3. It's interesting this is coming from the outside lawyers. We have no clue which if any of these legal positions are the positions of the White House Counsel’s Office — let alone the Justice Department generally, or the Office of Legal Counsel, specifically.
-
Show this thread
-
Chris Geidner Retweeted Tara Palmeri
As to 2, it appears that Giuliani is saying this is still, at least broadly speaking, their strategy — as to a subpoena. BUT! (see next tweet in thread!)https://twitter.com/tarapalmeri/status/1003021062299365379 …
Chris Geidner added,
2 replies 17 retweets 70 likesShow this thread -
The subpoena strategy is not the same as the interview strategy. The January letter purports not to make Trump available for an interview for much of anything relating to any obstruction questions, so I'm not sure the subpoena response plan says much re: their interview strategy.
1 reply 16 retweets 66 likesShow this thread -
(Giuliani has not yet responded to my request to talk — I was holding off on tweeting in case he called — but he's not yet done so. I remain interested in whether the letter reflects their current position on certain specifics laid out in the letter.)
3 replies 15 retweets 76 likesShow this thread -
A lot of folks already tweeted some specific ~highlights~ of sorts from the two letters obtained by the NYT. If you're on Twitter on a Saturday caring about this, you follow those folks and already read those tweets, so ... here are some other letter-specific notes I have.
1 reply 9 retweets 79 likesShow this thread -
(But, seriously, as detailed in the NYT story and in every thread, WHAT IS THEIR DEAL with only focusing on 1505??? Did anyone get what was going on there?)
4 replies 9 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
In the June 2017 Kasowitz letter, it is very interesting to note that the OLC opinion in Part B backing up the "unitary executive" argument related to a law attempting to get the CDC to be able to send information about AIDS to American households without political interference.
1 reply 9 retweets 50 likesShow this thread -
Here's the 1988 OLC opinion, finding that Congress went too far: It was authored by none other than Chuck Cooper. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4492877-1988-OLC-Opinion-AIDS-Pamphlet.html …pic.twitter.com/Gnw1bQoMRl
1 reply 8 retweets 45 likesShow this thread -
In the January 2018 Dowd/Sekulow letter, this line stood out: "Perhaps most notably, your office has already been given access to conversations with the President himself." What does that mean?pic.twitter.com/kvFSPEQzu8
5 replies 19 retweets 76 likesShow this thread -
These two endnotes are to a CNN article and a WSJ editorial, respectively. I'm at a loss how lawyers decided to use these to stand for the facts they purport to stand for.pic.twitter.com/jo8gAQ0COF
1 reply 13 retweets 68 likesShow this thread
The whole section of the January 2018 memo laying out what happened with Flynn cites to single memo from McGahn that is dated Feb. 15 — after Flynn was fired and the day *after* Trump talked to Comey about Flynn in the Oval Office.pic.twitter.com/xsIpxuGzAM
-
-
Ironically, that single memo, written about the Jan. 26-Feb. 14, 2017, period is used as evidence by Dowd/Sekulow in the same memo — about the same facts — where they attack Comey's immediately-post-meeting memoranda.pic.twitter.com/IzUA7OPzKi
0 replies 11 retweets 54 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner @wcsek
I love how they do not cite any court cases to back up their arguments!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.