Like there's a reason why Brad Smith, very forcefully arguing error on FECA, doesn't include the preemption argument that multiple state and federal courts have found frivolous.

AGAIN:

(1) it can be a state crime to conceal a federal crime (not what happened here);
(2) it can be a state crime to conceal a state crime that is committed by unlawful conduct that would itself be a federal crime (this);
(3) the scope of FECA preemption is specified in a reg

The federalist guy just having a normal one

whispers: he was always voting for him, just like everyone else who tweets this idea

holy hell i'm really gonna get a month of TFGs doing word salad about going directly to the supreme court for original habeas relief under the all writs act.

THIS IS MY BAT SIGNAL

Totally serious about governance

Humbly submit that if the only time you've complained about prosecutor overreach with vague laws is The People v. Donald Trump, you don't *actually* care about the integrity of the criminal legal system and should find some other way to frame your criticism.

JFC, you can't even identify the right vulnerabilities in the judgment. None of these is a good appellate issue.

The best issue is the absence of unanimity for unlawful means - but that's the best reading of state law, so it would have to be NY Court of Appeals to overturn.

This is a long tweet that's just wrong on the basic factual premise.

NY law is clear that 'intent to defraud' is not an intent to defraud a particular person.

Trump has some decent arguments on appeal, this is most definitely not one of them.

The People's MVP