Seems odd that it’s published now. How is not a problem that potential jurors will see this?
I’ve read it twice and obviously missed those typos both times. Can you point them out, please?
< wild applause>
Right on the first page I noticed in the (1) bold underlined title “obstruction” should be “obstruct”.
First rule of proofreading. You never see anything in bold.
My wife caught that. She also said something about brackets, but I can’t find them offhand.
As long as she didn’t type “bigly” or “covfefe” or whatever that was, then she’s still ahead of the orange douchefuckingdickbag.
Yeah, good catch. Should have been ‘obstruct’ or ‘obstruction of’.
What else?
I took note of the bit regarding federal funding:
Unstated, but implied, is that this will be free ammunition for anyone who chooses to hang the “soft on crime” label from his neck and theirs. “Jim Jordan cuts program to catch serial rapists.” “Congressional Republicans undermine state efforts to prosecute violent criminals.” I’m sure an ad agency could have fun with this stuff, come campaign time.
Yeah - that was a tad cringey.
Since he can’t do that, and won’t even try, saying that Jordan did that would be a prevarication.
I realize that Republicans lie about Willis. Democrats lying less is a big reason I am now a Democrat.
You do realize he threatened to do that, right? I guess you could say it’s “implied” and not overtly stated.
Given the weighty federal interests at stake, the Committee is conducting oversight of this matter to determine whether any legislative reforms are appropriate or necessary. Such reforms could include changes to the federal officer removal statute, immunities for federal officials, the permissible use of federal funds, the authorities of special counsels, and the delineation of prosecutorial authority between federal and local officials.
She was responding specifically to threats by Jordan to cut federal funding that enables those programs. I fail to see how it is not within the scope of the House’s budgetary powers, and he is now on notice that those cuts will result in the curtailment of the programs. If he succeeds in causing that funding to be cut, he will indeed be responsible for the programs being curtailed.
ETA: I do not think Jordan actually has a sharp enough tooth to make that happen, but I believe it is a reminder to his fellow Republican reps that the gloves can come off if they let him do it.
Implied that he wants to cut money for prosecuting rape?
No.
If there is any implication, it’s that Jordan wants to investigate if federal local prosecution subsidies intended for directly violent crimes, and drug offenses are being diverted to prosecute Trump and company. Do I think there is any evidence to justify starting a House investigation on that? No, but it simply is not true that Jordan is, directly or by implication, trying to reduce Fulton County rape, or other directly violent crime, prosecution funding.
P.S. I used the phrase “directly violent” above to try to avoid getting back into the argument over whether Trump’s alleged crimes are violent or white collar. We’ll see whether I succeeded,
Your post has a distressing lack of Laszlo and The Doctor.
That’s absolutely brilliant - thanks so much for posting it.
Hopefully it will be copied word for word into future legal textbooks as an example of how to uphold professional standards.
I can see the Legal Eagle video now. He starts of reading the letter … then dissolves into maniacal laughter the next 9 minutes.
It is my understanding that publication was held due to “imminent indictments”. Those indictments have happened.
Among the 50 ish people I work with, I’m the only one who has read anything relating to the various legal documents. Not that many people will read it. Most will hear about it or not from whatever news source they follow.
Specifically of the Deez variety. Something came in the mail for you today, Jim.
I hope this letter is bronzed and put on display at the Smithsonian.
I thought it was a reference to General Anthony McAuliffe.
Steps:
- Jordan implies that federal funding for Georgia prosecutors’ offices could be cut.
- Willis points out that those funds are going toward analyzing rape kits.
- Willis suggests that cutting those funds could enable rapists to walk free.
If Jordan didn’t want that implication, he should have done better research. She neatly turned his sloppy accusation and threats right back on him.