Share this page!

Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Twitter logo
May 4 • 2 tweets • 1 min read
With everyone now digging into history of all the clerks, I hope this point hits the guilty party: They haven't just destroyed S.Ct.'s confidentiality & trust, but have made their innocent colleagues suspect. Really, for the benefit of the innocent libs, guilty one should 1/
2/2 out themselves. Yes, they'll get fired, but they will be the media & the left will beatify them and if Columbia will hire Comey after IG report, the clerk will get the gush law school teaching job as well.

• • •

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
May 3
This is outrageous! And the only logical reason for such a leak was to preassure a justice to change his/her vote. Killing babies > everything else to the Left.
2/ I am still jaw-dropped over this. I served for ~25 years as career law clerk for federal appellate judge. Confidentiality was everything. And leaking a draft opinion? I can't even process this...but then again I also can't process ripping limbs & head of tiny human being.
3/ It's going to be a summer of rage....because in some states human beings in utero will no longer be disposable. And if the court "changes" it's mind? The consequences of this abhorent leak are beyond comprehension.
Read 5 tweets
Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Apr 28
THREAD: H/t @walkafyre re FEC release of docs re DNC/Clinton Campaign based on @DanBackerEsq filed complaint. 1/fec.gov/data/legal/mat…
2/ Key document is FEC probable cause finding. fec.gov/files/legal/mu…
3/
Read 5 tweets
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/
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 26
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:
Read 19 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!

:(