Just discussed the Fulton County grand juror’s publicity tour with @andersoncooper.

1) It is entirely clear the grand jury has recommended a Trump indictment; and

2) The grand juror is doing no favors to prosecutors with this giddy PR romp. It’s a bad idea generally for a grand juror to speak publicly. The specific legal line in GA is whether the grand juror discloses “deliberations.” That’s debatable. She doesn’t discuss vote counts. But she does discuss specific witnesses and the grand jury’s findings as to them.

Some folks have asked if I read my own audiobook for #Untouchable.

I do. While I’m not a professional voiceover guy, I think it’s more authentic. (As does @MarkHamill, who sent a wonderful tweet last time encouraging me to read my own book; I’ll take that advice any day.) Also I tell lots of first-person stories from my time as a prosecutor. They wouldn’t sound right coming from somebody else.

Here we go! My new book – “Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It” – publishes today.

The idea for this book came from all of you. My editor asked, “What’s the question you get asked most often?” The answer has now become this book.

amazon.com/Untouchable-Ho… I’ve got stories from my time as a prosecutor, analysis of major recent cases, historical dives and revelations, and first-time scoops from inside the Justice Department and the SDNY, including this one:

cnn.com/2023/01/27/pol…

Some highlights from the launch of my new book #Untouchable.

Fun fact: both @Mimirocah1 and @JenRodgers13 were my unit chiefs at the SDNY. (1/ You know this guy @PreetBharara but more importantly the engine of Cafe, @TamaraSepper.

It took genuine courage for Cassidy Hutchinson to break free of her original lawyer, who was selected and paid for by Trump-affiliated entities and who, she testified, tried to prevent her from cooperating fully against Trump. (Thread) 2. The original lawyer told her, “We just want you to focus on protecting the president” and to say she “did not recall” events that she actually did recall. As I’ve said on air, this crosses the line from a murky gray area into obstruction, if established by the evidence.

Of course, Trump’s announcement has no legal bearing and doesn’t formally insulate him from anything.

But DOJ and the Fulton County DA have now been beaten to the punch by Trump’s announcement, and those prosecutors have made their own jobs more difficult by their delay. (1/8) Prosecutors - DOJ and locals alike - have dragged their feet and played paddy-cake for nearly two years now, on both January 6 and Mar-A-Lago (the search was just in August, but DOJ has known about the missing docs for far longer). (2/8)

With Bill Barr now making daily pronouncements about what should happen in our criminal justice system, it's worth reflecting on who the man truly is, and what he actually did during two years as AG under Trump. Running through the chapters of my book. (THREAD) 1. Barr has been AG twice (once in the early 90s, under G.H.W. Bush) but he has *never* tried a case in court. He is a DC-based political operator, but never a real courtroom prosecutor.

DOJ is opposing release of the affidavit in the Mar-A-Lago search. Here's what that does, and does not, mean. (THREAD)

cnn.com/2022/08/15/pol… 1. The affidavit is the big one. This is the long, narrative document where prosecutors write out, in detail, their probable cause to believe that crime(s) were committed. The judge then reviews this document and, in this case, we know he signed off and agreed on probable cause.

There's a lot of talk about what documents Donald Trump would and would not have in the wake of the Mar-A-Lago search, and what they might or might not show. A brief guide; hope this helps. (THREAD) 1. There are three main documents in play here.

First: the "Affidavit in Support of Search Warrant." This is the full narrative where prosecutors lay out evidence establishing probable cause. This has by far the most detail, and it's what the judge reviews and approves.

The attempts to discredit Cassidy Hutchinson are off base and unpersuasive. (THREAD) 1. Hutchinson was remarkably credible overall. Her testimony was careful and measured, she has no incentive to lie (and powerful counter-incentive), and she was backed up on key points by other witnesses, by documents, and at times by former President Trump’s own statements.

For the “DOJ is already on Hutchinson, how would you know?” crowd. And I knew they weren’t on Hutchinson not because of any inside info but because no decent prosecutor would allow a star witness like her to give dozens of hours of public testimony before grand jury / trial.

Rudy lies constantly but his vicious lies about Ms. Moss and her mother - civilian, unelected public servants - are grotesque and utterly unforgivable. He’s probably the only SDNY alum I’m actively ashamed to have that in common with.

This clip perfectly illustrates the fundamental dishonesty and political toadyism of Bill Barr and the Durham investigation. (Thread)

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1532143445984153601

1. Barr tasked Durham with investigating the origins of the Mueller / Russia probe in May 2019. Barr did this only after months of Trump publicly clamoring to "investigate the investigators" and claiming he had been the victim of a massive political crime.

Interesting development that answers some questions, and raises many others. (Thread below)
cnn.com/2022/05/30/pol… 1. We need to be careful about this. As the article notes, at this point it's all based on Navarro's word -- and, as I'll note, Navarro has a history of struggling with the truth.

DOJ making an obvious and overdue move here to access (or attempt to access) the Committee’s evidence. (Thread /1) nytimes.com/2022/05/17/us/… What’s strange is that DOJ sat back and let the Committee do all this heavy lifting first. Typically when prosecutors are locked in on an issue, they back Congress down and insist on doing the key interviews first. (/2)

DOJ has charged 770-plus defendants for January 6. We know the investigation is ongoing and they'll surely charge more, with serious crimes.

The question is whether DOJ is structuring and conducting its investigation in a manner that's reasonably likely to get to Trump. (1/10) No doubt DOJ is pouring resources into this case. They've done a solid, if uneven, job prosecuting people who were at the Capitol. Several federal judges have criticized DOJ for being lenient and inconsistent, but overall they're reasonably handling a massive task. (2/10)

Bill Barr's first extended interview airs tonight at 9:00 p.m. Expect it to be a self-aggrandizing, revisionist, bullshit-fest.

If this thing actually does air as planned, then I'm going to stick around and do a running rebuttal here in this thread. /1 First, as a warmup, here's a piece I wrote last week about Barr's image rehab effort. /2

cafe.com/elies-note/not…

Let me address the refrain, "This is how it works, prosecutors start with lower-level players and work their way up." That's an oversimplification of what aggressive prosecutors *actually* do, and it's a recipe to sweep up a whole bunch of mopes and no power players. (Thread 1/7) By the book, yes, prosecutors sometimes work low to high. I did it. **But you have to be realistic about proximity and chains of command.** How many layers up will you need to flip, and can you realistically reach the top that way, given power structures and relationships? (2/7)

Big question out there: will Ghislaine Maxwell flip, now that she's been convicted by a jury?

(Credentials: I flipped dozens of people at the SDNY, was co-chief of the organized crime unit, eventually taught new prosecutors the course on how cooperation works)

(Thread, 1/12) First, will Maxwell want to flip? That's an intensely personal, complex decision. Let's consider incentives. She's 60 years old, likely facing much or all of her remaining life behind bars, no real hope on appeal. Cooperation is her best and perhaps only chance to get out. (2/12)

Another data point on the absurdity of cash bail systems: if the Crumbleys were wealthy, or could raise enough money, they could pay their way out of jail pending trial. It's very unlikely they'll come up with enough money, but cash bail gives them that chance. (Thread, 1/5) Or take recent case of Darrell Brooks, who was able to kill six people in Waukesha because he posted $1,000 cash bail -- yes, one thousand dollars -- even while he was a registered sex offender, with outstanding warrants, and several prior violent felonies. (2/5)

Here’s my read on the Jeffrey Clark situation, as just discussed with @ErinBurnett @OutFrontCNN:

Clark’s lawyer sent in a last-minute letter invoking a whole range of privileges - most of them bogus and inapplicable - but also, for the first time, mentioning the Fifth Amendment. Any person absolutely has the right to take the Fifth if his testimony might be used against him in a criminal prosecution. That applies to testimony in criminal cases, civil cases, or Congress. People can and have taken the Fifth in Congress.