents. /1 cbsnews.com/news/biden-cen… As Jim Comey said regarding Hillary Clinton, DOJ prosecutes mishandling of classified documents cases when there is an aggravating favor present. Those factors are obstruction of justice, storage in a way that risks exposure, willful violation, and disloyalty to United States /2

I am impressed with the January 6 Committee’s report. It reads like a prosecution memo. I see the fingerprints of committee counsel Tim Heaphy, a former U.S. Attorney, all over this. Some of the proposed charges were expected. Two others are intriguing. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/… The expected charges, obstruction and conspiracy to defraud US, have been apparent from the start. I wrote about these charges in February. But the report does a good job of meticulously detailing evidence to support each element of each crime. justsecurity.org/80308/united-s…

In researching my book, I have been learning a lot about how authoritarians use disinformation. This post uses many basic old tricks. First, it states an outright lie, but suggests the claim has corroboration (“the revelation.”) /2 Second, it signals membership in the tribe of the far-right by using its signature language (“Democrat party”). I’m one if you, and this is what we all think.

I’m not sure it was necessary to appoint a special counsel to investigate a former president who is now a candidate for that office, but there are some advantages. /1 A special counsel provides an extra layer of independence from presidential appointees at DOJ. Even though AG Garland can reject a decision of the special counsel, he must tell Congress that he did so. People of good faith should find this step reassuring. /2

Questioning of justices suggests they think use of race in admissions is never permissible, in direct contradiction with Grutter v Bollinger. 1 nytimes.com/live/2022/10/3… In Grutter, SCOTUS held that diversity is a compelling governmental interest, so a college or university may use race in admissions so long as its process is narrowly tailored to achieve this goal. 2

Excellent thread by @rgoodlaw. In addition, I will note that storage at a country club, even with Secret Service protection, does not comply with rules for handling classified information, as Trump lawyers suggest.

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1569344503269494784

Trump lawyers also argue that DOJ’s urgency argument is fabricated because it waited so long to conduct the search. Trump team doesn’t mention that Trump was stalling and lying to them in the meantime. With Trump, no courtesy goes unpunished. When will we learn?

Among its glaring errors, judge’s order gives Trump special treatment. “As a function of plaintiff’s former position as president of the United States, the stigma associated with the subject seizure is in a league of its own.” So much for the rule of law. nytimes.com/2022/09/05/us/… It’s hard to grasp how a special master would assess executive privilege. Any residual privilege of a former president lets him ask Biden to assert the privilege as to third parties, like Congress. Here, it’s the executive branch that wants its own documents back.

Worst take of the day: ⁦@WSJ⁩ opinion page slamming DOJ for using search warrant. Gov asked nicely for year and a half, used subpoena in June and were told in signed statement that all were returned. And there were still 27 more boxes of Top Secret! wsj.com/articles/the-m… And content of these documents was the intelligence equivalent of radioactive - human sources, signals intelligence and FISA collection. Disclosure risks the lives of our overseas sources reporting on hostile foreign adversaries and compromises our ability to collect intelligence

Newly released DOJ memo regarding Mueller’s investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice reads more like a defense brief than a prosecution memo. Here is the memo and my criticisms.
citizensforethics.org/wp-content/upl… Memo concludes obstruction should not be charged because Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of conspiracy between Trump and Russia. But the law does not require a substantive charge. It’s illegal to undermine an investigation, regardless of investigation’s outcome.

For next Jan 6 hearing, which will cover Trump’s 3 hours of inaction as the mob stormed the Capitol, resulting in 5 deaths, I will be thinking about a crime I have not yet heard discussed much: manslaughter. Under DC law, manslaughter occurs when a person recklessly causes an unintentional death. Under the federal Assimilative Crimes Act, state (or DC) law can be charged federally when it occurs on federal property.

Witnesses don’t get to determine the time of their testimony. He violated the law the day he failed to show up on the date on the subpoena.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1546139825102901248

J6C should tell him too late, let DOJ convict him at trial for contempt, and then DOJ can compel his testimony. Statute provides immunity from using his own statements against him, but that’s not giving up much. He can still be prosecuted for his role in scheme.