Share this page!

Enter Twitter Thread URL to Unroll

Needs to be the full URL like: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on Twitter App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
@benjaminwittes
Aug 20, 2018 • 3 tweets • 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Final proofs just came in of the soon-to-released Lawfare challenge coin. #Excited
Design by: @ominousrabbit
Slogan by: @DavidKris (“an oasis of rigor in a desert of nonsense”)
Translation of slogan into Latin by: @SarahEBond
Thanks all!
And yes, Lady Justice is recording a podcast and drinking Scotch, @shaneharris.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Benjamin Wittes

Benjamin Wittes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @benjaminwittes

Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Aug 25, 2020
I love this trend
I think all should do it.
Because somewhere, there is a 15-year-old girl being terrorized online, there's a gay kid getting get hate emails from someone at school, an African American college student who is putting up with degrading stuff a colleague would never say in public but sends in private.
Read 6 tweets
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Sep 23, 2018
Good thread.

Due process is clearly the wrong concept here. If it were, presumably Merrick Garland was entitled to due process too—having a hearing in the first place. There is no evidence that the Senate believes a nominee is entitled to anything as a matter of right.
If the Senate wants to establish norms and expectations about what it will and won’t do in nominations, I’m all for that. I wrote a whole book arguing for it, in fact. But you can’t refuse to hold a hearing for one highly qualified nominee and then...
...insist for another that the standards within a hearing that you reserve the right not to hold at all comport with the norms of a judicial proceeding.
Read 6 tweets
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Sep 22, 2018
I don’t know the truth of #sarcasmgate and I really don’t want to see Rod Rosenstein get fired. But both @nytmike and @adamgoldmanNYT are excellent reporters. They are under a lot of fire today. Reminder that their job is not to tell you what you want to hear. That’s all I got.
Another thing: I don’t know how the Times got access to this material but I don’t believe it was White House leaks. I am unaware of the White House having access to the McCabe material.
Still another thing: this was a crazy time. Really crazy. I can’t fathom why McCabe would have memorialized a sarcastic joke—unless he misunderstood it as serious. That’s certainly possible.
Read 11 tweets
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Sep 14, 2018
Boom!
lawfareblog.com/document-super…
Prior Lawfare Manafort coverage available here: lawfareblog.com/tagged/paul-ma…
I am going to refrain from commenting on this until I see whatever plea agreement, stipulation of fact, and other material gets released today. Anyone who is commenting before that is probably getting ahead of the game.
Read 4 tweets
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Sep 8, 2018
These three threads from @DavidLat 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?
Even if you hate the guy, take a deep breath and consider: Kavanaugh is a very good lawyer. Very good. He was being asked about matters he knew were going to come up. He was being asked about prior testimony that took place more than a decade ago. He had time to prepare.
Any statute of limitations for that prior testimony is long passed. In other words, he could face no possible exposure for his prior statements—except if he doubled down on them in new testimony.
Read 14 tweets
Benjamin Wittes Profile picture
Sep 3, 2018
I was surprised this morning to receive on Twitter from @EVKontorovich and on email from @jacklgoldsmith responses to my Twitter thread of yesterday that reflect a real misinterpreting of what I was trying to say. Here's the original thread:
I don't back off what I said yesterday but my regard for both Jack and Eugene is such that I assume that if they could misread me so completely, others no doubt did as well. So please indulge me a few words of clarification.
First, the tweet thread was not ever meant to be about millions of my fellow citizens or about the general Trump-supporting voter. I wrote it specifically in response to @Kasparov63's tweet of an article about Lindsey Graham. It was about leadership cadres figures.
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(