THREAD: Breaking. Durham files Motion to Compel Clinton Campaign, DNC, and Fusion GPS to produce material w/h based on "attorney-client" privilege.
2/ In sum, Durham wants the documents w/h identified in appendix to be given to court to decide if privilege. (Reading while tweeting so bear with me). First main argument is that Fusion wasn't retained to help w/ legal advise but to get dirt & that isn't protected.
3/ Ohhh, not sure if this was public before but the white paper re Alfa is included as an exhibit.
4/ Giggle...
5/ I didn't realize this...
6/ LOL Cites Fusion's book as support.
7/ Dang... Exhibit A under seal...
8/ Okay Sleuths...what was this about. AND this makes me even more sus about Joffe's tip to OIG about someone's computer communicating a foreign ip address.
9/ So, Sussmann represented Joffe, but didn't bill him, only Clinton Campaign.
10/ Cute.
11/ While government cites criminal activity exception, Durham doesn't press that argument, but focuses on fact it wasn't legal advise.
2/ Judge: I have another concerns with my ability to act on plaintiffs' TRO I think I need to first to find out what is happening in court and on the ground. What's happening legally?
ACLU: Sought emergency relief in both 5th Circuit & SCOTUS given urgent circumstance.
Judge: Are you seeking same relief there as here?
ACLU: Yes. No removal for 30 days...or without more notice. We believe on way to airport. Appears more being transport. All being moved out of north district of Texas. (Got nationawide TRO in southern TRO). Northern District Court b/c 2 named plaintiff not being removed. Notice in English said you were being removed and could make a phone call. Our position is that whatever SCOTUS meant that what they did can't possibly this little notice.
3/ DOJ: Sought TRO in n.d. in Texas, and 5th & SCOTUS: TRO in other districts, such as CO/NY. Certainly quite of number of these cases.
Judge: Now what's going on on the ground. Do you agree what notice they were given? 24 hours notice in English?
DOJ: Told in language they could understand and not in English. No flights tonight. No plans for flights tomorrow. "People I talked to..."
Judge: What is government's position on whether a detainee merely needs to check a box to say he has to file versus or has to get to court?
DOJ: They can say they want to challenge within a certain time (similar to expedited removal) & then have time to file habeas (minimum 24 hours) and then won't be removed while habeas pending. Not removed then. Many habeas have been filed.
2/ District court entered injunction prohibiting firings in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & appellate court entered partial stay of injunction, to allow Trump to fire people except as necessary to carry out statutory duties.
3/ Trump had legal team assess what staffing was needed to carry out mandated statutory duties and RIFed everyone else. AND submitted a sworn statement saying say.storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
🧵on Garcia (MS-13 El Salvadorian gang member): DOJ has staked out it's position--all it will do to facilitate Garcia's return to US is to, if Garcia presents at a port of entry, to take him into custody in U.S. 1/
2/ District court has said "facilitate" means what it means in dictionary and you must "facilitate" Garcia's return to U.S. under that meaning & submit to discovery to tell us what you have done. DOJ's position is "no, you must tell us precisely what you want us to do first."
3/ DOJ sought a stay making this point & that forcing Executive to "facilitate" beyond removing domestic barriers for Garcia to enter U.S. infringes on Article II. 4th Circuit denied stay.
🔥This excerpt from the Gang Field Interview Sheet re Garcia includes two additional key facts: Per experts in gangs, "MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang." 1/
2/So Garcia being with other gang members held more significance than happenstance. BUT more importantly, "confidential source" of "past proven and reliable source" not only knew Garcia's rank & moniker BUT didn't claim to know anything about 4th person.
3/3 That negates idea that confidential source was merely telling cops what they wanted to hear.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another crazy injunction barring Trump Administration officials from accessing social security data for purposes of improving system & finding fraud. Social Security numbers, names, addresses, are key to cross checking for fraud. 1/
2/ 4th Cir. recently granted stay in a similar case but judge claims "it's different"