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
🚨New filing in Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case. Amazing this must be said! 1/
2/ That excerpt was from a Declaration filed by Trump Administration in support of its Response in Opposition to New Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Response is interesting as it is first effort by Trump Administration to explain whether it is in constructive control
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Federal district court enters first merits ruling on Alien Enemies Act habeas case. On question of class certification: Court punts on whether class cert. under Rule 23 is available & considers if All Writs Act provides analog, i.e. another way to do a class. 1/
2/ Court holds "yes," so treating it as a class action which allows ACLU to represent all terrorists Trump seeks to remove under Alien Enemies act whether they ask to challenge removal or not!
3/ Note: This remains limited to the jurisdiction of the d.ct. though, so ACLU still seems to need to file "class actions" in all 94 districts...well it would need to if SCOTUS hadn't entered a stay in a non-case with non-plaintiffs already!
🚨Folks, I'm seeing A LOT of what I believe is misreporting regarding an order entered yesterday by Judge Thurston. Her ACTUAL order appears to be consistent with federal law: 1/
2/ So she is NOT saying they can't arrest without a warrant and it should be easy to prove "flight risk" on an individual basis...in fact that's precisely what ICE requires, which prompted Trump Administration to argue case was moot.
3/ So bottom line the ACTUAL order is merely what law requires & policy states, although the "comply with law" injunctions are disfavored. And entering an injunction requiring following of a policy NOT constitutionally required is problematic. That policy concerns documentation
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: On Sunday, @NCLAlegal on behalf of its clients, @FDRLST and @realDailyWire sent letter to Attorney General Bondi in response to President Trump's EO on censorship and Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of closing new censorship HUB is State Department. 1/
2/ The letter applauded the President's change in policy and efforts undertaken to protect First Amendment rights but noted ongoing concerns.
3/ As we explained, Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of shuttering of the new censorship hub actually validates our concerns that bureaucrats continued stealth efforts to target domestic speech in excess of their foreign remit.
🚨Judge just entered clarifying order in case of 2 year old American. Judge's clarification provides helpful context: In short, Judge sees factual dispute concerning whether mom wanted to take 2 year old or not & that is the Court's concern. 1/
2/ (Sorry got pulled away): Judge's comments & order make much more sense now AND if a legitimate habeas case, Judge seeking to make factual determination would be appropriate, although mom's letter has not been called into question by any of evidence.
3/ Problem though is this is not legitimate habeas case because Plaintiff lacks authority to act on behalf of child because there is no evidence dad has any authority to act on behalf of the child. Under Louisiana law, mom has all parental rights if dad & mom weren't married.