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
I'm thinking I may have an idea who some of the State Department employees laid off are...remember those in the "Global Engagement Center" pushing censorship of American media outlets under guise of fighting foreign disinformation? Remember Biden Administration pretending . . .
2/ to shutter GEC after Congress cut off funding but instead moving them to a "Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference Hub ('R/FIMI Hub')."
3/ Well, late last week, in a little noticed court filing, State Department stated this about the new disinformation Hub:
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: California judge enters TRO against ICE actions. OMgosh...I so called it...it is an "obey the law injunction" that is worthless!
2/ BUT this is different and it complete bullshit!
3/ Here's my earlier thread where I predicted this "follow the law" worthless injunction. (The training requirements/and documentation is entirely different).
🚨Trump is appealing district court's refusal to discharge Preliminary Injunction related to passport sex designations. Trump asked it to be discharged based on recent SCOTUS decision re bars on puberty blockers...stay with me, I'll explain. 1/
2/ In deciding if a law is constitutional, a court has to decide what standard to review the law with, i.e. how carefully to review it. The district court applied "intermediate scrutiny" in deciding if gov't had grounds to limit to sex M/F. SCOTUS then said no, you only use rational basis scrutiny which is easy to pass.
3/ Under correct standard, then Trump Administration has a rationale basis to require passports to designate a person's actual sex, and therefore the court should discharge the injunction. The court refused because . . . wait for it. . . the President hates transgenders.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge dissolves TRO granted Planned Parenthood to enter a new one that supposedly complies with the requirements. She's so full of bias, it's crazy! 1/
2/ This is the most blatantly ridiculous point: Even in the case of aliens possibly being deported, the court held a hearing. Even in the case of national guard on streets, court held a hearing. And 14 days later is not quickly setting a hearing.
3/ And it isn't a matter of DOJ objecting that no reasons were provided. THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIRED THOSE REASONS BE PROVIDED!
2/ ~2 weeks ago, Judge Breyer entered injunction against Trump Administration barring Trump from federalizing (i.e., taking over control) of National Guard from Gov. Newsom. Newsom had sued. A 3-judge panel of the 9th Cir. court of appeals immediately stayed injunction, meaning
3/ injunction had no effort & Trump remained in charge of National Guard. NOW, Newsom could have asked "full" 9th Cir. to rehear case in something called "en banc." (Note: Not really "full" b/c 9th Cir. is so large, it is just more judges ~11) OR could have appealed to SCOTUS.
4/ Newsom didn't and instead went back to Breyer and said we still get an injunction under Posse Comitatus Act--something not addressed in the original injunction & Breyer has entered several orders, i.e. ordering discovery, setting hearing on merits.