Barb McQuade Profile picture
Aug 19, 2020 12 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Silver lining of COVID - live remote court hearings. Ex-FBI lawyer Clinesmith to plead guilty to altering email for Page FISA app today at 1 p.m. before Judge Boasberg in DC. I'll be listening for facts to support materiality, after DOJ has taken tortured position in Flynn case.
Judge Boasberg drew this case randomly, and also happens to sit on the FISA Court, which received the application with the altered email. He apparently did not see the need to recuse himself as a potential victim of the false statement.
Clinesmith is charged with adding the words "not a source" to an email from the CIA and giving it to a supervisory agent. Tricky fact for false statements case - the content is true. The falsity is in adding the words to make it appear that they were in the original CIA email.
In fact, Carter Page was an "operational contact," which is someone who has contact with a source. That fact was included in the email that Clinesmith gave to the supervisory agent. Page was not a source, as the email stated.
And so, is it material that Clinesmith misled his supervisor about who wrote the words if the words themselves are true? Materiality means capable of influencing the matter under consideration. If the words were true, how could it influence the matter? Awful but lawful, perhaps?
And the real problem is DOJ's double standard. They are charging Clinesmith while seeking to dismiss charges against Flynn for failure to meet the materiality requirement. Clinesmith is a hard case on materiality. Flynn case is not. lawfareblog.com/recent-prosecu…
Judge Boasberg starts hearing by raising the recusal issue because of his role with the FISC, an indirect victim of the crime. He has already asked parties to submit any objection to his presiding, and they do not.
When asked, Kevin Clinesmith states his full name, including middle name, Eugene. This moment always hits me hard. As parents, we carefully choose the names of our children with great hopes. Parents never imagine their child saying their name as a defendant in criminal court.
Clinesmith admits altering email, but not that the statement itself was false.
Have not yet heard any evidence of materiality.
Clinesmith pleads guilty and judge accepts it. He found a factual basis to support the plea. Did not delve into the nuance of the fact that the statement itself was true.
Sentencing set for Dec 10 at 11 a.m. Nothing in the record to indicate that Clinesmith is cooperating in the investigation of others.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Barb McQuade

Barb McQuade 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 @BarbMcQuade

Apr 15
As jury selection begins in Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, here are some things to keep in mind. 
🧵 /1
First, it is called jury selection, but it really should be called jury “de-selection.”  That’s because potential jurors are called to the box randomly, and then questioned by the court and lawyers. The lawyers challenge jurors they find unsuitable.  If the judge agrees, he will excuse them.  /2
Second, lawyers get an unlimited number of challenges for cause, meaning an objective basis to believe a juror has a bias, such as relationships with the parties or a stake in the outcome. /3
Read 13 tweets
Apr 6
I’ve been receiving some questions about why it matters whether Judge Cannon decides all issues under the Presidential Records Act BEFORE trial. /1
Judge Cannon recently denied Donald Trump‘s motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago indictment on the grounds that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) precludes charges under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to willfully retain national defense information. /2
That order was good news for the prosecution, but Judge Cannon said she was basing her decision solely on the “four corners of the indictment,” and that Trump could still raise the PRA as a defense at trial. 😱/3
Read 10 tweets
Mar 3
Here’s a thread on the public’s right to a speedy trial, which explains why the Supreme Court has set an expedited schedule and will work to decide the immunity question promptly in the federal election interference case against Donald Trump. /1
The right to a speedy trial is not just the defendant’s right. The PUBLIC’S right to a speedy trial has been recognized by the Supreme Court and the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 USC 3161(h)(7)(A). /2
In Barker v. Wingo, a case interpreting the 6th Amendment, the Court wrote that “there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial which exists separate from, and, at times, in opposition to the interests of the accused.” /3
Read 11 tweets
Nov 7, 2023
Jack Smith responds to Trump’s motions and explains why they fail as a matter of law. THREAD /1 washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/…
First Amendment provides no protection for speech that amounts to crimes of deceipt, receipt, conspiracy. Non-starter. /2
Due process clause provides fair notice of criminal conduct. Trump argues he received no fair notice because no one has ever been charged with this scheme before. No one has ever committed this scheme before! /3
Read 8 tweets
Oct 24, 2023
Trump’s new motions to dismiss on First Amendment, selective prosecution, and double jeopardy grounds are all losers. THREAD. 1 washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
The First Amendment is not absolute. Many crimes that involve speech are crimes — perjury, fraud, and conspiracy to name a few.
Selective prosecution requires a showing of disparate treatment for the similarly situated. No one has tried to subvert an election the way Trump is accused of doing. No comparables. No defense.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 29, 2023
🧵1 Here is my take on yesterday’s removal hearing, in which former chief of staff Mark Meadows wants to move his state RICO case from Georgia state court to federal court.
2 Why seek removal? Federal court offers a larger jury pool that draws from predominantly Republican areas, no TV cameras in the courtroom, and nicer prisons, but the real reason is to assert governmental immunity and get the whole case dismissed. And Trump will tag along.
3 The legal standard is not simply whether the defendant was a federal official at the time of the alleged conduct, but whether he was acting within the scope of his official duties. Meadows seemed to fall far short of meeting that standard.
Read 7 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!

:(