Tweet

Margot Cleveland

Feb 15 • 4 tweets • 2 min read

@FDRLST

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/

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…

@nytimes

4/4 Also, you can tell the news was huge because Sussmann-friendly sources gave info to @nytimes back in September for them to create narrative and get ahead of the story.

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1492723603149889545

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

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

More from @ProfMJCleveland

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Feb 17

BREAKING: Michael Sussmann's attorneys file Motion to Dismiss.

2/ This was to be expected. More later as about to do a hit on election integrity.

3/ Just finished quick read, lawsplainer will be forthcoming but in short: This motion seeks dismissal by arguing the facts alleged in the indictment EVEN IF TRUE do not state a crime. In other words, Sussmann did not commit a crime by lying to FBI 's Baker.

Read 9 tweets

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Feb 15

@McAdooGordon

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.

Read 10 tweets

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Feb 15

OMgosh: "What merits coverage?" Compare Mueller Special Counsel with Durham re coverage.

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."

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1492723603149889545

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.

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1492723603149889545

Read 29 tweets

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Feb 15

THREAD BREAKING: Sussmann's attorney's aren't happy with Durham. Filed today.

2/ Just posting pages here and then will comment:

3/ continued:

Read 13 tweets

Margot Cleveland

@ProfMJCleveland

Feb 15

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1493322504353558536

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/

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1493322504353558536

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