This is the full "Trump Accountability Project" enemies list before it was hidden & before the judges & donors tabs were removed. I took screen shots of every page before that happened. The list of administration officials is 1202 long so I overlapped the pics to get them all. /0
Overview Page:
/1 Image
Campaign Staff:
/2 Image
Administration Members:
/3 Image
Administration Members:
/4 Image
Administration Members:
/5 Image
Administration Members:
/6 Image
Administration Members:
/7 Image
Administration Members:
/8 Image
Administration Members:
/9 Image
Administration Members:
/10 Image
Administration Members:
/11 Image
Administration Members:
/12 Image
Administration Members:
/13 Image
Administration Members:
/14 Image
Administration Members:
/15 Image
Administration Members:
/16 Image
Administration Members:
/17 Image
Administration Members:
/18 Image
Administration Members:
/19 Image
Administration Members:
/20 Image
Administration Members:
/21 Image
Administration Members:
/22 Image
Administration Members:
/23 Image
Administration Members:
/24 Image
Administration Members:
/25 Image
Administration Members:
/26 Image
Administration Members:
/27 Image
Administration Members:
/28 Image
Administration Members:
/29 Image
Administration Members:
/30 Image
Administration Members:
/31 Image
Administration Members:
/32 Image
Administration Members:
/33 Image
Administration Members:
/34 Image
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/35 Image
"Appointees" - Sitting Federal Judges:
/36 Image
Donors:
/37 Image
Law firms:
/38 Image
"Endorsers" - otherwise known as a sitting US Senator
/39 Image
Denouncer
/40 Image
You may have noticed that some of the "Administration Members" are Assistants and Stenographers.

What the Fuck is wrong with you, you totalitarian goons? /41
These are the 3 totalitarian goons who drew up and sponsored this "enemies list." 👇Despicable.
/42 ImageImageImage
This link will take you to the Wayback machine capture (web archive) of the website and list also. web.archive.org/web/2020110621…
You can also find the whole list as a searchable .pdf document here: drive.google.com/file/d/1hos63I…

• • •

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

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸

Leslie McAdoo Gordon ⚖️ 👠🇺🇸 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 @McAdooGordon

May 18
Sussman Trial Day 1. I was at court today except for opening statements. (I had something else that had to get done this morning & I knew the media would generally do a good job on those.) I'm not in the "media" room, so can't type during testimony like reporters.
I'm hoping to go down most days. So, I'll be able to give some info on breaks or lunchtime & then I'll give more details in the evenings. The case is in Judge Cooper's courtroom w/overflow in Contreras' courtroom and a media room also. There were fewer folks as the day went on.
The overflow room is just another courtroom where they've rigged up 2 about 42 inch monitors I'd say divided into four quadrants: 1. Judge, 2. Podium/defense table/front row of gallery/marshall, 3. witness, 4. Exhibits. I will try to sit in the actual courtroom one of the days.
Read 128 tweets
May 17
Sussman trial. 1 & 1/2 witnesses so far today (before lunch). Court reconvening at 2 pm.

1st witness was SSA Martin, the FBI technical expert the govt called to explain DNS stuff & some other things to the jury. 2nd was another FBI SSA - Hellman. /
He & his supervisor were the first FBI personnel to look technically at what Sussman provided. They are at FBI Cybersecurity Division (Chantilly, VA). Drove to DC the day after the Sussman/Baker meeting to pick up data & do chain of custody.
Interesting tidbit: He was “frustrated” because Baker WOULDN’T tell him who he got the data from! even for the Chain of Custody and the “Greensheet” (FBI form for identifying evidence owners). Baker didn’t complete the Custody form - Hellman initiated it.
Read 13 tweets
May 13
So this ruling is extraordinary. Cooper is ordering the disclosure of non-privileged emails to Durham but precluding them from being used at trial, claiming Durham waited too long to move to compel.

DOJ almost NEVER loses on that basis.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Especially after the judge actually undertakes the “in camera” review of the documents. If the judge is going to say the delay has been too long or is too close to the trial date, they usually say so when the motion for review is made & they don’t do the review.
As defense counsel, I find it laughable a judge would say letting DOJ use the documents would prejudice Sussman! He’s probably had the documents the whole time; it’s Durham who hasn’t. And judges decide stuff routinely on the eve of trial that the defense just has to roll with.🙄
Read 6 tweets
May 3
This leaked SCOTUS draft from Feb which appears genuine, may or may not end up being the majority opinion, however. Politico implies that it’s definite, which is premature. A majority draft can end up being a dissent by the end. Prudence argues for waiting til the Court speaks./1
Further, the reason drafts are circulated is so the justices can see the exact proposed reasoning, decisional rationale & language used. Much can change before the final decision. /2
Whether this draft or another version of it ends up being the majority opinion or a dissent (or possibly even a concurrence), it is a completely STUNNING development that the draft leaked at all. There will be repercussions, I think. /3
Read 6 tweets
Apr 25
If you’re mad about Steve Martin’s King Tut, you’re a total moron.

Read a book to learn about all the stuff that happened before 2005. 🙄
“He gave his life for tourism.” 🤣🤣🤣
Read 4 tweets
Apr 17
.@ProfMJCleveland -did you notice in Durham’s filing (quoted in Prof.Turley’s piece) that he says they have ONLY immunized the researcher. That must mean Steele is testifying w/o immunity. That has to mean Durham told him he doesn’t have exposure (could be for SOL reasons) or /1
that Steele didn’t raise his 5th Amendment privilege & has agreed to testify voluntarily. There aren’t any other options. Will be interesting to see if Judge Cooper addresses that if/when Steele testifies. Durham turned over the Jencks material on Steele, which is only . . . /2
done for prospective govt witnesses. It would also mean that Steele gave voluntary interviews to the SC.

/3
Read 4 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 on Twitter!

:(