THREAD BREAKING: Sussmann's attorney's aren't happy with Durham. Filed today.
2/ Just posting pages here and then will comment:
3/ continued:
4/ Now this is interesting. So if none of the data was after Trump was president, why was it provided to show Trump was using a Russian phone? Because Trump was at the Executive Office? This footnote makes no sense.
5/ Oh, poor Sussmann. You spread lies about Trump for 5 years and now Trump exposes you...🎻🎻
6/ I don't think this tack, however, is the wisest...."Oh, we didn't charge you with conspiracy, did we..."
7/ OMgosh...so the campaign is claiming Sussmann did not go to FBI on behalf of Hillary Clinton campaign. Now, this is getting good.
8/ It wouldn't surprise me if the court is inclined to grant the motion and caution Durham not to file additional detail. Although the Durham will have a chance to respond to the Motion to Strike, which should be interesting.
9/9 The biggest take-away, however is this: The press has starting covering this in a way it hasn't before and that is huge! Sussmann's chronies had no issue leaking to the NYT in September re the EOP, but now that they can't control the narrative, Shut. It. Down.
Post-Twit: I must admit I'm bummed they didn't single out my two articles in their motion, but then again, they were so solid & devasting they likely didn't want to bring any more attention to them.
Post-Twit 2: Also, from strategy angle, this wasn't wise b/c now the press is going to cover it MORE. Had Sussmann stayed silent, it would have likely died down in a day. UNLESS he succeeds in getting court to tell Durham to cut it out.
Post-Twit 3: Okay I should have just waited until I knew I was done. From the indictment. So here's Sussmann's defense. Sussmann's attorne to Clinton Campaign Person: Did you tell Sussmann to go to FBI w/ this info.
Answer: No. Closing: "He may have defrauded the campaign
PT4: but he didn't lie to Baker.
Durham's Cross: Did you authorize Sussmann to go to the press with this story? Did you authorize Sussman to do X, Y, Z. This defense is going to open up a huge can of worms for Clinton Campaign!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
THREADETTE: ⬇️is my play-by-play of 9th Cir. decision. Top-line: Loss to Trump AND horrible opinion b/c law is clear that "reasonable suspicion" depends on totality of circumstances & yet court prevents ICE from considering totality of circumstances. 1/
2/ District court had actually allowed for that by including "expected as permitted by law," which the 9th Cir. struck. 9th Cir. THEN, after saying ICE could consider other circumstances, actually altered injunction's language of "presence at a particular location"
3/ THIS is what 9th Cir. said was enjoined: that "whether that be a random location . . . or a location selected 'because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize or seek work at these locations, . . ." That ADDED a limitation of a circumstance ICE CAN consider in totality of the circumstances.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: 9th Cir. denies Trump Administration stay regarding district court's efforts to micromanage ICE "except as to a single clause" but that single clause is what allowed ICE to do it's job! Still reading so clarity to follow. 1/
2/ As I noted before one of the problems with the court's injunction is that you can't enjoin a situation where the situation depends on all of the facts and circumstances, for instance, if a voluntary encounter which needs no reasonable suspicion.
3/ On that point: That is exactly what the training is. You can see from this language the specific details needed to know whether there is or isn't reasonable suspicion.
🧵I wanted to re-read a section of Brennan's testimony to HPSCI and ended up re-reading the entire thing. There's a whole lot of lying going on!
2/ Holy crap! Brennan says there were "two" products produced--but there were three and the third one was the only one that included referenced to the Steele dossier and other fake intel!
Also, I've gotten the question of is Trump going to SCOTUS? I thought they would because d.ct.'s ruling was sooooo nutso, but the appellate court stayed the lower court's holding IJ had to give him a hearing on avoiding removal on alternative grounds. 1/
2/ IJ held removable for lying on visa application and Khalil sought a hearing on whether IJ should waive that based on loving husband/father. New Jersey judge said IJ had to give hearing on that argument. Appellate court stayed that. So he is still removable based on that.
3/ I think Trump Administration decided it wasn't worth rushing & seeking SCOTUS involvement because SCOTUS wouldn't see a "rush" risk b/c alternative basis allows it to percolate for some time. Given timing & desire to not push too much, I get it.
🔥Below is play-by-play 🧵of quick once-over of Appendix. My big picture take-away is this: The details reveal how corrupt the investigation into Trump was! They opened Crossfire Hurricane on the Presidential candidate with nothing, continued it with that nothing disproven AND 1/
2/ continued it during President's first term with more nothings and evidence that it was all fake. I care more about that fact and fact that Obama, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Mueller, and more conspired to further hoax, along with media than that they ignored Clinton plan.
3/ This new evidence is damning of FBI's failure to investigate Lynch, Clinton, and others, and that's bad. But what's worse is what they did--target Trump to destroy his candidacy and then his presidency. It's also damning on Think Tanks & legacy media's involvement.