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.
🔥So right now DOJ is desperately searching for cases involving orders entered without jurisdiction & whether you can be held in contempt. You can be held in contempt of an order that is overturned on appeal, but what if there was no jurisdiction to begin with? AND 1/
2/ Here we have the added nuance that it is called "jurisdiction" when you are speaking of where to bring a case in habeas but courts also call it "venue," so does that matter. Assuming it is "jurisdiction", the argument is the court lacked power so order was void ab initio.
3/ If void ab initio, how can you violates something that doesn't exist? On the other hand, if merely "venue" would it be void ab initio? I highly doubt there is a case on point for contempt in a case where no jurisdiction, much less wrong venue.
🚨🚨🚨Another Trump win today with Fourth Circuit granting stay in case where lower court barred Dept of Education and Office of Personnel Management from allowing DOGE access to information. 1/
3/ Court said Plaintiffs weren't likely to succeed on merits because they couldn't establish a concrete injury...mere access to information wasn't enough. And the harm to government was great.
3/ SCOTUS held what I've been screaming for last couple weeks: Judge didn't have jurisdiction b/c habeas case. BUT note: SCOTUS nonetheless improperly issued an advisory opinion. IF there was no jurisdiction below, why is SCOTUS saying what "due process" is required.
THREAD: Was rushing off to a work meeting so my earlier post was by necessity brief & in lawyer-speak to alert folks to decision. So here's more detail. In short, this is short-term "bad" for Trump because court ORDERED to fired executive branch officials reinstated. 1/
2/ But soon I expect SCOTUS to grant "stay" meaning they stay fired. 4 justices have already agreed remedy of reinstatement is not appropriate & Judge Rao in his dissent to en banc order that they get reinstated hit that point.
3/ And that's solely on the reinstatement question. A majority of SCOTUS is likely to also find firing permitted under Article II either under current precedent called Humphrey's Executor or by overruling that. To understand: thefederalist.com/2025/03/10/you…
2/ Two points here. First, unfortunately such mistakes happen. And second, I doubt any of those cases were of a citizen of the country where he was in custody of the country. SO issue here is can Court mandate it under those cases? I don't think it can BUT
3/ If I were Trump Administration, pragmatically, I'd get him released and sent to another country & inform court of it to avoid Court entering an order it doesn't like. AND that should be pragmatically what Trump Administration should do here. OR give him right to voluntary