Share this page!

Maybe Scrolly?
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Twitter logo
Apr 26 • 19 tweets • 6 min read
BREAKING: Sussmann filing hit Pacer. Thread.
Intro is 🔥🔥
3/ Begins by explaining why timely, i.e. that SC worked collaboratively to avoid a dispute and now has no other option and very narrow--only 38 docs and important because Fusion witness is key:
4/ Was curious on this point: Caselaw supports procedure of post-indictment mostion to get subpoenaed documents.
5/ SC points out that really issue is "work product" which means carried out in anticipation of litigation but then notes that evidence does not support that that's what was going on. Then highlights all the efforts to get media to publish.
6/ Well, now we know who SC is calling from Fusion as a witness. The "tech maven" whom is...have to pull the deps but I believe is Laura Seago. Sleuther can you confirm?
7/ Great summary paragraph and also bam with the book. (before this SC also noted much of Fusion working to peddle Steele dossier to show it wasn't legal work.)
8/ Yes, it was Laura (I had remember her called the cyber ninja). But also thees quotes are hillarious!! They were so cocky they wrote a book on it!
9/ Also, argue it was waived b/c they handed the "work product" over to reporters. SC memo also exposes cozy tag-team between Dems and media to get trump.
10/ Mooks questioning is fun. But seriously didn't know it was being shared with the press other than Alfa Bank?
11/ SC: Just giving it to lawyers and wanting it protected by A-C privilege ain't enough, and they did same stuff in house showing it really wasn't about getting legal advise.
12/ LOL: This quote needs to be in the opinion
13/ Strong take-away point.
14/ Hits Joffe's attempt to claim privilege over Fusion--Fusion wasn't hired by or for Joffe. So Joffe can't claim privilege.
15/ Details on Laura's testimony: Sounds like she's got lots of details to share.
16/ More on Laura's testimony.
17/ More on the evidence SC wants to present. This discussion is SC explaining why its need overrides any interest in protecting confidentiality (even if work product).
18/ Was surprised didn't argue no need for Perkins or Fusion to intervene. Also didn't bring up FEC letter.
19/19 That's it on the tweet-while-reading with screen grabs. Big-picture take-aways here:

• • •

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

Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 27
THREADETTE: Working on another SpyGate piece & re-re-reading various original sources including 302 of Steele and caught this little tidbit that is hugely significant now that Steele's primary subsource was Danchenko. 1/ Image
2/ Either Steele was lying about using Danchenko in other non-election reporting to bolster sub-source #1's credibility (possible) OR Steele passed on "intel" from Danchenko related to ANOTHER investigation. Anything FBI did based on Danchenko's "intel" is now suspect.
3/ Has @FBI or DOJ asked Steele what that case was and provided any defendants that exculpatory information re Danchenko? (Sleuths: Do you remember what else Steele supposed told DOJ during this time?)
Read 5 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 26
THIS is why I tweeted this earlier. Here's what happened. SC filed reply brief & exhibit 1 that said "under seal." Then they filed a separate motion to request permission to keep exhibit 1 under seal, that included exhibit 1, but in uploading to pacer 1/
2/ the lawyer or admin. didn't upload it under seal, so it was accessible. A couple people kept referring to it and I said, no, exhibit 1 said under seal. Then I pulled the second filing and saw, no it wasn't under seal. Late night filings like this are easy to screw up
3/ And I feel bad for whomever made the mistake b/c you know Sussmann's gonna scream about it, even though it doesn't hurt him (jury hasn't been picked). And like I said Karma. But also see my timeline b/c the timing of some of this stuff is really screwy and by screwy I mean
Read 4 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 26
Below is thread as I was reading it with screen grabs of relevant passage. Here is the link now up on courtlistener and my summation take-aways. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco… This brief was extremely persausive. Hit Sussmann's procedural complaints re timing & propriety 1/
2/ of seeking to compeling in criminal case. That leaves question of privilege. SC does great job showing this is not giving legal advice, using Fusion/Mooks' own words. And with a killer example of nuisance and marching band. Also points out that b/c no attorney on
3/ it is really a question of "work product" which protects non-lawyers work for lawyer in anticipation of litigation. When work-product is the issue, courts will admit if strong need for evidence, which SC argues there is persausively. And in any event, it really is doc by doc
Read 4 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 25
BREAKING: Court issues order on Motion in Limine, granting in part, denying in part. 1/
Most left for trial:
3/ I think the court is misunderstanding the concession here. There is a difference between saying I'm not doing to show there is a link, and saying we agree there is no link or agreeing we won't imply there actually was a link, but we'll see how Durham handles this.
Read 13 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 23
For those keeping track, another filing in Sussmann case. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
2/ Bam!
3/ Sussmann's desire for a quick trial may hit speed bump if the trial court precluded gov't from admitting evidence re the gathering of evidence and various communications Durham seeks to admit to show that Joffe was client b/c could trigger interlocutory appeal, i.e. b/f trial.
Read 5 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 22
EXPLOSIVE detail: Ga Tech Researchers had "DARPA Whitepapers" on DNC hack and "Mueller list." @FDRLST thefederalist.com/2022/04/22/doc… (Huge thank you to @UndeadFoia for Ga Tech FOIA of these docs!)
2/ Also of interest, Dagon testified for 3 days before the grand jury. That's a lot of information!!!
3/ Also huge thank you to @FOOL_NELSON whose scientific brain helps logically attack questions and all the other sleuthers who run down ideas. I know I couldn't put it all together without this fabulous unpaid staff!
Read 5 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 on Twitter!

:(