A hearing is underway now in the case of Richard Barnett, one of the Capitol insurrection defs (photographed at Pelosi's desk) — the govt is challenging an Arkansas magistrate judge's release order. Chief Judge Beryl Howell in DC halted his release until she rules on the matter

A federal judge in DC is holding a detention hearing in the cases of Capitol insurrection defendants Eric Munchel (who was photographed wearing tactical gear and holding a bunch of zip tie handcuffs) and his mother Lisa Eisenhart — the govt is arguing to keep both behind bars

Re: the zip tie handcuffs that Munchel and Eisenhart allegedly picked up inside the Capitol, AUSA Ahmed Baset says they were visible to lots of people passing by at the time but these two not only took them, but did so "with glee"

Baset says it's true that Munchel and Eisenhart aren't charged with physically hurting anyone, the evidence shows they were looking for lawmakers, who had been cleared out. "They should not be given credit for that," Baset argues.

Baset says that Munchel was in touch with the Proud Boys in Tennessee *after* Jan. 6 and talked about how he'd wanted to join their ranks before but didn't know how

Munchel's lawyer Sandra Roland argues that the Tennessee magistrate judge who granted pretrial release to Munchel and Eisenhart got it right in finding that the govt failed to show there were no combination of release conditions that would protect the community

New: The Trump campaign filed a three-page letter in the 3rd Circuit this morning requesting oral argument in its big case trying to undo Biden's win in PA: https://t.co/oSOEc27he8

There is a lot to unpack here, too much for one tweet, so bear with me

The 3rd Circuit doesn't let lawyers who aren't members of the court's bar to appear unless they're pro bono. Trump's legal team still asks to let Rudy Giuliani argue, saying he hasn't been able to get the "necessary certifications due to Covid-19 complications"

Trump's lawyers write that given how many people voted for him, the claims "should be heard on the merits" — but recall this case is not up on appeal about the merits. The campaign is asking for emergency review of the judge denying its request to file a 2nd amended complaint

They contend oral argument would be helpful to address issues raised by PA, the DNC, and other parties in briefs filed yesterday, which they then touch on in a set of footnotes

The first footnote argues there was no undue delay in filing the 2nd amended complaint b/c given the shifting makeup of the campaign's legal team, there was "confusion" that led to the filing of the 1st amended complaint, which removed sections and a number of counts

Sidney Powell has moved to dismiss Dominion's defamation lawsuit. She argues that when she accused Dominion of being part of an election-rigging scheme with ties to Venezuela, "no reasonable person would conclude" those "were truly statements of fact" https://t.co/RDPD1eGvY3

Powell argues she can't be liable if the information she based her "opinions and legal theories" on were actually unreliable, comparing herself to reporters who get 1A protection when they cite sources; but she later also makes clear she disputes that her info was "false"

Powell also raises jurisdictional and venue-related arguments, basically saying the parties + allegations lack sufficient ties to DC and the case should be moved to Texas

The (sort of) retreat of the Kraken: Sidney Powell argues she can't be sued for defamation because her voter fraud lies were just "opinions and legal theories."

"...no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of

The hundreds of criminal cases brought re: the Jan. 6 insurrection show how potent Powell and other Trump allies' conspiracy theories were — for ex, one man charged with assaulting cops echoed Powell's false claims that voting machines were tampered with

1/ I want to briefly tease out Cruz's statement, which will help set expectations about what might happen January 6:

2/ At its heart, the presser states, "we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless & until that emergency 10-day audit is completed."

3/ How does a10-day emergency audit happen? Congress would need to enact a statute to amend the Electoral Count Act before January 6, when it's compelled by law to meet. That seems unlikely.

4/ Cruz et al. seem to hold a "thick" view of the Electoral Count Act, adhering to the "statutory requisite," which means that Congress would need to amend or adhere to the statute.

5/ A 10-day audit is impossible under the current statute. Objections to a state are limited to 2 hours' debate. Adjournments are fixed in the statute, too--no recess if you've hit five days:

Look, I get the reasoning behind not calling witnesses. But what gets lost is that yet another rich white elected criminal got away with it. We've had decades of this (GWB lying re WMDs) & Ds have never stopped it. Never. They just sigh & ask for our votes. We want accountability

They've never rid of of the EC, no Healthcare 4all & any gains we've gotten (NRA going bust, BLM showing us inequality) has been citizen advocacy. And citizens SHOULD do that. But we want our Dem reps to accomplish big things, too. We've given them all three branches twice.

So it's a bit difficult to ask us to swallow this "as a win" when a criminal isn't held accountable by the very means he's supposed to be held accountable.

I understand the challenges, I do. But these same naysayers also wrote off Stacy Adams in GA, and look what she did.

Political calculation is important, sure. But it's not the ONLY important thing, either. Sometimes one has to fight to the bitter end over a thing that matters, even if you lose the fight. I don't see that happened here. And it's part of a pattern. If Ds didn't have this pattern-

Maybe I'd be more forgiving, but I'm not. People got away with torture, they got away with illegally selling arms, working with a hostile foreign nation, killing our citizens via negligence, and thus far NO accountability for any of that, and little hope some will come.

In January, we wrote to @pritipatel on behalf of 31 claimants, several standing in for their deceased parents, calling for the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be taken away from the Home Office on account of its comprehensive failure: [1/35]

It wasn’t just that the Scheme *wasn’t working*; claimants had begun to get the sense that @ukhomeoffice was deliberately setting them up to fail, and being deliberately dishonest in its promises as to reform and meaningful change. [2/35]

On 14 Dec, @ukhomeoffice had announced a package of reforms to the Scheme. These reforms were said to be the fruit of the sincere efforts of HO staff in listening to the complaints victims and stakeholders had been making for well over a year. [3/35]

A big part of the “overhaul” was the promise of Preliminary Awards of £10k. These payments were to be ‘fast-tracked’ as a demonstration of the HO’s good faith. @pritipatel told Parliament they’d be rolled out beginning the week of 14 Dec. [4/35]

A promise of “fast-tracked” anything from @ukhomeoffice is inherently suspicious, unless the thing in question is some form of abuse of migrants, refugees or PoC. Claimants - who have in many cases been waiting since mid-late 2019 to hear back - were guarded. [5/35]