Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 8, 2022 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
BREAKING: Sussmann's files motion to bar government's expert witness.
2/ (Not on courtlistener yet so no link to share.) Note what they don't say: They don't say that Sussmann didn't know that the experts had concerns or thought it could fool all but DNS experts.
3/ Argument in general:
4/ Interesting point re what evidence Durham might present. Does go to motive.
5/ Sussmann acknowleges it goes to state of mind and intent and also says he has no intent to offer evidence regarding such data.
6/ LOL Durham's expert isn't really and expert because he doesn't understand DNS data...exactly the type of expert Sussmann's gang aimed to trick!
7/ Sussmann again acknowledges if he had reason to doubt the accuracy it would be relevant to his state of mind, but claims "no evidence" he did....which is kinda strange if the reason Sussmann, as an attorney, allegedly hire Fusion, was to help understand and thus advise Clinton
8/ on legal risk re defamation, etc. So, you'd think before publishing it to a third party, he'd ask the source of concerns...unless Fusion wasn't assisting in giving legal advice but instea was just doing straight op-research.
9/ So main legal argument to keep expert out is: 1) irrelevant (yes, unless Sussmann makes an issues); 2) untimely. No set rule on untimeliness & given 6 weeks and speed & no continuences yet, I'd say, no not untimely; 3) expert isn't an expert on DNS (possible basis depending
10/10 what expert is to testify on (but that would only be in response to Sussmann presenting evidence it was accurate); 4) failed to give enough detail on opinion of expert. If I were government, I'd supplement w/ more detail, but not sure how that sorts out.
It's on courtlistener now: courtlistener.com/docket/6039058…
Continuing re Gov't Notice: This puts Sussmann in corner. If he claims he shared out of national security concern, that implies it is authentic. And then gov't pounces. Not it isn't that it "was" fabricated--but the "possibility." Possible > Plausible amirite? 1/
2/

• • •

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

Sep 4
🚨🚨🚨HUGE win for Trump Administration via Florida with 11th Cir. staying injunction ordering shut down of Alligator Alcatraz. 1/ Image
2/ LOL: Image
Image
3/ 💀💀💀 Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 3
🚨🚨🚨Breaking: 5th Cir. issues decision on Alien Enemies Act. Image
Image
2/ Following are relevant passages explaining court's opinion. Image
Image
3/ Image
Image
Image
Read 9 tweets
Aug 26
🧵Trump Administration's filed emergency motion for stay before 11th Cir. yesterday re Allegator Alcatraz. Link and highlights follow. 1/
3/ Correction: Florida filed not Trump Admistration.
Read 7 tweets
Aug 26
The Maryland Father's attorneys sure seemed to be playing fast and loose with the facts! Image
Image
2/ Garcia: "I won't plead guilty unless you deport me to Costa Rica."
DOJ: "Well, if you insist."
Garcia: "Judge you must dismiss this case because they are forcing me to plead guilty." Image
3/ Image
Read 4 tweets
Aug 16
WHOA! Fifth Circuit holds quorum clause does not require physical presence. I absolutely disagree with that conclusion. 1/ Image
3/ Here's my discussion of the case/issues: thefederalist.com/2024/02/28/cou…
Read 5 tweets
Aug 15
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another Trump win on appeal with D.C. Circuit vacating preliminary injunction. Order isn't loading yet so details to follow. 1/ Image
2/ Here's what the case is about: Image
Image
3/ And this isn't one of the cases where things were stayed, meaning this decision now frees the Trump Administration to get back to work. The court had originally stayed a portion of the injunction, allowing Trump to fire folks but then Plaintiffs claimed Trump didn't make individualized assessment so Court of Appeals decided it wasn't going to get into that morass and just said Trump can't fire anyone (it shouldn't have and I believe one of the judge's dissented on that cop out).Image
Read 7 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!

:(