Favorite part of the ruling so far. Basically telling Cannon: look, we could have just stopped here, but this is fun so we're gonna keep dunking on you for the next 12 pages.
And mad props to the clerk who dug up this quote from the little-known Cobbledick case.
What a time to be alive.
Last Cobbledick tweet, I promise. What's interesting is that DOJ first cited the case in its opening brief, but DOJ used a different quote for a slightly different proposition. So it looks like some 11th Circuit clerk read it and was like "hmmm, can't let this go to waste."
Sorry, one more. I was curious - who was this Cobbledick, and why was he aggrieved? Well, the SC opinion has few details, not even a first name. But interestingly, Cobbledick also didn't want to comply with a GJ subpoena. However, he filed a motion to quash like a normal person.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Excellent reporting here from @CarolLeonnig about Jack Smith's fateful decision to bring the classified documents case in S.D. Fla. rather than DC, as well as the deliberations over seeking Cannon's removal. PTSD warning.
@CarolLeonnig As I explained a while back, Smith's decision to bring the case in Florida rather than DC, while painful, was the legally correct decision.
DC might have only worked for a narrower GJ obstruction charge, but even that would have faced challenges.
@CarolLeonnig A more interesting revelation is that Smith decided to seek Cannon's removal when appealing her dismissal of the case (based on the validity of his appointment), but the Solicitor General overruled him.
One of the best pieces of evidence that the "treasonous conspiracy" baloney is a ruse designed to distract from Epstein, harm the IC, and make the Trump happy is the 2018 HPSCI report about the 2016 election. Here's what @FBIDirectorKash (the author) had to say in that report:
@FBIDirectorKash: In 2015, Russia began engaging in a covert influence campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election
@FBIDirectorKash: Russia's active measures campaign was multifaceted, and "hacked material was disseminated through this myriad network of [Russian] actors with the objective of undermining the effectiveness of the future administration."
I've been obsessed with Trump saying he "wished her well" regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, and how neither the media nor Dems have made an issue about it. It turns out @jonathanvswan did ask him about back in 2020, and holy shit, his answer then is even worse. Follow along.
Here's the full video. Jump to the 25:40 mark & prepare to be amazed. It's worse than you could imagine. Rather than taking Swan's invitation to clarify, Trump doubles down, repeatedly expressing sympathy for her in light of her boyfriend's demise.
"I'm not looking for anything bad for her," Trump notes, while also stating that we need to let the criminal process play out. It's classic Trump - he's always sympathizing with the plight of criminals & never pre-judges their cases.
I finally had time to analyze the recent CIA report about the "ICA" regarding Russia's involvement in the 2016 election.
It's a very important document, as it shows that the leadership of the CIA's Directorate of Analysis is now engaging in politics, undermining all trust in it.
People like @DCIARatcliffe and @DDCIAEllis have used the report to reinvigorate all their favorite grievances about the "Deep State" and the 2016 election. They are doing this even though the report itself does nothing to undermine the conclusion that Russia actively sought to harm Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, an unprecedented attack on our sovereignty by an enemy of the United States.
Ratcliffe and Ellis have also touted the fact that the report was written by "career" CIA officers -- the head of the Directorate of Analysis, normally a career official, is listed as the author. That may be the case. But if true, it shows that the leadership of that office has now chosen to be pawns in a partisan political debate. Given this, I'm not sure we can trust any future analysis coming out of that office. If they'll bend their standards for Trump and Ratcliffe here, why wouldn't they do it on any other topic?
Nothing to see here. Just the CIA Deputy Director, @michaeljayellis, promoting a Breitbart article suggesting that former Director Brennan be prosecuted for perjury. Rather than rise to the office he holds, it looks like Ellis has decided to be a political hack. Amateur hour.
Another reason it's amateur hour is that neither the recent CIA paper nor the Breibart article actually mention what Brennan told SSCI. They'd both get an F if one was grading their work, as would Ellis for promoting it.
Here's the evidence; you can judge for yourself. On the left is what the recent CIA paper says (which, notably, is unsourced). The next two screenshots are from @SecRubio's very detailed report about the ICA.
So it looks like Brennan told SSCI that while he had some concerns about including it, he ultimately decided to relent to Comey and the FBI, who insisted on including it for the sake of completeness. I'm having trouble seeing how that's perjury if the allegation in the CIA paper is that Brennan ultimately supported its inclusion. That's what he told SSCI. Relenting = a decision to include it.
There's a myth spreading in the MAGA-sphere saying that since Hegseth is an Original Classification Authority (OCA), whatever he says goes in terms of classification. That's a red herring, for reasons I'll explain.
The war plan information was likely first classified by CENTCOM.
CENTCOM officials would classify this information derivatively, using the CENTCOM classification guide, which is required by DOD classification policy. As explained below, the CENTCOM classification guide would have treated this information as SECRET.
So once this information reached Hegseth's desk, it would have already been classified as SECRET. There was no "original" classification decision to be made at this point. The only action he could have taken at this point was to affirmatively declassify it.