A link to the full argument is below. 7/7
newrepublic.com/article/2032...

Dems should say this right now, loudly and clearly: Anyone who is trusting Donald Trump, of all people, when he says what he’s directing you to do is lawful and that you’ll be protected later may be putting themselves in a very precarious position. 6/

newrepublic.com/article/2032...

“This could indicate awareness of potential criminal exposure" and may “reflect consciousness on their part that they’re in legally treacherous territory," legal expert @bcfinucane.bsky.social tells me.

If Dems win House they can get to the bottom of all of this. 5/

newrepublic.com/article/2032...

This memo is almost an admission of legal *vulnerability* for those carrying out bombings.

“It signals fear that what they’re doing is illegal and that they could possibly be subject to criminal action under US law and international law,” Rep Adam Smith tells me. 4/

newrepublic.com/article/2032...

Ever since the bombings began, a big question has been: Do those carrying them out fear they're being given illegal orders? The official overseeing them recently resigned with no public explanation, prompting Dems to ask if he had concluded bombings are illegal. 3/

newrepublic.com/article/2032...

The memo purportedly justifying these murders also contains a lengthy section that lays out arguments defending the actions of those carrying out the strikes. In short, it *preemptively* defends them from potential prosecution later.

Experts say this is unusual. 2/

newrepublic.com/article/2032...