Bradley P. Moss Profile picture
“The most active national security lawyer on Twitter.” - Above the Law
thehermitonthehill Profile picture Liz O'Sullivan Profile picture 2 added to My Authors
Jun 29 7 tweets 2 min read
I can't believe I have to do this but since so many in Trump apology land are doing their best to undermine Hutchinson's testimony let's revisit what she testified to that was from firsthand observations and is not disputed.

1) The White House had intelligence that the 1/6 crowd was armed. People going through the Mags had been armed and the weapons were confiscated. Other people with more serious weaponry were staying outside the security bubble to avoid losing their weapons.

2) Meadows is told the crowd is armed. He doesn't care.

3) Trump
Jun 28 8 tweets 1 min read
Why is Cassidy Hutchinson coming forward?

She's only 25 years old. She has her whole life and career ahead of her. She wants to have a career outside of Trump's cult.

That's my view, at least. Hutchinson is calling out Meadows and Trump as essentially lying about plans to march on the Capitol
Jun 9 7 tweets 2 min read
OK, I am so tired of seeing this attempt to whitewash what occurred, so let me walk you through this.

This memo is not the "see, we did everything right, Trump's offer was rejected by Pelosi" excuse Trump fans want you to think it is. This shows DoD officials communicating with CapPolice officials about security. That's standard for an event like this. DoD and FBI's assessments caught onto the potential for violence by MAGA fanatics faster than CapPolice did (although CapPolice arguably had the relevant intel too).

Nowhere within this memo is there
Feb 23 7 tweets 2 min read
THREAD: what to make of the Trump news coming out of the Manhattan DA’s office.

First, some of you need therapy. Serious therapy. Your very joy seems tied up in Trump’s indictment. If it happens, so be it but relax with the conspiracy theories for five minutes please. So what happened? Two line prosecutors resigned, and all indications are the new DA isn’t keen on the case against Trump personally. That is all we know.

We know the grand jury remains seated until April. We know Weisselberg and the company are still set to go to trial in a
Feb 22 6 tweets 1 min read
Here comes India with a weak statement deflecting for their Russian ally … I have no idea who Brazil was talking to with that statement
Feb 19 13 tweets 3 min read
THREAD: what to make of Trump having classified documents in Florida?

Everyone wants to know if this is a criminal matter, and if Trump can evade liability. The answers are: maybe and maybe. Let me explain. First off, let's dispense with the "Trump can just declassify things" issue. While President, and up until noon on 1/20/2021, Trump had complete authority to declassify anything he wanted. No dispute. He could disseminate otherwise classified information with impunity too.
Nov 5, 2021 4 tweets 2 min read
Personal rant coming. And yes, before some troll gets off on a rant, this is "first world problems". I don't care.

Many of you, like me, have a credit card tied to a hotel chain. Mine is the @MarriottBonvoy AMEX. I've had it for a decade. Never had an issue.

Until now. I booked an upcoming hotel reservation relying upon Marriot e-certificates, so the reservation is free. Those certificates were derived from the credit card, which is a joint card with my wife. There's no such thing as a "family" Marriot account, so the points from the card
Oct 25, 2021 5 tweets 1 min read
Some of you on this website need to crack open a beer, pour a glass of wine, or simply log off for a moment. Enough with the "why hasn't Garland arrested person A over crime X" stuff already. You're starting to sound like the MAGA folks towards the end of Trump's tenure. If there is a case to be made against a Member of Congress, or their staff, tied up in what happened on January 6th, I'm confident Garland will let DOJ pursue it to the end. I've seen nothing that indicates he views the events of that day as anything less than an attempted coup.
Sep 16, 2021 6 tweets 2 min read
Ok, I’ve had a chance to read the Sussman indictment. My view: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

If the allegations in the indictment are true, Sussman was careless about how he described his background when reaching out to the FBI. It’s not like the FBI didn’t know one of his clients was the Clinton Campaign. He mentioned it during the meeting, and it’s reflected in the notes of the meeting. The billing records and calls with other firm colleagues certainly indicate his work was on behalf of at least one client, if not two clients.
Nov 7, 2019 11 tweets 3 min read
For absolutely no particular reason, I am going to start posting some stories from the Obama years that are in no way related to the current media and political attacks on @MarkSZaidEsq and me.

Really, read nothing into this: this is all random. @MarkSZaidEsq breitbart.com/politics/2016/…
Nov 2, 2019 4 tweets 1 min read
There will be plenty more releases from the Mueller file thanks to the @BuzzFeedNews and @CNN actions but I want to comment on some of the 👀 stuff people are tweeting out.

Yes, what Gates and Bannon said to Mueller shows how the campaign was craven, sleazy and willing to push Russian disinformation in order to win. They didn’t care. They were willing to be the beneficiary of foreign interference.

That doesn’t change the legal assessment Mueller made. That the RNC somehow knew when WikiLeaks dumps were going to come doesn’t prove they had
Oct 29, 2019 5 tweets 2 min read
On just about a weekly basis @MarkSZaidEsq and I spend time defending clients before U.S. Government agencies on concerns of foreign loyalties or interests. It is a critical part of any assessment of any individual seeking to hold a security clearance. “Dual loyalty” is something we contend with on a regular basis. Needless to say, when it comes to national security the government always errs on the side of caution. If they believe the person is too exposed to foreign interests, the person is not getting a clearance.

That’s what makes the attacks
Oct 23, 2019 11 tweets 2 min read
I am getting real tired of these incessant comments about "due process" being required in the House impeachment inquiry right now, and about the precedent from the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries. People are messing up their history and it needs to be clarified. 1) There is no requirement in the Constitution that an impeachment inquiry be conducted in any certain way. Article I simply says the House has the sole power of impeachment. That's it. It doesn't delineate a process or rules. The House *can* take a formal vote to launch an
Jun 1, 2019 7 tweets 2 min read
This thread is beneath you, Congressman. Let me explain.

You say it was clear there was no collusion, that the Obama admin started the inquiry improperly and that Mueller should have clarified “no collusion” earlier. Hogwash.

The Trump team originally and condescendingly said in 2016/17 there were NO contacts with Russians. That was brazenly false. Volume I of Mueller report documents over one hundred interactions, up to and including senior campaign officials. That includes efforts to secure what campaign officials believed was info directly
May 23, 2019 4 tweets 1 min read
Assange thread

I despise Julian Assange. I cannot stand him. However, the superseding indictment brought by DOJ is terrifying in terms of constitutional implications for every single media outlet - no matter its ideological bent or size - that has ever published or would ever publish leaked classified information. If DOJ can win this case against Assange, and they can get established precedent for the idea that the Government decides who is and is not a journalist for purposes of the Espionage Act, it will threaten the very foundation of the free
Sep 1, 2018 6 tweets 2 min read
Thread

So I’ve read the new @washingtonpost story by @jennaportnoy about what happened with the SF86 of @SpanbergerVA07 and rather than resolving the issue it raises only more questions for me.

Per the USPS briefing to Hill staffers, a brand new employee with apparently little training “mistakenly” misconstrued the request for records as if it came from Spanberger.

This raises several issues. Why was a brand new employee authorized to even process requests at all without supervision? Virtually every agency I’ve ever dealt with on FOIA
Jun 3, 2018 6 tweets 1 min read
I’ve had a few hours to think on it. I view this leak of the Trump legal memo as an indicator that something is likely coming in the next couple of days. This Camp David trip looks even odder now. 10 days before the NK summit and the President isn’t in prep with the NSC? Could I be wrong? Absolutely. The trip could just be a trip and the leak could just be that; a leak.

But something just seems ... too convenient. The investigation is clearly building towards something significant. A possible Stone indictment, a possible indictment of
Apr 18, 2018 10 tweets 3 min read
THREAD

I am so sick and tired of @Judgenap and various Trump allies hyping this issue over and over. It’s done, it was investigated, let it be.

However, because Clinton is the obsession of so many, let me walk you through how flawed such a case would be. First, DOJ would be going against its own institutional policy on bringing prosecutions for mishandling classified information. It is DOJ’s policy NOT to prosecute for non-intentional mishandling of classified information. It would be creating a double standard to prosecute HRC.
Mar 18, 2018 7 tweets 2 min read
Ok, because @realDonaldTrump @MZHemingway and a bunch of others are all giddy over the idea they caught Comey in a lie, let me clear the air on what McCabe’s statements do and do not do.

Comey did testify to Congress that he had never been an anonymous source or authorized someone to be an anonymous source in providing info to the media about the Clinton investigation or the Russia investigation. McCabe, however, has now stated that Comey was aware of McCabe’s actions to authorize two FBI officials to provide info to the WSJ in October 2016
Feb 24, 2018 7 tweets 3 min read
Tweetstorm:

Folks, fair warning, I’m annoyed right now. Very annoyed.

This memo obliterates the Nunes Memo. @DevinNunes should be ashamed of himself for the pathetic and ideological hit job he hyped up with media allies and that he put out. It egregiously distorted factual reality of a complicated and sensitive application process for FISA warrants conducted by career civil servants, as well as both Democrat and Republican appointees (to say nothing of federal judges who oversaw the process). Shame on you, Mr. Chairman. Shame on you.

The Schiff