Thread by @McAdooGordon

Flynn. So there were filings today in Gen. Flynn's case by his counsel, by DOJ and by the amicus curiae, retired judge, Gleeson. I'll start with the easy stuff and work my way to the harder stuff. /1

First, Andy McCabe's lawyer, Michael Bromwich, (whom you may remember as part of Christine Blasey-Ford's legal team) sent a letter to Judge Sullivan a few days ago that Judge Sullivan ordered placecd on the docket. That is not uncommon for judges to do, btw. /2

So Bromwich's letter is a whiny screed about how - Oh. Mer. Gawd. - there are dates written on McCabe's notes that are not in his handwriting & how dare mean old @SidneyPowell1 use them to supplement her icky filings on behalf of Flynn! /3

You may recall that Strzok's lawyer, Aitan Goelman, did the same prior to the hearing and Judge Sullivan asked the DOJ about that. He asked DOJ, not Sidney, because it was fucking obvious to anyone with a brain in their head that she got them that way from DOJ. 🙄/4

So DOJ filed a pleading today saying, yeah about those dates written in someone else's handwriting, those are from where FBI agents reviewing the cases put sticky notes with the estimated dates of the notes on them and they got copied that way - w/o the sticky notes removed. /5

I kid you not that this is the level of stupid that this case has sunk to. DOJ even conferred with Strzok's lawyer to confirm that Strzok was not claiming anything else was not in his handwriting. So that's a big ole nothing burger, as the young folks say. /6

In other earth shattering news, Gleeson filed a 3 page pleading advising Sullivan that in his opinion he could take "judicial notice" of DJT's tweets. This means a court can accept them as evidence because they so obviously are genuine.This is straight legal stuff - boring. /7

And then there's a boring filing by DOJ giving formal notice to the court that DOJ sent letters to Sidney giving her copies of the Strzok & McCabe notes with . . . wait for it . . . the sticky notes removed! God, it's just scintillating. /8

No we're getting to something more interesting, however. Sidney filed a fifth supplement in support of DOJ's motion to dismiss. The pleading is short & sweet. It says an FBI lawyer on Jan 25, 2017 took notes in a meeting that support the theory of dismissal. /9

Actually, team Flynn should correct this filing - hey @jbinnall - because it actually says the meeting was conducted on Jan 25, 2020, NOT 2017, which clearly can't be right & isn't what's on the notes. The notes say, Jan 25, 2017. /10

A lot of issues dealing with dates in these filings. This is how boring/picayune lawyering can be sometimes. Gotta sweat the small stuff, unfortunately. /11

Anyway, the notes appear to be from FBI lawyer, James Baker, from a meeting the day after the Flynn interview, and thank God he has nice (old fashioned cursive) handwriting so they are easy to read. /12

The notes are talking about a potential Logan Act prosecution of Flynn and hahahaha - listing all the reasons that would not work, just like we've been saying all this time. 🙄/13

The notes quote someone as saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would charge a Logan Act charge in this case. NO KIDDING. Also it would be an uphill battle, a 1st time case & a note about "other transition teams" which probably means other transition teams had done the same. /14

So basically all the stuff that actual defense lawyers who don't have TDS have been saying since 2017 about how an investigation for a "Logan Act" violation was a crock of "doo-doo" as George HW Bush used to call it. /15

And it gets better. The notes also contain the assessment that Flynn is "probably not" in a covert relationship with Russia based on his interview and the other facts known to FBI. No shit, Sherlocks. 🙄/16

There is also some half-assed "counter-intelligence analysis" about how Flynn was telling the public something different about the call than what FBI & the Russians knew, but so what given govts tell the public stuff all the time like that & the Russians know that too. Lame. /17

All in all, those notes are preeeeeety interesting. /18

And actually, as I'm putting this pleading away, I notice it is NOT the 5th Supplement filed by Flynn's team. It's the 6th, tho it says 5th. Hey @jbinnall again, if you're refiling to fix the 2020 date, might as well edit the name of the pleading too. Sorry for being a pain! /19

So now I'm going to take a few minutes break to make some notes on Sidney's main pleading of the day - the motion to recuse Judge Sullivan, which is long & has a ton of exhibits. Be back! /20

I've realized that this pleading needs more time to do it justice than I even originally thought, so I'm going to pick up again tomorrow. Probably on a new thread. /21