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
🚨THREAD: Earlier this week Judge Ali (judge who ordered Trump to pay some $2 billion in contracts w/i 36 hours to have that order stayed by Roberts & then told by court to be more clear on who to pay & reasonable on time), entered a preliminary injunction as noted below.1/
2/ At time, I said order was confusing & in part merely ordered Trump to comply with law, but nonetheless said I expected immediate appeal. Well, gov't has filed status report saying still deciding on whether to immediately appeal and/or seek stay. Why? B/c they don't
3/ read order as really tying their hands. As status report explains, they are reviewing and paying for past work and since they would be doing that any way, absent court enter a pay now order, Trump can just plod ahead.
2/ This was case Court held hearing on earlier today about the DEI clause in contracts. So will they need to execute contracts as is?storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Hearing beginning: Noting merely a scheduling conference and not an evidentiary hearing so sounds like he's trying to get handle on it. Asking for 3 things: 1) Baltimore has received notice to certify non-DEI in gov' contract which claims is in violation of order; 2) seek compliance plan b/c systemic failure & idea of how to get to compliance b/c people are suffering; not sure what #3 is. Judge says don't get into now--what do you want. Baltimore wants ruling today; compliance & remediation do a briefing as court asks.
🚨🚨🚨OMGosh...TDS is making judges ignore diff. b/w "restraining order" to maintain status quo & an injunction requiring affirmative action? THIS order is NOT a "restraining order": It is an injunction masquerading as a TRO which makes it immediately appealable. 1/
3/ Yesterday's reporting that court ordered reinstatement is possibly inaccurate as the only written order extended TRO which didn't order reinstatement. Not sure if oral order did, but government said court entered Preliminary Injunction. THREADS on that: