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

Jul 3
Liz Murrill is Rep. AG in LA. After she pointed out New Orleans officials were violating state criminal law, local officials indicted her & set $400,000 bail bond. Yet another example of big city Dems in red state using rigged grand jury system to target Republicans. 1/
2/  Fortunately, the Louisiana Supreme Court stepped in to stop this farce.  It took them less than 24 hours. Image
3/ Image
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Jul 2
Small town America for the win!
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 25
Alito throws some subtle shade to the lawfare in the Temporary Protective Status case. Image
2/ That "Nevertheless, lower courts," sentence has herculean restraint! Image
3/ Reminder: The lower courts didn't give a dang! Image
Read 4 tweets
May 26
THREADETTE: SCOTUS issued opinion today in case where group representing immigration judges sought to challenge in federal court rule that they had to get a supervisor's approval before speaking re immigration issues. 1/
2/ The full opinion (which is short) and Justice Thomas's concurrence are must-reads because IMNSHO they are SCOTUS first group slap to rouge judges. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
3/ Full court signed on to this line: Image
Read 7 tweets
May 5
🔥Pending before SCOTUS right now is petition for cert in what is one of most consequential constitutional cases related to liberty in the form of a free-market. And yet, few have taken notice of the case. In short, EPA decided who to give market share to based on "equity." 1/ Image
2/ Article here by colleague at @NCLAlegal washingtontimes.com/news/2026/may/…
@NCLAlegal 3/3 Here is the docket for those interested. It is truly appalling unelected bureaucrats are deciding whose business to kill--including taking their market share to give to so-called disadvantaged folks who never built business w/ sweat equity.
Read 4 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!

:(