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: There were several telling exchanges during yesterday's SCOTUS argument in Trump v. Slaughter, but the one that struck me most was the final exchange between Justice Jackson & Slaughter's attorney. Read the full exchange below. 1/
2/ The problem is fundamental! Article I of the Constitution vests in CONGRESS the power to legislate--not unelected bureaucrats! And this ties into a second point: Jackson, Kagan, & Sotomayor all stressed Congress's "reliance interests" in creating "independent" agencies
3/ with the threesome arguing Congress relied limits on President's removal authority in granting agency regulatory authority. Well, there is a much bigger reliance interest at stake!
😡😡😡ABSOLUTELY. DISGUSTING! So-called "Republican" Dan Schaetzle is smearing my brother Jamie O'Brien, who is huge MAGA (might that be why?). While a local story, Schaetzle's behavior should be make him anathema in not just politics but polite society! 1/
/2 Also shame on @16NewsNow for pushing Schaetzle's preferred narrative that it is about my brother when more accurately Schaetzle is claiming the County never should have sought pension for ANY County Council attorneys most (all?) of whom were Dems before my brother.
@16NewsNow 3/ Here's the backdrop on Slimy Schaetzle's plot with details from Amy Drake.
Holy CRAP! A district court judge entered an injunction that allowed the states that had processed 100% of SNAP without authorization to keep the money! Trump is still seeking stay of lower court's order to fund SNAP with school lunch money. 1/
2/ Trump Administration calls out 1st Cir.'s ridiculous reasoning. This in essence is the problem: