6/ They crossed the Rubicon because they didn't want to work with Trump to establish a secured "library"?
7/7 The warrant does show gov't informed court of declassification argument which is a plus, but the minus is that the entire premise of the case are ridiculous statutes of "crimes".
Addendum 1/ Note the OR using presidential records to justify search.
2/ So who is this "Special Agent" who referred to DOJ from Inspector General's office and who referred to IG Office and involved FBI? Given how DOJ's IG office didn't cooperate with Durham, not hard to imagine bias going on there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yesterday's piece by @jsolomonReports and the additional leaks to NYTime and Post make this piece @FDRLST even more important to read & process. Solomon's reporting is huge BUT not stand-alone--it fills in the texture of this: thefederalist.com/2022/08/15/fro…
Post-Twit: Notice the language--"formally transmitted." Likely Translation: NARA gave FBI 15 boxes before executive privilege was waived and procedures followed.
BREAKING: So Halper's attorney apparently filed discovery requests in lawsuit @RealSLokhova filed against him. Some interesting tidbits. Halper is trying to reel in @GrassleyPress 1/
2/ LOL Halper is apparently using discovery to push the Lokhova is a Russian spy angle!
3/ In fact, wasn't there a Russian person Halper knew well from Cambridge?? Tri-something??? Who was supposedly a Russian Agent?
THREAD: Search warrant & schedules has been bristling me & I finally figured out why--we are getting lost in what was taken & what was listed as susceptible to seizure & NOT the criminal provisions on which warrant was based. I'm still ruminating here, but what I see is NONE 1/
2/ of the three criminal statutes used to justify the search require materials to be "classified". Yet, both NY Times & Washington Post directed everyone to idea of Trump keeping classified info & list of what was taken highlighted that too. But look at the three statues:
3/ Espionage Act's plain language does not require material related to "national defense" to be classified. (Preliminary research confirms my reading but want to dig deeper).
But seriously @FBI, and I am being serious: What attacks on the FBI's integrity do you think are "unfounded?" That agents lied & made numerous material misrepresentations in FISA application? That they used Steele as a backdoor source after he was terminated? 1/
2/ That they set a perjury trap for a Lieutenant General? That extramarital affairs are not frowned upon? That an agent would access intel from a CHS that he wasn't handling without alerting folks? That agents were so scared of the Bureau they waited 2 years to blow the whistle?
3/ That FBI let a fact witness & potentially criminally complicit buddy sit in on Hillary's interview? That they didn't tell the intelligence community that Hunter Biden thought the Russians had another one of his laptops? That they didn't investigate the folks targeting