NEW: TRUMP RESPONSE TO CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS: Despite this filing being filled with errors and inconsistencies, I can see a reason - albeit unfounded - that Judge Cannon could side with Donald. First, it’s odd that Corcoran is on this as he’s a fact witness in the probe. 1/
First, we were wondering if they would argue the 100 documents might be declassified. They did, though they failed to say WHY, HOW, WHEN, or WHICH documents Donald declassified. 2/
In the introduction and throughout, they put “classified records” in quotes - and they purposefully refer to them as RECORDS because they’re incorrectly trying to establish that they fall under the Presidential Records Act. 3/
They continue to argue the president’s authority under the PRA despite 1) the fact that if these do fall under the PRA, Cannon has no jurisdiction and 2) he’s NOT THE PRESIDENT. 4/
They then refuse to argue the government’s assertion that the natsec assessment and criminal probe are inextricably linked, and then decide no investigation is needed because they promise nothing was compromised. Note all the quotation marks. What a bunch of assholes. 5/
But here’s what I think Cannon will latch onto if she denies the DoJ motion to stay: that the government can’t possibly be “concerned” about irreparable harm or protecting classified docs because they “leaked” information. They levy this accusation with ZERO proof. 6/
And trump makes this accusation when - in fact - it’s likely HIS PEOPLE leaking the info they’re using to show the DoJ doesn’t really care about security. 7/
Here, they just flat out lie and say a former president can declare documents presidential or personal. 8/
They continue to downplay the danger posed to national security by saying the FBI and ODNI can withstand a “brief pause”, even though they want THREE MONTHS for a special master to review the documents. They do NOT address specific possessory interests. 9/
So, they argue trump maybe declassified some of them, that he has the discretion to call them presidential records (which kills her jurisdiction), and the one I think Cannon will adopt: the DoJ can’t be irreparably harmed since they leaked all this (YOU ASKED FOR IT). 10/
I have a feeling Cannon will agree - wrongly - that DoJ would lose on those merits and deny the stay. That would force DoJ to appeal to the 11th circuit. I don’t think cannon cares about her legacy or having her ruling overturned. As long as she delays for Donald. END/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hate to break it to you, but even if Garland had appointed a special counsel in 2021 and trump was indicted a year earlier, there still would not have been a trial before the election. Let me explain. 1/
We know that last year, donald filed for immunity. That's interlocutory, which means it has to be solved before trial. That whole appeal and oral argument process from district court to circuit court to SCOTUS, took nearly a year. 2/
The way SCOTUS set up the process is that they sent it back to the lower court to determine what's immune and what's not under their new immunity rules, and then THAT second immunity decision is interlocutory, too. 3/
Allow me to go through Tim Pool’s sad excuses for why he’s quitting two weeks before an election. 1/
1. “It’s not a financial thing. We make a lot of money.”
Okay, but you want to start a family and you’re gonna quit the big ol’ money maker? Or is your wife the bread winner? Kinda woke, isn’t it? 2/
2. “The structure becomes bigger and bigger and bigger until it becomes impossible to manage.”
Then you expand and hire people and pay them well and give them benefits. Sorry you’re unable to run a small business. I started at my kitchen table with 10 downloads. Now I run a network and have over 50M. But I don’t get millions from Russia. 3/
THREAD: Despite the overwhelming support for telling my story, I want to address some of the pushback I've received from Republicans on this site. First, "This is pure propaganda. Florida has exceptions for rape. You support killing babies so much you’re willing to lie to unsuspecting people about it." 1/
Let me address the "Florida has an exception for rape" point first. Florida does have an exception for rape if you provide a "police report, restraining order, medical record, or other court order." That requires the service member to report their rape. Let me tell you what happened when I tried to report my rape. 2/
I was wrapped in a blanket and bleeding because my rapist's friends had stolen my clothes. It was still dark, around 0400. I snuck out and went to the on-base law enforcement office to report the rape. I was seated in an interrogation room under one of those fluorescent lamps at a metal desk, where I waited for about 30 minutes. 3/
Um, wow. The evidence and testimony Jack Smith has is DAMNING. For instance, the government has testimony that Donald said of the voter fraud claims that the "details don't matter." There is also testimony that trump said it didn't matter if he lost, he would just declare he won. 1/
There are also multiple conversations Pence had with his running mate that they'd lost and it was time to "take a bow". I'm just digging into this, but Trump is cooked. None of this is immune (or the presumptive immunity can be easily rebutted.) 2/
HA! When Trump was on the phone with Michigan, lying to them about voter fraud, Trump was corrected and reminded he lost two counties becuase he "underperformed with educated females", which pissed him off. 3/
NEW: THREAD: A new ruling from Judge McBurney in Georgia overturning the abortion ban and allowing the procedure to continue has some REMARKABLE quotes. Let's take a look at just a few. 1/
"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman." 2/
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have." 3/