Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
@ProfMJCleveland
Feb 15, 2022 • 13 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
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
　

Keep Current with Margot Cleveland

Margot Cleveland Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfMJCleveland

Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 11
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/ Image
Image
2/ Trump Administration calls out 1st Cir.'s ridiculous reasoning. This in essence is the problem: Image
Image
3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 8
Wow. Surprised the Trump Administration request for stay was docketed already. 1/
2/ \25a539.htmlsupremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?Fi…
3/ Holy Crap! The States are doing a run on the bank! Image
Read 5 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 7
🚨BREAKING: New Jersey terrorism criminal complaint connected to foiled Dearborn Halloween plot has been unsealed. 1/ Image
2/ Full docket: courtlistener.com/docket/7188774…
3/ Full criminal complaint: Looks like it wasn't seal but not put on Pacer until today. courtlistener.com/docket/7188774…
Read 24 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 6
OMgosh. This judge is BONKERS! 1/ Image
Image
2/ Here's argument: Trump Administration can't "fix" state's incompetence or its system of distributing money. And it is ridiculous to say it is arbitrary and capricious to keep money for kids food for kids food. Image
3/ How in the hell does this judge think he has the authority to force the administration to take money from another program to pay SNAP benefits? Image
Read 4 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 5
THREAD on challenge to tariff: Opening this is tax. Common sense: Implausible Congress meant to let President to overhaul tariff. It is a one-way ratchet. It is a "sanction" statute, not a tariff statute.
1/
2/ Attorney: Verbs deal with embargoes but nothing about raising revenue. Many statute tariffs: Have many limits, this statute doesn't. Statutes say "tariffs" or equivalent.
Thomas: Going back to non-delegation point if, wouldn't that apply to embargoes.
Attorney: No. We aren't saying you can't delegate tariff you need to give "intelligent principles".
Justice Roberts: Foreign facing tax, but isn't that core power of Article II...and quite effective in achieving certain objectives.
Attorney: Think of this as Article I and Article II. Tariffs have foreign policy implications but founders gave that in Article I section 8 to Congress.
Justice Kavanaugh: If tariff were in the statute would that be acceptable and constitutionally permissible.
Attorney: Congress grant that authority to Presidents.
ME: WOW. He doesn't believe in non-delegation.
Justice Kavanaugh: What does Nixon stand for? Did Congress aware of that? Nixon announced in nationwide prime time speech, it wasn't a little piece of paper. Why didn't Congress change language?
Attorney: Nixon didn't rely on that statute and Nixon disagreed statute applied. The Circuit Court of Appeals decision doesn't change plain meaning. And even if Congress knew about it that doesn't help because case didn't say "unlimited authority," and use another statute. This president has torn up entire tariff architecture that Congress created.
3/ Justice Alito (?): Start with "regulate importation" would you agree that includes fees.
Attorney: NO.
Alito: "Regulate admission to park" can that include fee.
Attorney: Not helpful answer. Tries to distinguish from tariffs.
Alito: Are tariffs always revenue raising? What if imposed tariff to take effect in 90 days and agreement is reached is that a tax?
Attorney: This is obviously revenue raising. Taxation is different.
Alito: You cite many different provisions, what if imposed in an emergency?
Attorney: You need more precisions. Never has Congress added a tariff authority.
Read 14 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Nov 5
THREAD: SCOTUS Tariff argument live summary. 1/
2/ John Sauer opens with summary of why Trump has power, framing as foreign affairs.
Thomas: Ask why major question doctrine doesn't apply.
Sauer: In foreign affair context, you expect Congress to give major powers, since he has Article 2 power.
Justice Kagan (I think): What kind of Article 2 powers are you relying on.
Sauer: President has broad authority in foreign affairs.
3/ Sauer: Article 2 power PLUS sweeping delegation by Congress and we are giving you Article 1. We aren't saying it is power to tax, but to regulate.
Justice Alito (?): Damsin Moore (spelling). We said very narrow, we confined to very questions in that yet you keep citing. Different provision of federal statute.
Sauer: We don't dispute narrow opinion but say it addressed same principles that apply here.
Justice Kagan (?): I just don't understand this argument. You are saying this isn't tax but it is a tax. You are saying this is regulatory but I don't understand this argument. Or that foreign powers or even an emergency say it can do away with major questions doctrine.
Sauer: Court has never applied in foreign affair.
Justice Kagan: Could have declared a national emergency in global warning and then forgiven student loans.
Sauer: gets cut off again.
Justice Kagan: Why does Congress always use tariff and regulate but not here.
Sauer: Cites another case but cut off.
Justice Kagan: cuts off again. AUGH. I think she has a good point but can't follow because she cuts off Sauer.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(