A killer opener in the brief filed by @carterwpage attorney. 1/
2/ Here's the link for anyone wanting to read in its entirety. I'll be adding some points here and if it merits, write up an article later. So stay tuned...storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ BOOM!
4/ Great "closer" to the introduction.
5/ Detail assumed but now confirm: Page helped CIA. Note also CIA told FBI bad actors Page was solid re candor.
6/ Just got Exhibit A off Pacer (not on courtlistener). Great summary of the issues by individual defendants, the 8 being Brian Auten (first I've heard of him-more as I get handle on alleged involvement), Clinesmith, Comey, McCabe, Page, Pientka, Somma, Strzok.)
7/ FN hits point been stressing for years: The damage to @carterwpage was personal and horrible but there was also a damage to our country. Unlike many on right, I am not opposed to FISA warrants & believe necessary to protect our country, this "get Trump" made U.S. less safe.
8/ To Be Continue....DS & DM time....
9/ Interesting, not sure I realized the FISA statute included a criminal provision as well. Statutory language, but includes a defense where a warrant. Wonder how that plays out as in facts here, i.e., could they have been charged criminally under FISA? 🤔
10/ "Aid or abet" interesting and ties to liability.
10/ So, here's the standard for "aiding and abetting".
11/ How did Comey allegedly aid and abet? Comey had info re Page.
12/ McCabe: Boom. Another killer line!
13/ So was Clinesmith that lawyer too? Great Question. And didn't know Clinesmith while altering email re Page was telling Page not to go public with innocence, via lawyer:
14/ Who leaked to press re Page?
15/ OMgosh....this line....perfection!!!
16/ I don't think I had quite put together this sequence of text/emails/timing before. But sure, McCabe & Comey did nothing personal, just signed name....
17/ WHOA is @NatSecLisa the leaker? Comment Ms. Page?
20/ So Somma interviewed Danchencko. (Probably knew that). Makes me want to re-read indictment of Danchencko...also makes me wonder what Somma told Special Counsel Durham.
21/ Page's response to Somma's "I did nothing wrong" claim:
22/ I don't recall ever seeing Brian Auten's name before. What's the best coverage on him previously? Was there any?
23/ So that's what Auten did. Steele's past reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings..." RIGHT.
24/ CIA knew Steele "dossier" was bunk...so should have Auten per the filing.
25/ Auten also interviewed Danchenko...which means that Durham interviewed Auten....so much to still come out from Special Counsel's office.
26/ A great capstone paragraph on Defendants' attempt to avoid liability:
27/ Great point re Clinesmith: Until the complaint against Clinesmith, we didn't know who was responsible or really the complete details. What else is unknown at this time? Page is entitled to discovery!
28/ No, you losers who caused the illegal FISA warrant to issue cannot rely on that warrant to avoid liability, Page's legal team argues.
29/ Weedy argument for lawyers. Interesting. Not sure how it pans out, but interesting.
30/30 And a PERFECT closing line for the entire brief, signed by @McAdooGordon on behalf of Page's legal team. More in coming days of thoughts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ Here's argument: Trump Administration can't "fix" state's incompetence or its system of distributing money. And it is ridiculous to say it is arbitrary and capricious to keep money for kids food for kids food.
3/ How in the hell does this judge think he has the authority to force the administration to take money from another program to pay SNAP benefits?
THREAD on challenge to tariff: Opening this is tax. Common sense: Implausible Congress meant to let President to overhaul tariff. It is a one-way ratchet. It is a "sanction" statute, not a tariff statute. 1/
2/ Attorney: Verbs deal with embargoes but nothing about raising revenue. Many statute tariffs: Have many limits, this statute doesn't. Statutes say "tariffs" or equivalent.
Thomas: Going back to non-delegation point if, wouldn't that apply to embargoes.
Attorney: No. We aren't saying you can't delegate tariff you need to give "intelligent principles".
Justice Roberts: Foreign facing tax, but isn't that core power of Article II...and quite effective in achieving certain objectives.
Attorney: Think of this as Article I and Article II. Tariffs have foreign policy implications but founders gave that in Article I section 8 to Congress.
Justice Kavanaugh: If tariff were in the statute would that be acceptable and constitutionally permissible.
Attorney: Congress grant that authority to Presidents.
ME: WOW. He doesn't believe in non-delegation.
Justice Kavanaugh: What does Nixon stand for? Did Congress aware of that? Nixon announced in nationwide prime time speech, it wasn't a little piece of paper. Why didn't Congress change language?
Attorney: Nixon didn't rely on that statute and Nixon disagreed statute applied. The Circuit Court of Appeals decision doesn't change plain meaning. And even if Congress knew about it that doesn't help because case didn't say "unlimited authority," and use another statute. This president has torn up entire tariff architecture that Congress created.
3/ Justice Alito (?): Start with "regulate importation" would you agree that includes fees.
Attorney: NO.
Alito: "Regulate admission to park" can that include fee.
Attorney: Not helpful answer. Tries to distinguish from tariffs.
Alito: Are tariffs always revenue raising? What if imposed tariff to take effect in 90 days and agreement is reached is that a tax?
Attorney: This is obviously revenue raising. Taxation is different.
Alito: You cite many different provisions, what if imposed in an emergency?
Attorney: You need more precisions. Never has Congress added a tariff authority.
2/ John Sauer opens with summary of why Trump has power, framing as foreign affairs.
Thomas: Ask why major question doctrine doesn't apply.
Sauer: In foreign affair context, you expect Congress to give major powers, since he has Article 2 power.
Justice Kagan (I think): What kind of Article 2 powers are you relying on.
Sauer: President has broad authority in foreign affairs.
3/ Sauer: Article 2 power PLUS sweeping delegation by Congress and we are giving you Article 1. We aren't saying it is power to tax, but to regulate.
Justice Alito (?): Damsin Moore (spelling). We said very narrow, we confined to very questions in that yet you keep citing. Different provision of federal statute.
Sauer: We don't dispute narrow opinion but say it addressed same principles that apply here.
Justice Kagan (?): I just don't understand this argument. You are saying this isn't tax but it is a tax. You are saying this is regulatory but I don't understand this argument. Or that foreign powers or even an emergency say it can do away with major questions doctrine.
Sauer: Court has never applied in foreign affair.
Justice Kagan: Could have declared a national emergency in global warning and then forgiven student loans.
Sauer: gets cut off again.
Justice Kagan: Why does Congress always use tariff and regulate but not here.
Sauer: Cites another case but cut off.
Justice Kagan: cuts off again. AUGH. I think she has a good point but can't follow because she cuts off Sauer.