THREADETTE: THIS. AND we still don't know 2 key points: WHAT prompted Aspen Institute to run "table top exercise" to "prebunk" story amazingly similar to reality. AND why was Baltimore FBI agent running keyword searches to flag disinformation for Twitter? /1
2/ It wasn't merely FBI feeding "hack and leak" warnings to social media. THAT IS HUGE STORY & we need to know if folks doing that knew of Hunter Biden laptop OR were fed idea of hack and leak by someone who did. BUT also what/who prompted Aspen Institute's focus on Hunter.
3/ Here's my reporting on that aspect that I've yet to see anyone else pick up on. ALSO note that many "disinfo" experts say prebunking as MOST effective counter to folks believing disinformation, or here truth. thefederalist.com/2023/02/09/twi…
4/ Separately, my reporting on fact that Baltimore FBI was running keyword searches and reaching out to Twitter for threads to censor is hugely important because Baltimore FBI was office covering Delaware which was investigating Hunter Biden crimes . thefederalist.com/2022/12/27/fbi…
5/5 Still haven't learned what those keyword searches were and why a Baltimore FBI office was running them. Who told them to? What were they searching? @FBIDirectorKash or @FBIDDBongino @bonchieredstate could get an easy answer on this, I'm sure.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨Yesterday Trump Administration filed reply in SCOTUS in Alien Enemies Act case. This paragraph sums up point I've been stressing: Judge Boasberg so wanted to stop removal that he bypassed question of whether he had jurisdiction. 1/
2/ There are many difficult legal questions with no precedent re the Alien Enemies Act, but you can't ignore jurisdiction because you really, really, really want to stop something you believe is bad...either at start of case or mid-flight!
3/ Congress also has political question to answer: Does it want to amend the Alien Enemies Act to require process beyond habeas? To limit President's authority? To define undefined terms?
In looking for another case, I came across two cases docketed today re immigration issues where filings aren't available: This one seeks release from INS Detection and this seeks an adjudication on a visa issue. 1/
2/ I'm interested in these cases because (other than the Alien Enemies Act) there is a very clear procedure for how to challenge immigration issues and it isn't in the district court. Rather, aliens must proceed through the administrative process, ALJ (Administrative Law Judge)
3/ Then to appeal before the BIA (Board of Immigration Appeal) and after that they can challenge to a federal circuit court. They cannot bring habeas or other challenges in a district court: Congress purposefully removed jurisdiction from district court to avoid flooding court
🚨Here is tDa terrorists filing in SCOTUS re Trump Administration's motions related to Alien Enemies Act case. 1/
2/ SCOTUS could go 2 ways: a) granting stay b/c court must ensure it has jurisdiction & no jurisdiction here + harm to Article II warrant relief; or b) since Trump is able to remove still this case can wait...unlike others where Trump is forced to pay out money.
3/3 I could actually see Justices doing so horse trading: Okay no stay here but stay in these other cases where Trump is forced to pay money & reinstated fired employees. Here's petition. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/2…
🚨BREAKING: Harris seeks en banc review in D.C. Circuit after panel granted Trump stay, meaning he Harris stayed fired. More details available in other threads. 1/
🚨Here's the docket for the appeal of the lower court's injunction requiring reinstatement of grants, employees, etc. of the Consumer Financial Protection Board. 1/
🚨Trump Administration files 🔥reply brief in SCOTUS in Dept. of Educ. v. California case. Trump asks for stay & vacatur of order they reinstate grants they terminated. Entire brief is worth a read for those knee-deep. A few topline take-aways. 1/
2/ Brief highlights absolute abuse of TROs & details cases where orders entered and illustrates why district court's lack jurisdiction over broad swatch of cases & basically begs SCOTUS to put an end to it.
3/ That portion confirms my point that once SCOTUS (or appellate courts) establish precedent on specific issues the lawfare will be greatly reduced. And here, as I've stressed before, the issue is Plaintiffs manufacturing claims under Administrative Procedures Act.