Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (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
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
@KingMakerFT
Aug 18, 2020 • 6 tweets • 1 min read • Read on X
Some totally random thoughts after skimming the Senste Intel report: 1) The SSCI didn’t see the actual transcript of Flynn’s 12/29 call w Kislyak. They got the FBI’s summary and the 302. 2) The SSCI developed a lot of evidence of Maria Butina meeting w a variety of politicians.
3) Patrick Byrne introduced Butina to Rand Paul, consistent w his story timeline of the FBI encouraging him to introduce her around. He was rewarded by Butina by suggesting he’d be asked to speak at the World Economic Conference in St Petersburg. 4) The SSCI had no clue about ...
the details of what the PSS told the FBI, including that he lived in the US, not Russia. 5) The FBI spent little effort trying to corroborate the dossier, although the claimed to work on it until May 2017 when the SC was appointed. 6) After the SC was appointed, the SCO took over
all dossier related work and never advised the FBI what they were doing on it, if anything.
The SCO told the SSCI that the SC didn’t use the dossier in their investigation b/c they had more trust in their own work. I couldn’t find an explanation as to how the last FISA warrant renewal happened, given a) the FBI lost control over the dossier investigation and b) SCO ..,
wasn’t doing anything to verify the dossier either. Also, by then much of the dossier had come into serious question.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Kingmaker - Big IF! (True)

Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) 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 @KingMakerFT

Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
Oct 3
Now that Special Counsel Smith’s magnum opus, election interference filing is in the public record, I can provide more detail on how the 165 page filing violated Trump’s constitutional rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In this thread I’ll focus on the hundreds of references to opinion testimony that at trial would likely be inadmissible for lack of foundation, based on what little Smith has provided to prove up the opinion testimony. Yet Smith asks the judge- and the voting public, including prospective jurors- to accept such inadmissible opinion testimony as the gospel truth. That is not how the 5th Amendment requirement of due process and the 6th Amendment right to confront and cross examine witnesses against you, and the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial before a fair and impartial jury, are designed to work.
Throughout Smith’s filing, he refers to evidence in the form of opinions by various witnesses who claim to have reported to Trump and/or people working for him or conspiring with him, that there was no fraud or illegality in the election sufficient to change the result. In very general terms, there were descriptions of witnesses telling Trump, in sum and substance, “There was no fraud.”
In legal terms, that type of testimony would be characterized as opinion testimony, since no one person could personally attest , by first hand knowledge, to the absence of fraud or illegality with respect to every vote, out of tens of millions cast, and that all such votes were lawfully counted. To be admissible, opinion testimony must be based upon an adequate foundation. The burden is on the party trying to introduce the opinion into evidence to establish a proper legal foundation for its admissibility.
Read 7 tweets
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
Sep 7
@JeffClarkUS is spot on here in identifying serious 5th Amendment due process issues with Jack Smith’s upside down proposal, adopted by Judge Chutkan, that the prosecution be allowed to file a comprehensive public “brief” as to Trump’s guilt and the absence of immunity in the height of election season.
In addition to the blatant political purpose of Smith’s proposed “brief,” there are serious 5th Amendment due process problems as well as denial of the 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses in a criminal case. Smith proposes to recast the indictment by laying out in the public record 1) the details of his office’s plan as to what evidence to present at trial to prove Trump’s guilt, 2) his evidence showing there is no immunity because the conduct involved private and not official acts of the former president; and 3) as to any official acts, Smith’s evidence to rebut the presumption of immunity.
This “brief” of the special counsel will not be the standard legal brief. Rather, it will include Smith’s evidence. Smith’s office has told the court that to support the prosecution’s narrative, they plan to file in the public record documentary evidence, grand jury testimony, and FBI 302 forms summarizing witness interviews.
Read 6 tweets
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
May 20
Judge Merchan is severely limiting the defense expert’s discussion of how the FEC works, including definitions of terms like “campaign contributions,” and such concepts as dual use expenses exempted from the law. Right now the jury has heard enough to assume the worst for Trump:
The judge refuses to say how he will instruct the jury on the FEC. As it stands now the jury probably assumes the FEC was violated and that Trump has no defense, because it’s obvious sex with a porn star might affect the number of Trump’s votes. But that’s not the law.
And this issue of whether the FEC was violated is beyond the court’s jurisdiction altogether. The FEC supersedes and preempts all state laws. So a NY state court jury cannot decide whether there has been a criminal violation of the FEC.
Read 4 tweets
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
May 13
@shipwreckedcrew has the basic outline of what a good cross examination of Cohen will likely look like. I would add that an effective cross can be used to tell your side of the story, if you’ve got the right witness to do it with. Cohen might be that witness.
Elements of Trump’s story here could be that campaign donations and expenses is a complex area of federal law that require a lawyer to fully understand. Cohen, the lawyer, took charge of deciding how to structure transactions. Cohen and Weisslberg talked about that.
Read 7 tweets
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
Apr 27
Yesterday I posted a long thread on the sleight of hand pulled by D.A. Bragg in NY to conceal the fact that his theory of the case against Trump is, in effect, a prosecution of federal crimes that by law preempt and supersede the state laws Bragg says he is using.
This fact becomes more and more obvious as the trial progresses, beginning with the opening statement to the jury. The prosecution told the jury that this case involved a conspiracy and a coverup. What crimes were the object of the conspiracy? Federal election finance crimes.
Specifically Bragg has produced evidence tending to show that David Pecker and Michael Cohen conspired with Trump and others to make disguised campaign contributions to Trump in 2016 by making payments to Karen MacDougal and Stormy Daniels to buy their silence about affairs.
Read 11 tweets
Kingmaker - Big IF! (True) Profile picture
Apr 26
This is a THREAD on the sleight of hand, shell and pea game AG Bragg is playing in his case against Trump in NY. The object of this confidence game is to hide that Bragg is prosecuting a crime he has no authority over and that the court has no jurisdiction to hear.
To understand what’s going on, let’s start with the indictment. Trump is charged with violating NY Penal Law 175.10, providing, “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, ..
… and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Read 21 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!

Send Email!

:(