...snip...
In this instance, Accountable.US found ties between Leo and the following groups or their lawyers that filed amicus briefs in the 14th amendment case: Citizens United, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, the Claremont Institute, Landmark Legal Foundation, Judicial Watch, Jones Day, Wyoming’s secretary of state Chuck Gray and America’s Future.

Citizens United, a conservative group whose name is synonymous with the 2010 supreme court ruling that allows unlimited political spending by outside groups and corporations, filed a brief alongside Steven Calabresi, Leo’s fellow co-chair of the Federalist Society. Other lawyers tied to the society are signed on to the group’s brief as well.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s brief is co-filed with a man who has been featured in more than 100 Federalist Society events, and the group has received funding from groups tied to Leo. The Claremont Institute has also received funds from groups tied to Leo’s funding network, and the brief’s author wrote a book that includes a quote from Leo on the back cover and featured in society events.

Leo has complimented the chairman of the Landmark Legal Foundation as a “great patriot” and “our old Federalist Society stalwart”. The Judicial Watch president is also president of the Council for National Policy, which Leo has reportedly been involved with. Jones Day, a conservative law firm whose attorneys authored an amicus brief for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has given money to the Federalist Society, and the firm is where Leo, Trump and others met to come up with a list of supreme court candidates.

However, when trial continued after a lunch break, Engoron held a surprise hearing in which he ordered Trump to take the witness stand—marking the first time the real estate tycoon has done so in his ongoing legal troubles.

After a visibly perturbed Trump was sworn in, Engoron asked him who he was referring to when he directed his anger at the “very partisan” person sitting next to the judge.

“Are you sure you didn’t mean on the other side of me, my principal law clerk?” Engoron asked.

“Yes, actually,” Trump said, sticking to his story.

Thread Reader

David Decosimo
@DavidDecosimo
37m • 16 tweets • 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
If your only ethics are Foucault & Fanon, you’re wholly unequipped to make the distinctions necessary to recognize justice & uphold dignity in relation to political violence.
Just war theory, an ancient tradition of ethical inquiry, offers a better way. It is relevant just now.🧵
In its classic formulation, the theory claims that certain acts of killing are neither ‘necessary evils’ nor merely permissible but, under certain constraints, just & right. The theory sets criteria for *when* war is just (jus ad bellum) & *how* it must be fought (jus in bello).

Jus ad bellum
1. Just Cause: serious & unlawful wrong to a polity, eg invasion, colonization, despotism.
2. Right Intention: an aim to right that very wrong, not revenge or annihilation. Here Hamas fails. Israel will fail if it aims for more or other than simply defeating Hamas.
3. Sovereign Authority: those waging war must have sovereign authority & due claim to represent a polity. A private group, faction, or smattering of aggrieved people cannot justly war. Still, a group of colonized or enslaved people can duly organize & constitute themselves.

If any of these jus ad bellum criteria go unmet, the war or rebellion as a whole is not just.

But regardless, the norms for just conduct within the war itself remain absolutely obligatory. These jus in bello criteria are especially relevant as Israel battles Hamas in Gaza.

Jus in bello
1. Discrimination: It is never licit to intentionally target non-combatants. Even a just rebellion by a colonized people must exclusively target combatants. Hamas fails here. Israel must only intentionally target combatants & military targets, never non-combatants.
2. Proportionality:
This concerns weighing the good secured by some attack on combatants against the likely *unintended* collateral harm it will cause to noncombatants. That side effect must be duly weighed. Proportionality *never* involves or excuses intentionally targeting NCs!
Say a combatant target abuts a school. The blast from even the weakest weapon will also kill many children. Proportionality means weighing such a tragic loss in itself & relative to the target & his death’s impact on the war. It may demand no strike or risking using ground troops
Note the NC death is not intended, even as it’s foreseen certainly. If the children miraculously survive, they don’t strike again but rejoice. In contrast, if the target survives, their purposes are thwarted; they strike again. Nor are the NC deaths a means to killing the target.
For example, taking noncombatant hostages or using threats or deliberate harm to NCs as a means of getting concessions from the enemy is forbidden & has nothing to do with considerations of proportionality.
In short, NC lives must be duly & truly valued: never intentionally targeted & weighed heavily in considering a strike on combatants that will collaterally harm them. Justice demands willingness to incur more casualties & risk oneself & a more costly/inefficient path to victory.
Armies who fail to distinguish themselves from civilians, use human shields, or occupy hospitals bear responsibility for harm to NCs that accrues from enemy strikes, but their evil conduct does *not* excuse the justly warring from discrimination or proportionality obligations.
3. No indiscriminate means: Some weapons/tactics are inherently indiscriminate (biological), disproportionate in effect, or both (nuclear). Debate on sieges concerns the indiscriminate nature of blocking access to basic goods like food/meds/water needed for noncombatant survival.
4. No inherently evil means: Intrinsically evil acts like torture & rape are always forbidden.
5. POWs must be given quarter & treated humanely.
6. No reprisals: Enemy violation of above norms doesn’t excuse doing so oneself. No attacks meant to punish rather than to win the war.

I’ve simplified & left much aside here. But I want to commend & offer this vocabulary. Whether you agree on every point, surely you can see it is an ethically serious effort to try to honor human dignity & seek justice amidst the horrors of war.
As war continues, all must uphold these norms. Hamas has horribly violated them & wars unjustly. Israel must not violate discrimination & proportionality norms lest it to mirror the terror it fights. It is always fair to ask whether a nation is fully honoring these obligations.
• • •

Mark Meadows prepped classified info for top Republicans and Trump-friendly journalists: new book
Sarah K. Burris
September 26, 2023 8:28AM ET

After the release of her book, Enough, the full details were revealed. According to Hutchinson, Meadows infuriated the White House counsel with the move. He made a last-minute mad-dash for the Justice Department, claiming Trump declassified the information after Trump had already left the White House, according to Hutchinson. The DOJ refused to declassify the information, but Trump's allies maintain Trump filed the necessary paperwork in time.

"I watched [Meadows] climb into the limo, noticing the original Crossfire Hurricane binder tucked under his arm," Hutchinson writes. "I didn’t have time to ask what he planned to do with it as he drove away. My mind whirred with questions. Why would [Trump] keep me on payroll? Generosity isn’t his style. And what the hell is Mark doing with the unredacted Crossfire Hurricane binder?"

It was the day before the inauguration.