If #Trump’s “radical claim were accepted, it would upend understandings about presidential #accountability that have prevailed throughout history while undermining #democracy & the rule of #law — particularly where, as here, a fmr president is alleged to have committed #crimes to remain in office despite losing an #election, thereby seeking to subvert constitutional procedures for transferring power & to disenfranchise millions of voters.”
US District Judge #AileenCannon’s ultimatum Mon night came as a surprise twist in what could have been a simple order; one merely asking federal prosecutors & Trump’s lawyers for proposed #JuryInstructions at the upcoming #trial.
But as she has done repeatedly, #Cannon used this otherwise innocuous #legal step as yet another way to swing the case wildly in favor of the man who appointed her while he was president.
#RobertHur said that AG #MerrickGarland did not interfere w/his investigation or attempt to modify his report. Rep Joe #Neguse asked #Hur a series of yes/no questions about whether #Garland —or any #DOJ ofcls— attempted to impede the investigation.
The appointment of a #SpecialCounsel is intended to make high-profile, sensitive investigations as #independent & #apolitical as possible. A SC has more independence from DOJ ldrs than other fed prosecutors, but still ultimately answers to the #USAG.
Trump argues that as a fmr president he has #immunity, & that the case is politically motivated, while #SpecialCounsel#JackSmith …has some choice language for those claims: “woefully short of the requirements … no evidence whatsoever … frivolous … so lacking in merit … no support in constitutional text, separation of powers principles, history, or logic.”
It’s now been a full 8 days since #Trump responded to #SpecialCounsel#JackSmith’s response to Chief Justice Roberts’ request for a response (jeezuz talk about going in circles) to Trump’s application for a stay.
Trump application for a stay 2/12
Court requests Smith’s response 2/13
Smith delivers response 2/14
Trump replies to Smith’s response 2/15
“Does U.S. want a "well-meaning elderly man," or one who means ill? Would rather have a POTUS who briefly confused Egypt for Mexico, or one who'd start a war on the border?
On the slow train wreck of democracy - it doesn't have to be this way.”