Holy BEEP! By @seanmdav Yes, they ALL bought INSURANCE paid for 50% by our tax dollars to cover them for misconduct. Let that sink in! thefederalist.com/2020/09/24/tru…
2/ Also remember @JoeBiden was in on that January 5 meeting!
3/ And don't think Comey wasn't in on plot to get rid of Sessions.
4/ These disclosures also put into perspective the Weissmann Wash of all the cell phones, too, don't they?
5/ From a legal perspective, these latest disclosures put the lid on the crapola that there was a legitimate investigative purpose for interviewing @GenFlynn why DOJ said no crime. @SidneyPowell1
6/ I'm dying....When I click on @realDonaldTrump and @seanmdav is there, look who follow recommendation #1 is? And then re-read the texts exchanged....what ever computer tracking stuff Twitter uses is crazy.
7/ With SpyGate if you aren't knee-deep in it, it is hard to understand and thus easy to shrug off. But these texts are accessible to everyone b/c ALL the agents took out professional insurance liability coverage b/c of their involvement in SpyGate & fear of what was coming.
8/ Was this what @LindseyGrahamSC was foreshawdowing or was it something else?
9/ I keep thinking of new points: So get this, this is what the Obama-Biden folks did: They got an FISA order on @carterwpage who acted as U.S. intelligence source (and they knew it), using as their source, a Russian intelligence agent.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
3/ There are several reasons why the Motion should be denied, first being that there is no habeas petition properly pending before the court because habeas jurisdiction exists only in district where Defendant is physically present & he is not present in S.D. New York.
🚨THREAD: Earlier this week Judge Ali (judge who ordered Trump to pay some $2 billion in contracts w/i 36 hours to have that order stayed by Roberts & then told by court to be more clear on who to pay & reasonable on time), entered a preliminary injunction as noted below.1/
2/ At time, I said order was confusing & in part merely ordered Trump to comply with law, but nonetheless said I expected immediate appeal. Well, gov't has filed status report saying still deciding on whether to immediately appeal and/or seek stay. Why? B/c they don't
3/ read order as really tying their hands. As status report explains, they are reviewing and paying for past work and since they would be doing that any way, absent court enter a pay now order, Trump can just plod ahead.
2/ This was case Court held hearing on earlier today about the DEI clause in contracts. So will they need to execute contracts as is?storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Hearing beginning: Noting merely a scheduling conference and not an evidentiary hearing so sounds like he's trying to get handle on it. Asking for 3 things: 1) Baltimore has received notice to certify non-DEI in gov' contract which claims is in violation of order; 2) seek compliance plan b/c systemic failure & idea of how to get to compliance b/c people are suffering; not sure what #3 is. Judge says don't get into now--what do you want. Baltimore wants ruling today; compliance & remediation do a briefing as court asks.
🚨🚨🚨OMGosh...TDS is making judges ignore diff. b/w "restraining order" to maintain status quo & an injunction requiring affirmative action? THIS order is NOT a "restraining order": It is an injunction masquerading as a TRO which makes it immediately appealable. 1/
3/ Yesterday's reporting that court ordered reinstatement is possibly inaccurate as the only written order extended TRO which didn't order reinstatement. Not sure if oral order did, but government said court entered Preliminary Injunction. THREADS on that: