> As part of Operation Legend, Attorney General Barr directed federal agents from the FBI, U.S. Marshal Service, DEA and ATF to surge resources to Kansas City in the coming weeks to help state and local officials fight the surge of violent crime. They will be working alongside state and local law enforcement agencies. Department of Justice assets will include over 100 FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, DEA agents, and ATF agents.
Oops, "Operation Legend", not "project". Still bad
@Frank Because the release is to a NY State grand jury, where evidence is, by law, confidential, unless explicitly released by a judge, under a fairly narrow set of criteria
So due to the remand in both these cases, everyone (on Twitter anyway, and in articles people are frantically writing) is speculating that this successfully punts everything past the Nov election
But one particular legal commentator I follow says that he wouldn't be at all surprised to see these both resolved before November. Not certain, but a chance:
> Cases with fact decisions get remanded & the standards below are going to be fact-intensive which means (a) deference to trial court's opinion and (b) highly unlikely to get injunction blocking ruling on appeal. I do NOT see ground for talking heads saying "NO CHANCE" before Nov
Basically that the remaining fact the lower courts will consider are narrow, and don't favor the president
And also that, due to these rulings, that the chance of either the appeals court (or SCOTUS) taking up an appeal on these facts are unlikely
@Frank The ruling says, in short, "The broad immunity claims Trump is making are not supported by law. But, there might be (very narrow) fact-based objections he can make to these specific subpoenas, that he hasn't (yet) made in this case
So they rejected the broad injunction, but remanded the case down for him to make those other arguments, if he has any (which he frankly doesn't, not any good ones anyway)
> The Court says that a President can "argue that compliance with a particular subpoena would impede his constitutional duties," [...] but under the Court's opinions in this case and Mazars, it is not easy to see how such an argument could prevail.
Right. This is from Alito's dissent in Vance (the NY prosecutor case)
@Yuuki For a detailed background on this case, listen to this interview: (short clip in tweet, full podcast linked)
> Fired US Attorney Geoffrey Berman told House Judiciary that AG Barr urged him to resign and warned him him getting fired would “not be good for my resume or future job prospects," per his opening statement obtained by CNN.
(the link in his tweet doesn't seem to be updated yet, its just the original "Berman will testify" article)
> Berman also told the panel Barr's initial announcement that a New Jersey US Attorney, Craig Carpenito, would be named acting US attorney for SDNY would have been “unprecedented, unnecessary and unexplained.”
> Republican officials are still considering infecting hundreds of delegates and party officials with the coronavirus by holding the Republican National Convention in Florida.
> Republican officials are still considering infecting hundreds of delegates and party officials with the coronavirus and heatstroke by holding the Republican National Convention in Florida.
Breaking: Judge Sullivan is asking the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the three-judge panel decision granting the Flynn mandamus petition
> First, the majority undermined this Court’s consistent interpretation of the mandamus standard by forcing the district court to grant a motion it had not yet resolved, based on alleged harms to a party that did not seek mandamus, and in reliance on arguments never presented to the district court.
