Oddly enough, one of Nunes' complaints is that he's saying he NEVER said Obama spied on Trump.
Here's a video of Devin Nunes saying that Obama spied on Trump.
There were no news reports of a surreptitious visit to get files, Nunes says, footnoting a news report of that visit, but saying it was written by liars.
Oh. It looks like there's another news report describing a late in the evening excursion to get files, but it's ALSO written by liars and sourced to liars, including evil Democrats and therefore the writers MUST have known not to rely on them.
Nunes basically says there's malice because he said Obama spied on the Trump campaign, not the Trump Tower, and because his press person told the reporter the story was not accurate and he printed it anyway, relying on "inherently unreliable sources" like Adam Schiff.
I mean, Nunes says, constantly, that the Trump campaign was spied on, but this apparently, is a bridge too far.
Nunes didn't sue about any of this back in 2017, and I'm guessing it's because he didn't want to risk discovery while Trump was President,
This lawsuit is a concession.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Watching these Sidney Powell press conferences, I'm reminded of a Supreme Court of Georgia case that almost certainly went the wrong way, in which the Court held it was constitutional to punish someone for pretending to be a serial killer on YouTube. /1
He was posting these bizarre videos with his face and voice distorted, and promising to confess to a variety of murders under the name "catchmekiller". And since, of course, he hadn't killed anyone, he was charged with GA's false statement law. /2
He argued that a conviction under this statute violated his First Amendment rights, and the Court agreed that if all you had to do was make a false statement and have it be in a court's jurisdiction, it would be unconstitutional. But they read it a bit more narrowly. /3
Sidney Powell claims she spoke to an anonymous "high-ranking military officer" and then reads off an "affidavit" than claims that a system was used to affect elections in Venezuala in 2006.
Wait. Are these people offering to let me PAY to teach people how to do appeals?
Tom Sawyer could take a page from these fine people.
Anyone who is dumb enough to PAY for the PRIVILEGE of doing a presentation on the thing they are BEST at should be driven into the wilderness with brooms and whips.
I quoted my speaking fee and they clarified that no, I would definitely be the one paying THEM.
My proposed counteroffer is that I will allow them to watch my children next week for only $3000.00.