THREAD: Huge development. FBI TOLD Twitter the Hunter Biden laptop was real shortly after story broke. LATER FBI refused to answer when Facebook asked same question. Implications are HUGE. 1/
2/ First, it means FBI members of the Foreign Influence Task Force knew about the laptop and that it was real. I had NO idea that was the case, just the FBI as an entity. That makes FBI hinting of Russia disinformation hack and release worse.
3/ Second, it means Twitter knew the laptop was real but censored it anyway and even froze the New York Post account. So why did James Baker say to err on side of caution? Did someone from FBI get ahold of Baker?
4/ So who was the FBI agent who said it was real? Who all was present when that statement was made? Who at Twitter was present and with whom did they share that info? How was there NOTHING in Twitter files that referenced FBI saying it was real?
5/5 This new info is most significant revelation in entire censorship of Hunter Biden story scandal.
My current thoughts re Trump & TikTok: Trump isn't an ideologue or a constitutionalist--he's a negotiator and a good one, which will help Make America Great Again. And in negotiating, re TikTok he is taking big picture view of how to strengthen America v. China. 1/
2/ Trump absolutely lacks authority to amend statute by EO or anything else. But Trump isn't going to let the niceties of separations of power stop him. Republicans should not pretend President can amend statute any more than he can amend constitution.
3/ But just like any other overreach by an executive--and we saw many more from Biden--halting it takes time and someone with "standing." Consider Biden's continued "forgiveness" of student loans. And likely whatever negotiation strategy Trump is taking re TikTok will play out
2/ Enjoins release of Vol. II but NOT Vol. I. No mention of Clark or other interests. Will she enter a second order soon? @JeffClarkUS and @HarryMacD might not want to risk & immediately file complaint w/ TRO to stop Vol. I especially given Arizona.
@JeffClarkUS @HarryMacD 3/3 Could be Cannon is doing these things separately and will soon rule on Clark's request for administrative stay to enjoin release of Vol. I.
3/ Reply Brief opens by stressing how DOJ is putting politics over process--here due process. What's the big rush to release report before Court can hear argument? One thing only: Trump is inaugurated. That's not a reason much less a good reason.
THREADETTE: During tonight's Space hosted by @McAdooGordon with @shipwreckedcrew & @KingMakerFT Leslie highlighted something I had missed: While I believed Judge Cannon had not ruled on Defendants' Motion for an Injunction, believing instead she entered temporary injunction 1/
2/ to keep report from being released pending resolution of everything & in deference to what 11th Cir. might say. Well, as Leslie pointed out, Cannon expressly stated that Defendants' Motion for Injunction remained pending, here. Note docket 679 was the emergency Motion.
3/ Because that Motion remains pending, that DOJ appealed from temporary injunction does not deprive Cannon of jurisdiction to decide whether to grant the injunction. DOJ argued its emergency appeal took jurisdiction away from Cannon--it didn't.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING (cont.): As I reported last night, in response to inquiry, attorney for @JeffClarkUS, Harry MacDougald, @HarryMacD, stated he had filed a Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Judge Cannon's D.Ct., & proposed Amicus Brief. This is HUGE. 🧵1/
2/ Even more-so because DOJ this morning filed response stating nothing in Vol. I of Special Counsel report has anything to do w/ Trump's 2 co-defendants in classified document case. Here is link to full filing which I bought & recapped so all have access storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Because Clark is not party to case, filing must be made to the clerk & not on docket & clerk must then place on docket, so Clark's filings are not yet docketed on case, but should be soon. Reason this is key is b/c DOJ has said it won't release Vol. II publicly, just Vol. I.