Lame Reply Guy

@kaitlancollins Douglas Mackey

Former DOJ official tells me: "This might be the worst case DOJ has filed in my lifetime."

@daveweigel The Kimmel joke is about the double standard

The Kimmel joke was about Trump being old and having mysterious ailments. Lots of MSM coverage of stories like "what's up with his hand" and "was Trump asleep? No that photo was faked." That makes it onto show/monologues. nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/…

Every communist response to a communist act of violence is some version of, “Hey everyone needs to tone things down but also this is kind of your fault and also you kind of deserve it.” Because they’re not sorry. They want these things to happen. There will be no changes.

I have far more federal court trial experience than Weissmann, lost only 2 of 65+ jury trials as a AUSA--none reversed on appeal, much less losing 9-0 in SCOTUS on an argument I championed. Dismantling here his criticism of the SPLC indictment. First of 2 parts. Link below.

@brianstelter As is her 1st Amendment right

The First Lady wants ABC to take action against Jimmy Kimmel:

@mattyglesias The phrase “political violence” is doing about twice the work it should be in your tweet.

The big argument about which side is “worse” on political violence is whether the reaction of mainstream high-ranking GOP officials to Paul Pelosi was more appalling than the reaction of mainstream high-ranking GOP officials to the murder of Melissa Hortman.

Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America. People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough.  It is time for ABC to take a stand.  How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.

The aftermath of left-wing violence resembles the aftermath of antisemitic violence: 1) Insistence that maybe the motive isn’t what it seems 2) Perfunctory condemnation mixed with timid justification 3) Demand that you also focus on hypothetical violence going the other way

There is no place for political violence in our country. I am relieved that the President and the attendees at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last night are safe.

Cole Allen didn’t do this because he had access to guns. He did it because he thought he would be a hero to his political tribe. Unfortunately, he would be.

Dana Bash is an idiot. If the convictions aren't going to be defended on appeal -- and there were good legal reasons not to -- then the cases pending on appeal must have a resolution. The resolution is to vacate the convictions because criminal convictions are not "FINAL" until all appeals are exhausted. That is the only path appropriate under procedures. There was no procedure in the law to leave the convictions in place with the defendants having timely appealed. Do you really have a law license?

If this string of assassination attempts had involved a Democratic president instead, we’d have a prolonged national conversation about the scourge of right-wing violence and every Republican would be made to condemn their own side’s heated rhetoric. So why is this different?

As a tease for what is coming later -- but also because I get tired of Weissmann being rolled out as a legal authority on anything -- my article will begin thusly: "Andrew Weissmann “left” DOJ in the weeks following the Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision reversing his crowning achievement as head of the Enron Task Force, the conviction of Big Five accounting firm Arthur Anderson. Here are the facts surrounding his departure: Weissmann was part of the Enron Task Force when it was created in 2002, and became Director in 2004. But the Enron investigation began prior to the Task Force being formed, and was handled by Weissmann in the Fraud Section of DOJ’s Criminal Division. It was then moved to the Enron Task Force when Weissmann moved. The indictment was handed down in March 2002, and the trial was in May-June 2002 — the facts were largely undisputed and the issues at trial mostly involved “intent” and a legal interpretation of the “obstruction” statute Weissmann relied upon. The conviction led to Arthur Anderson’s collapse as a company, with 85,000 jobs lost world-wide, and 30,000 jobs lost in the U.S. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Arthur Anderson on May 31, 2005. The vote was 9-0 that the theory used by Weismann was constitutionally unsound — with Antonin Scalia agreeing with Ruth Bader Ginsburge that Weissmann didn’t know what he was doing. DOJ announced Weissmann’s departure from the Enron Task Force on July 18, 2005 — 6 weeks after the verdict. When Weissmann joined the New York law firm of Jenner & Block in January 2006, the firm’s announcement said he was “Special Counsel” to FBI Director Mueller from July to December 2005 — strongly suggesting Mueller saved him from being politely "asked" to leave DOJ in the aftermath of the Arthur Anderson FIASCO. From the Supreme Court’s opinion in Arthur Anderson, commenting on the legal theory pressed by Weissmann in the trial through the jury instructions he urged the trial judge to use: "The instructions also were infirm for another reason. They led the jury to believe that it did not have to find any nexus between the “persua[sion]” to destroy documents and any particular proceeding…. [T]he Government relies heavily on §1512(e)(1), which states that an official proceeding “need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.” It is, however, one thing to say that a proceeding “need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense,” and quite another to say a proceeding need not even be foreseen. A “knowingly … corrup[t] persaude[r]” cannot be someone who persuades others to shred documents under a document retention policy when he does not have in contemplation any particular official proceeding in which those documents might be material." Basically, Weissmann pressed the theory that a criminal conviction for document destruction could stand even when the entity engaging in the destruction had no reason to believe the documents would ever be used in a criminal investigation. He was wrong — 9-0 — but 85,000 people still lost their jobs and a Big Five accounting firm ceased to exist because of his incompetence. Did Weissmann have to go? Well, he went. His LEGAL CAREER should have ended after that — not just his DOJ career. But, as I noted, Mueller saved him. Don’t ask me why.

@AndrewDSteele94 @foodfiend1970 @shipwreckedcrew Giving money to the guy that they claim they are fighting? And asking donors for money so that they can REALLY fight him?

@foodfiend1970 @shipwreckedcrew Any organization can pay informants, even in extremist groups. That is legal. The question is whether the group made any statements to donors that were rendered false by their making those payments. Reading the first few paragraphs of the indictment, it seems like no.

What an absolute GIFT. I get to spend all day on Sunday explaining why Andrew Weissman is a duplicitous moron, why he was reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court, and why his criticisms of the SPLC indictment make my case for me. The more people rely on him for ANYTHING the more disconnected from reality they appear.

@ScottGreenfield Scott, how did Weissman’s indictments against AA in the Enron case work out? What a bunch of hacks masquerading as legal experts.

An excellent explanation of what's wrong with the indictment against the SPLC. justsecurity.org/137171/indictm…

@hasanthehun I know look at you, you’re just an innocent communist out calling for the blood of your political opponents to run in the street! Why would anyone be looking at you right now??

@jonfavs You Bolshevik scumbag

My God. I truly cannot imagine how someone with a gun could get into an event with this level of security. Insane.

@abbydphillip What a shit-for-brains you are

Very relieved everyone is safe in DC tonight. The WHCD has hosted presidents for decades. This is one of the most well-secured and well-known (to law enforcement) places in Washington. How anyone could get close to this event with a weapon is almost inconceivable.

@PhilNvestigates She’s apologized, the longer you milk this for “people to come to your defense,” like you are doing above, the sleazier you seem.

It was impossible to respond to everyone who came to my defense after the reprehensible attack this week by “Christian” Megan Basham (like the very kind response below). But thank you, and may peace be with you all!

@bonchieredstate He’s so intellectually dishonest

In some other universe where a pro-life group was paying "informants" to help organize pro-abortion rallies and to keep their groups afloat, while continuing to fundraise off it, James would never defend that. He'd be calling for the hammer to drop. He knows it. We all know it.