Lisa Rubin Profile picture
Jul 8 7 tweets 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
In connection with Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s civil lawsuits against the DOJ and FBI, former Trump chief of staff John Kelly provided a sworn statement that Trump sought to have the IRS investigate both. But we don’t have to take NYT’s word for it. 1/ nytimes.com/2023/07/07/us/…
Kelly’s declaration — which states Trump asked him and others whether Strzok and Page could be disciplined — was part of a filing earlier this week in which DOJ again sought to block Trump’s deposition—and lost. 2/
Although the court didn’t cite Kelly’s statement in denying DOJ’s motion, his words suggest why — despite FBI Director Chris Wray offering no indicia of Trump’s role in his own deposition — the court stayed the course: Trump didn’t explore hurting Strzok & Page with FBI brass. 3/
Instead, Trump talked about revoking their security clearances & having the IRS or other federal agencies investigate Strzok and Page within the WH, where Kelly’s contemporaneous notes indicate at least two such conversations despite Trump generally disapproving of notetaking. 4/
And as proof of Trump’s attempts at retaliation, Kelly attached both sets of notes — which his declaration translates helpfully — to the statement. Here they are for your perusal. 5/

The last thing I’ll add is that Kelly’s involvement here is relatively recent. His declaration is dated May 12, 2023; it doesn’t look as if he left the WH & immediately got on board with Strzok & Page. But that he held onto his notes? Telling—and exactly what Trump feared. FIN.
p.s. Want to read it yourself? Kelly’s declaration is Exhibit C within this filing: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lisa Rubin

Lisa Rubin 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 @lawofruby

Jul 8
Tonight, on @WagnerTonight, we talked about the 12/18/20 White House meeting that, at least according to public reporting, is of significant interest to Jack Smith and team. But really, that meeting was two meetings: the one in the Oval and a later regrouping in the residence. 1/
And as much as both meetings tell us about Trump’s knowledge and intent, the second meeting might be especially compelling to the Special Counsel now because almost all of “Team Normal” — Derek Lyons, Pat Cipollone, Eric Herschmann — left the meeting before it ended. 2/
And according to Herschmann’s testimony to the 1/6 committee, they left Trump with a bunch of potential targets of the investigation: Meadows, Rudy, Sidney Powell, and “that crowd,” meaning Mike Flynn and Patrick Byrne. 3/
Read 6 tweets
Jun 28
CARROLL: In an amended answer signed only by Alina Habba’s firm — and not Joe Tacopina, who tried the second Carroll case — Trump has countersued Carroll for defamation. Why? Because the jury only found him liable for sexually assault, not rape.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
No, really. That is, in fact, his argument. That she has caused him “inordinate” damages and “significant harm to his reputation” by reiterating that he raped her when the jury did not so unanimously find. 2/
Should he survive a motion to dismiss, what purported expert would endorse this theory and quantify his alleged damages? (I also cannot wait to see whether and/or at what point Carroll’s team moves for sanctions under Rule 11 and/or 28 USC 1927.) 3/

casetext.com/statute/united…
Read 4 tweets
Jun 28
TRUMP (BUSINESS) RECORDS: I was in court today for argument about where the Manhattan DA’s criminal case against Trump should be heard: in state court where it started or in federal court, as Trump wants. And after 2.5 hours and a surprise witness, it went exactly as expected. 1/
At the end, and while warning nothing he was about to say is binding, SDNY Judge Alvin Hellerstein practically announced the case will return to state court. That is not a shock. The more interesting part is why Team Trump flamed out, despite some fireworks. 2/
The crux of Trump’s argument was that as a former federal officer, he’s entitled to remove the case to federal court because the Manhattan indictment was “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” Specifically, he argued he hired Cohen as his personal lawyer… 3/
Read 11 tweets
Jun 23
SANTOS: The redacted transcript of the hearing at which his dad signed the appearance bond has been released. And his dad attests that neither he nor his aunt owns any home or property that could satisfy the $500k bond.
And then Mr. Santos asks a good and reasonable question, “What would happen to him if he get[s] caught traveling at areas that he’s not allowed to?” And the Court gives a plain, stark response: “There would be a warrant for his arrest.” Santos’s dad realizes the seriousness. 2/
He seems to appreciate that it’s now his and his aunt’s role to make Santos understand he can’t leave the country, much less the limited places he’s allowed to travel within the U.S. The aunt gets that too, that they have to ensure he stays “on the line.” 3/
Read 6 tweets
Jun 22
Gary Michael Brown, today's grand jury witness in the 1/6 investigation, is not a household name--but his not-so-humble brag made the January 6th committee's report. 1/
On 1/5, Brown "sent a text ... to other campaign staff suggesting that he was the person who delivered the fake votes to Congress. After sending the group a photo of his face with the Capitol in the background, [he] said, 'This has got to be the cover a book I write one day.'" 2/
He added, "'I should probably buy [Mike] [R]oman a tie or something for sending me on this one. Hasn’t been done since 1876 & it was only 3
states that did it.' The reference to 1876 alludes to a controversy during that election about certain States’ electoral college votes." 3/
Read 8 tweets
Jun 20
There’s a ton of GOP griping about Hunter Biden’s supposed sweetheart deal. That not only ignores fundamental differences in the gravity and duration of the alleged crimes, but also neglects some critical context: David Weiss did not staff the matter with Delaware lifers. 1/
Love them or hate them, the Bidens are Delaware royalty. And so to ensure the matter would be handled like any other, Weiss brought in experienced prosecutors from U.S. Attorney’s offices in Maryland and Pennsylvania. One in
has extensive experience with public corruption. 2/
After reading about those guys, I am increasingly convinced the deal the feds made — after a 5-year investigation led by a Trump-nominated U.S. attorney and outside prosecutors not known for shying away from cases involving prominent Democrats — was likely good for all sides. 3/
Read 4 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!

:(