NEW: THREAD: a peek into what most people considered a “simple, open-and-shut” case in the Bannon indictment. So for just ONE of Bannon’s lawyers - Costello - advising him to defy the 1/6 committee subpoena. In the 22 days it took to indict Bannon: 1/
1. The DoJ sought Costello’s phone records from FOUR different carriers and email records from FOUR different carriers. They used a 2703 order instead of a subpoena because a 2703 order doesn’t always require notification of the customer. 2/
2. The DoJ ordered Costello’s text logs from the 4 carriers that show dates & recipients but not content. These orders were dated Nov 11, the day before Bannon was indicted. It’s not clear if all these Costello logs are just for Bannon’s case, though. Costello also reps Rudy 3/
3. AND, Costello sat for 2 interviews with the FBI AND DoJ on Nov 3 & Nov 7. So phone records from 4 carriers, emails from 4 carriers, and 2 interviews with 2 agencies. And that’s just ONE of Bannon’s 4 lawyers. Adam Katz, David Schoen, & Evan Corcoran are the others. 4/
All told there were over 790 documents for this ONE GUY ALONE. Did you hear about Costello getting interviewed? Not until now. Did you know about the 2703 orders for phone and email records? Nope. So you see, these cases aren’t as “open-and-shut” as we might think. 5/
Not to mention. We’re only finding out in court filings. Not the media or leaks or loudmouth witnesses. Here’s the source for all this, by the way. 6/ politico.com/f/?id=0000017e…
Now. Let’s take Meadows. If DoJ and FBI needed to interview the lawyer advising Bannon as part of their investigation into whether or not he was in criminal contempt, then who would they need to get records for and interview in Meadows’ case? 7/
Well, former Deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, for one. Meadows hired him last October to rep him in the 1/6 stuff. 8/ politico.com/news/2021/10/2…
Who else advised meadows to defy the subpoena? Trump comms guy Taylor Budowich made a statement about it. So did ex trump campaign lawyer Justin Clark, & former deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin. And possibly trump himself 9/ theguardian.com/us-news/2021/o…
So just think about the difficulty navigating the potential asserted privileges in that group, and how many documents and interviews and phone records need to be obtained and then reviewed. And we won’t hear a word about it if it’s done properly. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hate to break it to you, but even if Garland had appointed a special counsel in 2021 and trump was indicted a year earlier, there still would not have been a trial before the election. Let me explain. 1/
We know that last year, donald filed for immunity. That's interlocutory, which means it has to be solved before trial. That whole appeal and oral argument process from district court to circuit court to SCOTUS, took nearly a year. 2/
The way SCOTUS set up the process is that they sent it back to the lower court to determine what's immune and what's not under their new immunity rules, and then THAT second immunity decision is interlocutory, too. 3/
Allow me to go through Tim Pool’s sad excuses for why he’s quitting two weeks before an election. 1/
1. “It’s not a financial thing. We make a lot of money.”
Okay, but you want to start a family and you’re gonna quit the big ol’ money maker? Or is your wife the bread winner? Kinda woke, isn’t it? 2/
2. “The structure becomes bigger and bigger and bigger until it becomes impossible to manage.”
Then you expand and hire people and pay them well and give them benefits. Sorry you’re unable to run a small business. I started at my kitchen table with 10 downloads. Now I run a network and have over 50M. But I don’t get millions from Russia. 3/
THREAD: Despite the overwhelming support for telling my story, I want to address some of the pushback I've received from Republicans on this site. First, "This is pure propaganda. Florida has exceptions for rape. You support killing babies so much you’re willing to lie to unsuspecting people about it." 1/
Let me address the "Florida has an exception for rape" point first. Florida does have an exception for rape if you provide a "police report, restraining order, medical record, or other court order." That requires the service member to report their rape. Let me tell you what happened when I tried to report my rape. 2/
I was wrapped in a blanket and bleeding because my rapist's friends had stolen my clothes. It was still dark, around 0400. I snuck out and went to the on-base law enforcement office to report the rape. I was seated in an interrogation room under one of those fluorescent lamps at a metal desk, where I waited for about 30 minutes. 3/
Um, wow. The evidence and testimony Jack Smith has is DAMNING. For instance, the government has testimony that Donald said of the voter fraud claims that the "details don't matter." There is also testimony that trump said it didn't matter if he lost, he would just declare he won. 1/
There are also multiple conversations Pence had with his running mate that they'd lost and it was time to "take a bow". I'm just digging into this, but Trump is cooked. None of this is immune (or the presumptive immunity can be easily rebutted.) 2/
HA! When Trump was on the phone with Michigan, lying to them about voter fraud, Trump was corrected and reminded he lost two counties becuase he "underperformed with educated females", which pissed him off. 3/
NEW: THREAD: A new ruling from Judge McBurney in Georgia overturning the abortion ban and allowing the procedure to continue has some REMARKABLE quotes. Let's take a look at just a few. 1/
"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman." 2/
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have." 3/