Twitter | Search | |
Jack Goldsmith
Professor , Senior Fellow , Co-Founder
5,098
Tweets
70
Following
62,377
Followers
Tweets
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
9/ McCabe memos likely leaked by someone seeking to discredit RR and/or help Trump. That surely made the NYT (not a pro-Trump outlet) super-careful, which is why it used “suggested,” “discussed,” “brought up,” not "authorized" or "pursued," and why it stands by its reporting. END
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
8/ McCabe recorded RR’s representations contemporaneously, at a time when he had no reason to know how the memos would be used, and no reason to think he might be adversarial w/ RR. That lends memos credibility about the matter recorded.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
7/ That said, it is very hard to know how seriously RR made these claims. I am not sure one would be able to tell that one way or the other from the McCabe memos, which are the main (and apparently initial) source for the NYT story.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
6/ In sum, RR had two shots to deny what the NYT reported and did not. Both denials fall short of what the NYT said he said and did.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
5/ RR's 25th Amendment also revealing. He denies “any suggestion” that he “advocated for the removal of the President.” NYT claim was that RR “discussed” and “brought up” the 25th Am. idea. RR did not deny these claims, which fall short of “advocacy.” So I think they are true.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
4/ RR says he never “pursued or authorized” recording POTUS. NYT claimed he “suggested” the idea. RR did not deny that. Nor did he claim that he suggested a recording of POTUS in jest. I thus read RR as conceding here that he did suggest it but never pursued or authorized it
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
3/ Especially given that this is RR’s second shot at denial, the weasel-words, and what he didn’t say, stand out pretty clearly.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
2/ “I never pursued or authorized recording the President and any suggestion that I have ever advocated for the removal of the President is absolutely false,” says Rosenstein in his second, and very carefully worded, denial.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 22
1/ A few thoughts following up on my quickie post yesterday on the Rod Rosenstein (RR) story in the NYT.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 21
My take on the NYT story on Rosenstein's discussions about recording the President and a 25th Amendment removal.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith retweeted
Stephen E. Sachs Sep 18
Read the brief and I just filed in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, on whether states can assert sovereign immunity in other states' courts:
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 17
Replying to @jacklgoldsmith
Second, director of operations.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 17
Two new openings at Lawfare. First, a two-year fellowship to cover Congress.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith retweeted
UVA Law School Sep 15
After working on ALI’s latest restatement, Prof. Paul Stephan explains how foreign relations law has changed since the reference manual’s last revision 30 years ago.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 14
Replying to @charlie_savage
Here is the report and analysis.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 14
Thanks especially to , and also to co-petitioners and , and declarants, for this effort to get the Watergate-era Jaworski "Road Map" released.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith retweeted
Niko Bowie Sep 14
Why was the US Constitution written down when the British Constitution never was? My answer involves a coup d'état in which a thousand armed farmers stormed Boston demanding, of all things, a corporate charter. Read it now at SSRN or soon in !
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 12
A wise analysis with many good points.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith Sep 11
It's a good question. We won't know until Mueller let's us know, if he does. Two quibbles: Mueller was *not* appointed "under Special Counsel regs so some of the analysis is not relevant, and original appointment letter did contain factual statement of matter under investigation.
Reply Retweet Like
Jack Goldsmith retweeted
Benjamin Wittes Sep 8
These three threads from are very strong and worth your time. I would like to add a couple of points that apply to all three lines of questioning: Do you really think Brett Kavanaugh is so dumb—so mind-numbingly, idiotically stupid—as to lie under oath in this setting?
Reply Retweet Like