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.
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
🚨🚨ACLU files reply in SCOTUS re Alien Enemies Act and asks SCOTUS for an advisory opinion in response to an application for which there has been no lower court decision and with no plaintiff. Un. Rea.
2/ Oh, and then asks SCOTUS to take case without any decision.
3/ This is false: DOJ expressly stated it gave notices in native language if they didn't speak English.
🚨🚨🚨Justice Alito's dissenting statement in Alien Enemies Act case dropped late yesterday or early this morning. After detailing how SCOTUS ignored controlling law, he closed with profound point: "Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law." 1/
3/ Justice Alito's closing paragraph concisely chastised not merely SCOTUS but lower courts for doing what Left has been screaming that Trump is supposedly doing...ignoring the law
🚨District court judge in the case that ACLU double-leap-frogged to SCOTUS entered an order detailing the timing of everything. This order makes even more striking SCOTUS decision to toss "norms" to the wayside. 1/
3/ Ironically, Plaintiffs aren't getting any action by district court now b/c by seeking 5th Cir.'s involvement district court canceled deadlines, but then 5th Cir. denied as premature. Of course, ACLU doesn't care b/c it got SCOTUS to issue stay even though class not certified.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Late last night SCOTUS directed Trump not to remove any aliens under Alien Enemies Act based on a "putative class" meaning there is NO certified class action yet. So much for norms! 1/
2/ What makes SCOTUS' decision even more "norm" breaking is that it acted before allowing 5th Cir. to act and 5th Cir. actually dismissed appeal & request as "premature" because it is "a court of review" and district court needs a chance to rule.
3/ Also key is what 5th Cir. said....this is about "named petitioners"--a class was never certified so why in the world is a court entering an order related to a non-existent plaintiff?
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.