2/ So @CNN thought biggest take-away was that Russia is still meddling "as we sit here." That CNN thought that was the biggest take-away tells me that they haven't been listening to a word from the right. AG Barr testified that months ago, see my @FDRLSTedition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/pol…
3/3 No, the biggest take-away was that Mueller didn't know who Fusion GPS was and that that aspect was beyond his "purview." Sequestering myself now to work on more complete thoughts. END
🚨Hearing to start in about 10. I'll be live posting. There are two issues before court today: 1) Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the TRO; and 2) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. If Court is wise, he will start with preliminary injunction b/c those arguments 1/
2/ will establish Judge lacks authority to enter an order to enforce the TRO that Judge had previously entered, namely an order directing government to pay the grants. Judge would also be wise to focus solely on grants to these Plaintiffs b/c SCOTUS doesn't like nationwide relief
3/ & when you are talking about paying specific grants, nationwide relief for non-plaintiffs makes even less sense. Court's only plausible "injunctive" remedy that seems feasible is order not to enter "blanket" terminations.
🚨BREAKING: Joint Status Report filed that should detail where Trump Administration is on grants/contracts it was ordered under TRO to pay (unless it legally didn't have too). 1/
3/ Plaintiffs in short say Trump Administration is not paying and needs to be ordered to process payments like Biden Administration did. Trump Admin. responds that they had no control & we are processing. Key is here though:
3/ This is case where judge had to walk back his order because Trump Administration was canceling pursuant to legal authority. That is still permitted. What Court appears to have done instead of noting that, though, injunctive language is bar the "categorical" freeze, etc.
🧵on SCOTUS order on denial in AIDS Vaccine/Global Health Case. Justice Alito's dissent said it best when he opened with "I am stunned." But a note on what the majority actually did, which is slightly different than it appears--an is even more outrageous. 1/
2/ In denying the Application, the majority added this sentence. What does that mean? The majority is stressing the lower court Order the Trump Administration challenged isn't currently operative & it is telling Court it needs to enter a new order w/ more clarity.
3/ And is suggesting to the lower court that the order it entered was inappropriate. The majority, or rather Barrett & Roberts since the three leftist justices will vote as block against all things Trump, are still living in a fantasy world thinking they are being prudent.