🔥🔥🔥THREADETTE: Yesterday something struck me as "off," but I only now had a chance now to relisten to the testimony to confirm. Check the 5:43:38 point from @RobGouveiaEsq video below & note Fani Willis volunteering she did NOT go to college with Robin Yeartie. Why would Fani make that point in response to a question of whether she knew Yeartie? 1/
2/ ...because Yeartie testified she met Willis when she was in college. (1:00:00 mark). Note Yeartie didn't say she went to college with Willis, just that they met when she Yeartie was in college. Willis making a point that they didn't go to college together only
3/ makes sense if Willis heard Yeartie's testimony. And note at 5:37:34 point Willis never said she didn't listen to anyone's testimony, only that I told you I was in my office pacing."
4/4 Think about it logically: Someone asks you do you know a person? What do you say, "yes." You don't say "yes, but they didn't go to Notre Dame, they went to Saint Mary's."
Post Script: And how in the hell could Willis have heard some of the argument but not any of the testimony? Willis volunteered she heard the argument because she wanted to say that the lawyer lied.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another Trump win on appeal with D.C. Circuit vacating preliminary injunction. Order isn't loading yet so details to follow. 1/
2/ Here's what the case is about:
3/ And this isn't one of the cases where things were stayed, meaning this decision now frees the Trump Administration to get back to work. The court had originally stayed a portion of the injunction, allowing Trump to fire folks but then Plaintiffs claimed Trump didn't make individualized assessment so Court of Appeals decided it wasn't going to get into that morass and just said Trump can't fire anyone (it shouldn't have and I believe one of the judge's dissented on that cop out).
2/ So as background this is the consolidated (joined) cases involving USAID where the district court originally ordered payment of millions within like 36 hours and Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and then said basically redo so it is feasible.
3/ The judge sorta redid and Trump has been complying, i.e., there was no stay in place so this is a WIN. Trump has also sought dismissal which should be granted based on this decision. AND the plaintiffs sought to enforce AND to depose to enforce so the ruling will 86 that!
THREADETTE: ⬇️is my play-by-play of 9th Cir. decision. Top-line: Loss to Trump AND horrible opinion b/c law is clear that "reasonable suspicion" depends on totality of circumstances & yet court prevents ICE from considering totality of circumstances. 1/
2/ District court had actually allowed for that by including "expected as permitted by law," which the 9th Cir. struck. 9th Cir. THEN, after saying ICE could consider other circumstances, actually altered injunction's language of "presence at a particular location"
3/ THIS is what 9th Cir. said was enjoined: that "whether that be a random location . . . or a location selected 'because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize or seek work at these locations, . . ." That ADDED a limitation of a circumstance ICE CAN consider in totality of the circumstances.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: 9th Cir. denies Trump Administration stay regarding district court's efforts to micromanage ICE "except as to a single clause" but that single clause is what allowed ICE to do it's job! Still reading so clarity to follow. 1/
2/ As I noted before one of the problems with the court's injunction is that you can't enjoin a situation where the situation depends on all of the facts and circumstances, for instance, if a voluntary encounter which needs no reasonable suspicion.
3/ On that point: That is exactly what the training is. You can see from this language the specific details needed to know whether there is or isn't reasonable suspicion.