Looks like we have a debate. Jack (a good friend) disagrees with my assessment that US v Nixon stands in the way of Trump's attempt to fight a subpoena to testify in criminal case. Here's why I think Jack's wrong ... <thread> 1/https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/991477734814732289 …
-
Show this thread
-
Ryan Goodman Retweeted Jack Goldsmith
2. Same essay that Jack quotes actually concludes DJT will lose: “It is true that at the end of the day, Mueller’s subpoena likely would be upheld. Two unanimous Supreme Court decisions, United States v Nixon…and Clinton v. Jones…lead to that conclusion”https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/991480382691397633 …
Ryan Goodman added,
1 reply 18 retweets 36 likesShow this thread -
3. Author of that piece—
@harrylitman—restated conclusion unequivocally on@allinwithchris Tues: “Trump like anyone else, like Richard Nixon, is subject to [the rule of law] and that means having to answer to a subpoena. At the end of the day, Mueller…has the legal draw on Trump”pic.twitter.com/IzZVam0eGZ1 reply 9 retweets 33 likesShow this thread -
4. Jack notably limits his point to President Trump’s ability to avoid a subpoena “re his acts in office.” Well, that omits the Russia collusion investigation. Jack’s point, at least as currently pitched, does not seem to touch on that.
4 replies 7 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @rgoodlaw
When does "collusion" end? They were arguably beginning the payoff for election help in transition, but continued after inauguration.
@jacklgoldsmith1 reply 7 retweets 10 likes -
Not sure what you mean by that?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
We're on the same page. That's what I'm asking the high priced legal talent in this thread, whether a quo meant to payoff election help constituted a presidential act.
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.