I’d like to walk through the Vox article shared here. 1/

https://twitter.com/antitoxicpeople/status/1810751140281360585

First, I’d like to point out that Biden made 18 appearances in this time period. Not three. And Biden has undergone a neurological exam, and has done so every year since he’s been president. So this is BS. 2/

Hoo boy. Special counsel just provided Judge Cannon with all the examples of how dangerous Trump’s rhetoric is in support of his motion to modify the bail conditions. Check this out: 1/ 2/

A SHORT THREAD.

This article from the Times says Trump has more money that Biden. I don’t see a source here, but it must be the FEC, right? I mean, this is the @nytimes. They would just print stuff willy nilly, would they? 1/ Hmm. Interesting. I’m listening. What’s your source, though? Must be the FEC right? 2/

THREAD: SCOTUS RAHIMI: TW/CW: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: I’m relieved SCOTUS ruled 8 - 1 that a domestic abuser under a restraining order cannot own a firearm, but I’m equally appalled at Thomas’ repugnant dissent. Here’s why. 1/ Thomas writes that the law in question “is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, therefore it strips an individual of HIS (interesting use of pronoun there) ability to possess firearms and ammunition without due process.” With zero due respect Clarence, to hell with you and your selective due process. 2/

NEVADA! A quick 🧵

@RosenForNevada needs your help to defeat MAGA Sam Brown and codify Roe! Brown thinks Trump did a great job 🤯 Keep Brown OUT and send Jacky Rosen back to the Senate. 1/
MAGA Sam Brown wants to BAN ABORTION and has birth control in his sights. He wants to gut Social Security and repeal Obamacare, and would love nothing more to extend tax breaks to his wealthy friends. 2/

Alright. I’m watching Jaws for the first time. I’m 50 years old. I don’t have a good excuse for not having seen it yet.

So far, it seems as though business guys don’t want the main guy to put signs up in response to a shark attack because they don’t wanna lose money. Typical. 1/ Oh! There’s the old “that’s some bad hat, Harry” line. OOOH THE MUSIC IS STARTING… blood in the water!! 2/

THREAD: For Ken Dilanian at @MSNBC, who says Garland didn't do anything for 18 months. Can someone get this to him because he blocked me in 2019 when I called him out for getting the Mueller findings wrong. First, here's a non-exhaustive list of what Garland did before he appointed Jack Smith. 1/ Next, here’s recent reporting from the New York Times showing Garland started investigating Trump as soon as he got to the DoJ in March, 2021. 2/

THREAD: THE JURY: I’m really optimistic about the election interference case based on the notes from the jury today. First, the four pieces of testimony they asked for were specifically mentioned by the prosecution in closing arguments. 1/ Two of the four excerpts of testimony are from Pecker and Cohen about the meeting where they devised the conspiracy to alter the outcome of the election. Pecker corroborates Cohen on that agreement. 2/

BREAKING: Cannon has DENIED Jack Smith’s motion to modify Trump’s bail conditions (for saying the FBI and Biden wanted to assassinate him. She denied WITHOUT prejudice because Smith failed to meet and confer with Trump on the motion. 1/ Cannon says Smith’s failure to meet and confer “lacks professional courtesy” - even though Smith did confer and Trump’s lawyers asked for a couple more days. Will DoJ go to the 11th, or try again? I think they’ll try again first. END/

THREAD: A couple of observations on the eve of closing arguments in the first ever criminal trial of a former president, and on the night trump’s lawyers tried to blame the DoJ for their own misrepresentations in a filing in the first ever espionage/obstruction case against a former president. 1/ First, on the summations: to his own detriment, Donald Trump will underestimate the intelligence of the jury. He’s going to assume they’re too stupid to know who weisselberg is, where he is, and why he’s there. 2/

THREAD: First, people were mad that Trump wasn’t being investigated. When we learned he was being investigated, people became angry that he wasn’t being indicted. 1/ When he got indicted, people were angry that he wasn’t on trial. Now that he’s in trial, people are angry that he’s not been convicted yet. 2/

THREAD: Here's what the Mueller Report has to say about Cohen: "After the FBI searched Cohen’s home and office in April 2018, the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not “flip,” contacted him directly to tell him to “stay strong,” and privately passed messages of support to him." 1/ "Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a “rat,” and suggested that his family members had committed crimes." 2/

THREAD: all in all a great summary here, but I take issue with some of the language. First, none of these electors are being treated as “dangerous criminals”. None are in pretrial detention. Several have been given leeway on violating bail conditions. And none are charged with violent crimes. 1/ The reason some have been charged and others haven’t is because some broke the law and others didn’t. It’s not because prosecutors have special feelings about whether they’re “dupes” or “dangerous criminals”. I don’t see any “dupes” being charged in any state. In PA and NM, the electors said “we will not sign something that says we are the official electors. Put some contingency langue in here” and in AZ and MI they said “fuck yeah we’re the real electors even tho we know we aren’t. Keep this quiet.” The rest took plea deals. None of that is weird or inconsistent. 2/

BREAKING: Merrick Garland opened an investigation into Trump as soon as he got to the DoJ in March 2021.

Actually, this news is over a month old. But I bet you haven't heard about it much in the media. 1/ According to multiple sources familiar with multiple conversations in the first months of Garland's tenure, "Garland gathered his closest aides to discuss a topic too sensitive to broach in bigger groups: the possibility that evidence from the far-ranging Jan. 6 investigation could quickly lead to former President Donald J. Trump and his inner circle." 2/

New thread. Dreeban is up for DoJ. The existing system is a balanced framework, it protects POTUS but not at the high cost of blanket immunity.

Thomas: are you saying there's no immunity for official acts? D: yes, but for today, our position is POTUS as head of art II branch can assert art II objections to criminal laws that interfere with a POTUS power or that prevent him from his constitutional functions. What petitioner wants is blanket immunity absent impeachment and conviction which has never happened in our history and we submit that isn't necessary to assure POTUS can perform his tasks. Roberts: The DC Circuit says "a former POTUS can be prosecuted for his official acts if he's acted in defiance of the laws". Doesn't that seem tautologically true? It sounds like the circuit court is saying a POTUS can be prosecuted because he's being prosecuted. That concerns me. D: I wouldn't suggest that's the governments position. R: You know how easy it is to get an indictment. Relying on the good faith of a prosecutor and a grand jury, and if those are the only protections the court of appeals gave, and that's no longer your position, why shouldn't we send it back to the court of appeals? (That would be bad), or issue an opinion that's not the law?

D: I do support the circuit court's ruling and I think there are layered safeguard that will emiliorate the concern of chilling the POTUS. A politically driven prosecution would violate the constitution. I don't want to overstate your honors concern with relying on good faith, but that's an ingredient, and the courts stand ready to provide oversight.

R: yes but the appeals court didn't get into what acts or what documents we're talking about. Because the fact of prosecution takes away immunity according to the appeals court, they had no need to look at what acts were immune and which weren't.

D: (this is great) Well i take issue with the idea of taking away immunity. There is no immunity in the constitution unless this court creates it today.

Good morning! I'll do my best to live tweet the SCOTUS immunity arguments starting now. John Sauer, for trump, says "Without immunity, there can be no presidency." Which makes no sense because we've had plenty of presidents and no immunity 1/ He brings up some hypotheticals about drone strikes and border policy, and how every president from now on will face blackmail and prosecution. Thomas asks to clarify what the source of the immunity is. Sauer says the executive vesting clause - that it encompasses all the powers of the president. (That's wrong. The executive vesting clause actually limits the term to four years so that cuts against trump.) He then cites (and cherrypicks) Marbury v Madison 2/

THREAD: Good morning! Oral arguments are about to begin in Fischer v US. This is the case about the interpretation of Title 18 USC 1512c2 Obstructing an Official Proceeding. I'm going to do my best to live tweet the arguments. 1/ For background, over 300 insurrectionists and trump himself are charged with 1512c2. It carries a maximum 20 year sentence. Several insurrectionists challenged the meaning of this law, but only ONE judge out of 14 went along with this nonsense. 2/

THREAD: I’m sorry. But this filing is shady AF. This is Hankey Subprime’s filing proving that knight insurance can guarantee Trump’s bond. I’m very much looking forward to the April 22 hearing on the matter. 1/ iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc… The reason it seems shady to me is that Knight Specialty Insurance Company (KSIC) only has $138M in cash, and is relying on a trump Schwab account that’s supposed to be worth just about exactly $175M 2/

THREAD: I think it's brilliant that Jack Smith crafted his 1/6 indictment of trump to withstand 1) a court determining that a former president is immune for some official acts and 2) a court determining 1512(c)(2) must involve a document or documents. 1/ Smith's indictment works EVEN IF the Supreme Court decides that some presidents have immunity for some official acts because the charges are against him as a CANDIDATE for office, not as a sitting president. 2/

NEW: Jack Smith has responded to Trump’s delay attempt in the documents case. You can see what I posted about Trump’s request to delay here: 1/

https://twitter.com/muellershewrote/status/1779253775586476308

Jack Smith opens by reminding the court that she set the May 9 deadline very recently. April 10th to be exact. 2/

THREAD: My dad wrote to his parents about the threat of autocracy abroad (Russia) on October 19th, 1965. It reminds me of why we need to #PassUkraineAidNow

"Communism is my enemy. I hate it. It's my moral responsibility to to do all that I can to prevent its spread in any direction." 1/ "A good analogy would be this: A man has cancer in his big toe. He decides to do nothing about it because he doesn't want to spend the money. Besides, it hasn't killed him yet, and if it spreads too far, he can cure it at the last minute." 2/