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

Feb 15
So @McAdooGordon has asked about the timing of contract w/ GA Tech, etc. Here's from my Right to Know Requests that provide some of the timing. Image
2/ ImageImageImage
3/ Image
Read 10 tweets
Feb 15
OMgosh: "What merits coverage?" Compare Mueller Special Counsel with Durham re coverage. Image
2/ LOL: "Old news." Yup, just as I said: Sussmann-friendly folks fed a cleaned up version of the story the same "journalist" who wrote this clean up piece, back in September to get a head of the news. So now it is "old news." Image
3/ Of course, I only realized that after Durham's filing hit and we doing some research and came across Savage's previous pro bono defense work.
Read 29 tweets
Feb 15
THREADETEE: PSA As Sussmann-friendly media tries to tell you that Durham's Friday motion was a nothingburger, you need only read @FDRLST detailed analysis of the filing, which Sussmann's legal team impliedly acquiesed in its correctness. 1/ Image
2/ Article 1: The Explosive New (no, not that explosion). thefederalist.com/2022/02/14/spe…
3/ And some other significant points (with some interesting triffles). thefederalist.com/2022/02/14/8-m…
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
THREAD. One of my followers asked me about this noting it seemed reasonable. It does seem reasonable but other than making a couple correct points is wacked. Yes, there was no "hacking" in what we consider hacking, at least not that we know of yet. And yes Joffe had access 1/
2/ to data. But that's where the reasonableness ends. The govt' has access to alot of things & that doesn't mean they can use it for whatever. And Joffee having legal access to that data also didn't give him the right to do whatever. And we KNOW Joffe's maintainance w/ servers
3/ wasn't for him to try to connect Russia phones to Trump b/c if it was then his company would be the one meeting with the CIA and not his personal lawyer to pass on the "intel."
Read 8 tweets
Feb 14
@CBCNews Freedom has been a rally cry for centuries:
Read 4 tweets
Feb 13
THREAD: For those just now realizing Durham is onto something and is dropping bombs in his court filings, here's a thread with my prior pieces that tease out all the revelations, 1/ thefederalist.com/2021/09/17/dem…
Read 8 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!

:(