BREAKING: THREAD: the secret company from country A is REVEALED. It's a bank in Egypt according to new information received by Buzzfeed and CNN in their FOIA case. 1/ cnn.com/2020/10/14/pol…
We have learned in a recent story from the @nytimes that trump was OUT of money in the month ahead of the 2016 election and not even Deutsche Bank would give him a loan, but he engineered a mystery payment of $21M 2/ nytimes.com/interactive/20…
We now know from the newly released documents that trump wrote himself a check for $10M & the DC US Attorney, then Mueller, then the DC US Attorney again have been trying to trace the origin of that money for nearly four years. The feds believe that money moved through Egypt 3/
When asked by Mueller in writing if anyone besides Putin had helped him, trump said he did not recall. Neither the Mueller probe into the money nor the one from the DC US Attorney led to charges. Why? 4/
It appears the bank was forced to comply with Mueller's subpoena but handed over documents with massive gaps. "In the end, it was the bank's word against the investigators. The court proceedings ended with prosecutors getting nothing more than what the bank was willing ... 5/
...to turn over, and the bank was excused from hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines that had accrued for defying the subpoena." Mueller handed the case back to the DC US Attorney who said at the time the case was very much active and continuing "robustly". 6/
When Sherwin took over in DC after Tim Shea who took over for Liu after she was surreptitiously removed by Trump and Barr, Sherwin decided to DROP THE CASE. I certainly hope we re-open it January 21, 2020. END
Oops. *2021
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREAD: I'm sorry to have to share this bad news (again), but dems on the Senate Judiciary can't block the advancement of Amy Coney Barrett for confirmation in the full senate. Yes, senate rules say they must have a quorum in committee, and the rules go on to say... 1/
...it must be 9 members with 2 in the minority. HOWEVER, Lindsey can simply gavel past this rule and move to advance. Graham has done it in the past, and DiFi even wrote him a letter in 2019 imploring him not to. NOW, if Graham does ignore the minority member requirement 2/
Dems COULD challenge this by going to the senate parliamentarian and arguing that the rule change is out of order. BUT, Mitch could simply call a quorum in the full senate to overturn the parliamentarian. He's done this before with the SCOTUS filibuster rule... 3/
WELL, that was a hell of a hearing. I'll be putting this all together for the @dailybeanspod and will drop the episode first thing tomorrow morning (tonight for patrons). Overall? That didn't go well for Powell. And she's an idiot. Topline takeaways:
1. Neither the court OR the DoJ seem to want to prevent future prosecutors from bringing charges against Flynn for FARA violations and the multitude of other lies he told the FBI.
2. Flynn's lawyers and the DoJ seem to think the court always has to do what the executive branch wants and Gleeson says that's stupid because it is.
3. Sydney Powell wrote a LETTER to Barr trying to get him to appoint new prosecutors that would be sympathetic to Flynn
Kohl from the DoJ: Gleeson suggests we're just giving opaque reasons, but we are giving very specific reasons that any prosecutor would find troubling and be unwilling to proceed. if three different IG's have found your only witnesses were lying under oath, misleading
or misleading the court, how can you go forward. Then when Comey was asked if flynn was lying, he said "it's close, you can make an argument". That's not definitive. Finally, with these sorts of facts where the agents themselves aren't convinced he's guilty...
career prosecutors wouldn't bring charges, and it's interesting because when the agents were done interviewing him, it came over to DoJ and there were discussions whether or not to do another interview. The DAG asked the agents if his recollection was accurate
DOJ: let me five you two facts. On the question about whether this is a witch hunt. what if trump was right? in the new notes, the notes from the FBI chief of CI, he wrote down "what is the goal of this interview. To get truth, or to get him to lie so he can prosecute him...
or get him fired". How can DoJ plow ahead and prosecute when the only point of the interview is to get flynn fired. Second is whether flynn knowingly lied. From the new evidence, the agents contemporaneous notes say
that either flynn was not lying or didn't think he was lying. That shouldn't be surprising to anyone because flynn, before the interview, told McCabe he assumed that the FBI knew every word of his communications. it would be astonishing for him to know that and then...
SULLIVAN: has anyone filed a motion with Contreras to withdraw the plea with him? POWELL: we've provided it to this court and we included it in the mandamus petition.
SULLIVAN: when can a court review a rule 48 a motion: the court is required to grant it. POWELL: It's in the government's sole discretion and it has to be dismissed WITH precedent to prevent continued harassment by the court and Mr. Gleeson.
SULLIVAN: Well i have not appointed Gleeson as special prosecutor, if you want to argue that you can file it in a week or so. How is the court to determine any motives? POWELL: it can look at the pleadings by the government, we're up to 150 pages of new eviccende
GLEESON: I would like to walk through the stated reasons for the motion to dismiss and how they hold no water. Materiality: Flynn was a campaign advisor, he had traveled to and had business ties with Russia, and just a month prior he had inappropriate backchannel
communications with the Russians. When asked about those communications, he lied. That's about as straightforward case of materiality as you can get. if the false statement can effect the function of the agency, flynn's lies effect it according to the government itself.
His statements prevented the FBI from learning why the communications occurred, why he lied about them, and fundamentally influence the investigation going forward. The government said that and the court agreed with it.