Hey All. Have been listening to the audio of today's hearing in the Mike Flynn case. The first hour was Judge Sullivan presenting a thorough, compelling overview of the positions and arguments of the parties. He highlighted several times that the court is not supposed to be
a "rubber stamp" for a DOJ/prosecution motion to dismiss. The court has an important, albeit limited, role in guarding against government corruption of the criminal justice system, including politically motivated dismissals. Indeed, Judge Sullivan noted that the court has a role
in protecting the public interest. Although perhaps not 100% verbatim, Judge Sullivan noted that the judiciary has a substantial constitutional interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule of law and guarding against politically corrupt dismissals. He seemed troubled by the
fact that the previous prosecutors (pre-Barr's involvement) told the court that Flynn's lies were material and went right to the heart of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, a factual assertion that Flynn himself swore, under oath, was true. Thereafter, Barr's prosecutors
completely flipped the script and claimed that Flynn's lies were not relevant/material to the investigation. To be clear, Judge Sullivan has made no decisions yet (and we're presently are on a break until 12:35 p.m. ET). Still, it's clear Judge Sullivan is rightly critical of
the assertions by the current DOJ prosecutors. After the break, the parties will have an opportunity to object to Judge Sullivan's overview of the case and the arguments thus far. Based on what I've heard, it seems like things are trending toward justice. Will provide updates ...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Morning friends. The result in the 2nd E. Jean Carroll case is important foreshadowing for Trump’s upcoming criminal trials. When cases move from the court of public opinion into courts of law, Trump loses. He lost the NY civil fraud trial (we’re awaiting Judge Engoron’s …
decision on how much Trump will have to pay). He lost BOTH E. Jean Carroll cases. And let’s face it, he lost (by proxy) the case brought by DA Bragg when Trump’s namesake - the Trump Organization - AND his CFO Allen Weisselberg were convicted for a 15-year-long …
criminal scheme to defraud in the first degree. Here’s the thing: the rules of evidence don’t apply in the court of public opinion. So Trump lies every day in his desperate attempt to continue to deceive & grift from his ever-shrinking gaggle of supporters. But …
Unfortunately, we currently have a Supreme Court that seems determined to revoke or contract (rather than expand) human rights, civil rights, and equal rights. And when you couple this with the recent revelations about the obscenely lavish gifts and financial favors provided by
Republicans billionaires, which were undisclosed/unreported/concealed by members of the court, we are in the darkest of times for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. With that said, the Supreme Court DID refuse to accept review of all of Trump’s BS election challenge cases in
the aftermath of his 2020 election loss. And now, the Supreme Court has refused to grant Special Counsel’s request to review (on an accelerated basis) Trump’s BS claim that a president can commit any and all crimes while in office with absolute immunity from prosecution. IF the
Let’s address the travesty of the DISMISSAL of the case against MBS brought by the family of murdered WAPO columnist Jamal Khashoggi:
1. MBS -the crown prince of Saudi Arabia - “approved” the murder of Washington post columnist Jamal Khashoggi because Khashoggi was criticizing
the Saudi government, so … 2. Khashoggi’s family sued MBS in US federal court. Then … 3. MBS raised something called “head-of-state immunity,” which stands for the proposition that you can’t sue a foreign head of state while he/she is in office. Only problem was …
4. MBS was NOT head of state, so … 5. Six days before a court hearing in the Khashoggi case … 6. MBS’s father, King Salmon, made his son Prime Minister, & hence, head of state. And, perhaps the worst part…
As defendant Thomas Caldwell concludes his testimony in the Oath Keepers trial, a few overarching observations: the 2 defendants who have testified thus far - Caldwell and Elmer Stewart Rhodes - bear many similarities. They come across as pompous, self-important, egocentric,
hateful individuals. Their testimony is, at times laughably unworthy of belief. Example: when Caldwell was advocating violence against his perceived enemies, he disavowed his own written statements by saying he was just quoting language from a video game named “Call of Duty.”
On cross-examination, Caldwell admitted he knew little about the video game, never really played it, but added, ‘well, you can Google Call of Duty and find things about it there.’ Caldwell was confronted w/ his written communications about “transporting heavy weapons”
There are some curious tactical decisions being made by some of the defense attorneys in the Oath Keepers case. For example, defendant Caldwell’s attorney called a witness, Joseph Godbold, who is Caldwell’s friend and occasional employee on home improvement projects.
His testimony was offered to portray Caldwell as suffering from physical and health challenges, being unable to climb ladders, needing to walk with a cane at times, etc. The point seemed to be defendant Caldwell wasn’t fit enough to storm the Capitol. On cross-examination,
we learned that the witness had been banned from Facebook. Before being banned he posted things like, “f**k Biden and cameltoe, they will never be my president,” “it will take martial law and a miracle for Trump to remain president,” & things about Mike Pence I won’t repeat here.
Cooperating witness/former Oath Keeper Graydon Young is now testifying. He said he “unfortunately” spent 2-6 hours a day on right-wing social media sites and came to believe the election was stolen. So he joined the Oath keepers organization because “marches and protests
weren’t enough.” They needed to do something more “”forceful.” He said as part of the Oath Keepers, he attended an earlier protest in DC to provide security for Roger Stone (though he said he had no training or experience in security, there was no security plan & he had no idea
what he was doing). But he perceptively related the following: “I met Roger Stone. I wasn’t really impressed. He doesn’t have any political power, but he thinks he does.” Young testified that he sought to have the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys work together for some