Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #45s
Most recents (3)
1. Only ABC is running this. Both the Post and Times didn't run anything about the 2nd day.
Top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn to be questioned for 2nd day by special counsel: Sources abcnews.go.com/US/top-trump-a…
Top Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn to be questioned for 2nd day by special counsel: Sources abcnews.go.com/US/top-trump-a…
2. I can't imagine that he's in there on #45s behalf. So that likely means he's being interviewed to avoid a grand jury appearance. It almost seems like he's doing a "Queen for a Day" interview.
3. I'm going to watch all the usual suspects closely. See who goes dark. With the grand jury seeming like it's getting close to the end of the line, I'm not going to be surprised if they charge soon. Smith may have gone to to the interview to assess how
1.#Affidavit: The magistrate judge is likely stalling. If he issues an order to release any part of the affidavit and Govt objects within 14 days, the issue goes to Art III judge to review under the contrary to law or clearly erroneous standard. He likely knows what's coming.
2. FRCP Rule 59. Matters Before a Magistrate Judge
(a) Nondispositive Matters. A district judge may refer to a magistrate judge for determination any matter that does not dispose of a charge or defense. The magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings
(a) Nondispositive Matters. A district judge may refer to a magistrate judge for determination any matter that does not dispose of a charge or defense. The magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings
3. and, when appropriate, enter on the record an oral or written order stating the determination. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy of a written order or after the oral order is stated on the record, or at some other
1. This is like a tough bar question on the Hearsay Rule.
If the people who were relaying the facts to #45 were all part of the conspiracy then it comes in as statement of a co-conspirator and not hearsay under the Federal rules. I would look for notes of a regular activity.
If the people who were relaying the facts to #45 were all part of the conspiracy then it comes in as statement of a co-conspirator and not hearsay under the Federal rules. I would look for notes of a regular activity.
2. But I think she heard #45 say allow the weapons in because he believe they were not there to harm him. That is an admission of a party and not hearsay. I have an image of Merrick Garland eating popcorn.
3. One witness would be sufficient to prove the elements of Seditious Conspiracy, Advocating Overthrow and Incitement of Insurrection but to charge him with Levying War Treason, a capital crime, the Govt needs two witnesses for each element.
