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
Re federal judge "ordering" reinstatement of probationary workers...this was the original order entered as a TRO: 1/
2/ Here's what Court said in minute order from today's hearing which indicates language from TRO was merely extended. NOTE: That TRO does not state probationary employees must be reinstated and appears to be another "toothless TRO" b/c if agencies independently fire, is allowed.
3/ I need to see what Court eventually says in order, but my "gut" is Plaintiffs will end up needing to seek to enforce because agencies want those probationary workers fired w/ or w/o OMB's directive. At that point, Court will be forced to order (or not order) reinstatement.
One additional point of note from filing: Khalil was charged with being removable under a very specific code provision 1227(a)(4)(C)(i). THAT is not section most folks have been discussion related to support of terrorism etc.
2/ Of interest is the exception incorporated that actually allows for removal of alien expressly based on alien's "beliefs, statements, or associations," in other words what we would consider pure First Amendment activities, so long as Rubio makes "personal" determination.
3/ Researching case law on this to see if it's been challenged on First Amendment grounds yet, but interesting b/c lots of non-speech, i.e. bad conduct at issue, statute allows for removal based on pure speech.
3/ I noted earlier Kahlil was already in NJ before government new of habeas petition but now it appears he was there before the petition was even filed!
🚨🚨🚨Mahmoud Khalil habeas petition is now up but courtlistner is down, so here's screengrabs. 1/
2/
3/ Some thoughts: IF these allegations were all true and there were no other relevant facts, then yes, he would be entitled to habeas relief. BUT from publicly available information we know MK wasn't merely speaking.
2/ This is also similar to AIDS Vaccine (Ali) and Rhode Island case (McConnell) involving similar issues:
This will be my next lawsplainer bucket because it is next wave of what will make SCOTUS.storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Overlapping issues in these cases include:
a) Can Plaintiffs challenge cancelations under the Administrative Procedure Act?
b) Do cancelations violate law, namely Impoundment Control Act?
c) Does Court have jurisdiction over must it go to Court of Claims?