Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1648748625063706624?refresh=1681929673
Thread by @KlasfeldReports on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1648748625063706624
Up first and arguing to invalidate the subpoena is Ted Boutrous, who says the subpoena has "grave" separation of powers issues.
After Boutrous says that Rep. Jordan's probe is trying to "intimidate" the DA's office, the judge snaps: "That's your interpretation of it."
Boutrous hammers home the Trump v. Mazars precedent by SCOTUS, which created the test for showing a congressional subpoena serves a legislative purpose.
Brutal questioning on Pomerantz's book.
Judge: Have you read this book?
Other Bragg lawyer: Yes.
Judge: Does it preserve your confidences?
No, she answers.
Judge: "If I find a valid legislative purpose, I am not allowed to look at the motivations on either side."
Boutrous says the landscape changed after Trump v. Mazars, after which judges now have to look at the evidence.
Judge Vyskocil questions Boutrous sharply from the out the gate, interrupting Bragg's attorney routinely on various issue.
She asks why overseeing the use of federal money isn't a valid legislative act.
She also asks about how Pomerantz's book isn't a waiver.
Then, a Democratic-controlled committee sought Trump's tax information.
Now, the shoe's on the other foot and the GOP-controlled committee wants to use this precedent to fight the subpoena.
Jordan claims that his committee is considering legislation to guard against political prosecution by local prosecutors.
The judge asks Berry why he needs testimony if one such bill is in play.
Q: If you already introduced the bill, why do you need testimony?
First off, preliminary matters:
Judge Eric M. Davis tells the parties he prefers live testimony, and he expresses skepticism for reasons Rupert Murdoch can't appear.
Davis says that Murdoch isn't "infirm."
A Fox lawyer responds:
"We’re not arguing that Mr. Murdoch is infirm or unable to travel."
They're arguing that he was extensively deposed, and so live testimony isn't necessary.
Judge: "There's politics going on here on both sides here. Let's be honest about that."
Boutrous says he doesn't concede that.
The judge then calls much of the complaint irrelevant to the subpoena issue.
The judge asks Berry whether the committee needs its "adjectives" of "politically motivated" to make their case.
"Doesn't it politicize it on your side, as well?" she asks.
Some background:
DA Bragg's general counsel addressed the federal funds rationale in a letter dated March 31.
The first part of the section addressing it notes that the DA's office contributed to the federal fisc — to the tune of more than $1 billion — via asset forfeiture.
To be clear, no gag order was either requested or granted.
The DA is seeking to enter a protective order by consent that would bind Trump.
U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil is presiding.
The parties are noting the appearances for the court.
I can't emphasize enough: This is what lawyers call a hot bench.
Manhattan DA Bragg's attorney is getting a very tough reception.
This Thread may be Removed Anytime!
Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!
This is where things get more complicated:
The DA's office acknowledged using $5,000 on Trump-related matters between Oct. 2019 and August 2021 — i.e., during Cy Vance's tenure.
This was mostly on SCOTUS battle, the letter says. https://t.co/MGj0EtNb5ps3.documentcloud.org/documents/2373…
Rep. Jordan claimed the DA admitted to using federal funds to indict Trump.
In fact, the DA's office said: "No expenses incurred relating to this matter have been paid from funds that the Office receives through federal grant programs."
An explainer https://t.co/fRywO6CBvclawandcrime.com/trump/manhatta…
Judge Merchan went out of his way to say: "We're not close to a gag order."
Find out why both prosecutors and judge are hesitant to take that step in this explainer. lawandcrime.com/trump/why-some…
Keep Current with Adam Klasfeld
Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!
Read all threads
Up now: Jordan's lawyer Matthew Berry.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1648748625063706624?refresh=1681930468
Note: Bragg's attorneys had an extremely tough reception.
Jordan's lawyer, whose arguments are ongoing, isn't having an easy reception, either. But it's certainly less stinging.
The judge notes, not in these words, that Pomerantz is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If he answers the questions, he faces possible liability from the DA, and if not, the wrath of Congress.
The judge tells Berry: "You have to admit, it is somewhat unusual" for Congress to conduct oversight on a local prosecutor.
Berry accuses Bragg's legal team of "rhetoric and hyperbole" in this particular case.
This is just about the subpoena to Pomerantz, he says.
• • •
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1648759867128045608
''Mauna Kea 1O,OOO metres''
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-elevation-of-Mauna-Loa
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1648748625063706624?refresh=1681932802
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1648759867128045608
Berry accuses Bragg's legal team of "rhetoric and hyperbole" in this particular case.
This is just about the subpoena to Pomerantz, he says.
Boutrous says it's "totally unprecedented" for Congress to go after local prosecutors.
The judge counters it's also unprecedented for a prosecutor to charge a former president.
"They say that they're doing it because the indictment raises, in their mind," concerns, she says.
Judge skewers Bragg's legal team for filing what she called an unauthorized reply brief.
She says she'll wrap up the hearing and issue a ruling as promptly as she can.
Then, she invites Berry back to take his final three minutes.
Both sides got grilled, but the DA's attorneys can't be too happy about how that went.
Story soon, @lawcrimenews
20 Things the Lawsuit Against FOX Was Trying to Hide
https://www.youtube.com/live/Oq4PVFXqNd8?feature=share
fren wrote: Don’t think of Fox paying nearly 800 million dollars to Dominion as the settlement of a dispute about whether Dominion machines are easily hacked, deliberately shit and purposely created to facilitate fraud.
Dominion machines ARE easily hacked, deliberately shit and purposely created to facilitate fraud.
And Dominion machines WERE misused in the 2020 US election precisely for that purpose.
That is why so many authorities wouldn’t let independent investigators look at the machines. That is why machines that were looked at were found to have had data wiped from them. That is why every Democrat previously warning that these machines were vulnerable started screaming hysterically that they were invulnerable and the best goddamn machines the world has ever seen.
So why did Fox settle?
It’s not a settlement, it’s a tribute.
It’s the Murdoch Empire paying a tribute to greater powers and assuring them of their loyalty, because they very briefly flirted with the idea of being a real news organisation and because they still have Tucker saying some things that are true.
It’s not an admission that Fox lied. It’s a fine for not lying ENOUGH, and a gift to reassure the Masters that they are back on track.
Like a Yakuza member cutting off a finger after a mistake.
The Legislative Branch’s Biggest Leaker of Classified Intelligence, Rails Against Small Fry Ability to Leak Classified Pentagon Intelligence
theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/04/19/the-legislative-branchs-biggest-leaker-of-classified-intelligence-rails-against-small-fry-ability-to-leak-classified-pentagon-intelligence
April 19, 2023
''Some insider threats are more equal than others; so goes the position of the nation’s biggest leaker of classified documents in modern history, and it’s not Jack Teixeira.''
This story shows the importance of what was hidden by the combined efforts of the national security apparatus in 2018.
Readers here are familiar, but most Americans are not, with how Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner leaked a top-secret classified Title-1 FISA application in March of 2017.
Then the Vice-Chair of the SSCI, Senator Warner instructed Senate Security Director James Wolfe to leak the 82-page FISA application assembled against Carter Page. On the afternoon of March 17, 2017, Wolfe took 82 pictures of the “Read and Return” document that was delivered to the SSCI basement SCIF by FBI Supervisory Special Agent Brian Dugan from the Washington Field Office.
Later that evening, Wolfe sent the images to journalist Ali Watkins using an encrypted messaging app. Ms. Watkins then shared the FISA content with her peers and used the information to leverage a top-tier job at the New York Times. The media were off to the races talking about FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign and using the leaked FISA as evidence of the ongoing investigation, later known as Crossfire Hurricane. Three days later, March 20, 2017, after coordinating the intent of the narrative creation with Mark Warner, FBI Director James Comey publicly admitted the Trump-Russia investigation for the first time.
After James Wolfe was arrested for the FISA application leak, his defense lawyers threatened to expose the role of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the leak and subpoena the members as witnesses. The Mueller/Weissmann team, then in charge of all DOJ operations that touched on Trump-Russia, took apart the evidence of Wolfe’s conduct, and DC Attorney Jessie Liu dropped most of the charges against Wolfe. Mueller then ran cover for Mark Warner, and eventually – out of an abundance of caution to maintain the need for the coverup operation – the Mueller/Weissmann team then made the FISA application public. The rest is history.
Keep in mind, I could be civilly sued if anything written above as an asserted truth was false. I’m not, because the truth is the defense. All of this happened.
At the time of the Mark Warner TSCI leak, no one outside the DOJ-FBI and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) had ever seen a FISA application. Heck, in 2017 through early 2018, it was considered a classified intelligence breech to even discuss the FISA process, the procedures or the court itself. People forget that.
The 2017 leaking of the FISA application was the biggest national security breach in years, perhaps seconded only to the 2017 leaking of the TSCI transcript from National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s call with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, given to the Washington Post by the FBI a month earlier.
1/2
So, it’s somewhat hypocritical and ironic to see SSCI Chairman Mark Warner now railing against the Pentagon and Director of National Intelligence over not being provided the details of documents leaked by a low-level military servicemember in the Massachusetts Air National Guard.
WASHINGTON DC – The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding the Pentagon hand over copies of all the classified documents leaked by Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira.
The 21-year-old serviceman was accused by the Department of Defense of leaking “sensitive and highly-classified material” into a chat on the encrypted communications platform Discord. It then made its way onto other social media platforms. He was charged on Friday.
In a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., and ranking member Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the leak prompted concerns about “serious deficiencies” in the government’s security protocols.
“According to public reporting, A1C Teixeira began sharing classified information and classified documents within a social media platform as early as December 2022—nearly four months before the government’s discovery,” the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, read. “These disclosures indicate serious deficiencies in the government’s insider threat and security vetting protocols.” (read more)
So, it’s somewhat hypocritical and ironic to see SSCI Chairman Mark Warner now railing against the Pentagon and Director of National Intelligence over not being provided the details of documents leaked by a low-level military servicemember in the Massachusetts Air National Guard.
WASHINGTON DC – The Senate Intelligence Committee is demanding the Pentagon hand over copies of all the classified documents leaked by Massachusetts Air National Guardsman Jack Teixeira.
The 21-year-old serviceman was accused by the Department of Defense of leaking “sensitive and highly-classified material” into a chat on the encrypted communications platform Discord. It then made its way onto other social media platforms. He was charged on Friday.
In a letter addressed to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., and ranking member Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the leak prompted concerns about “serious deficiencies” in the government’s security protocols.
“According to public reporting, A1C Teixeira began sharing classified information and classified documents within a social media platform as early as December 2022—nearly four months before the government’s discovery,” the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, read. “These disclosures indicate serious deficiencies in the government’s insider threat and security vetting protocols.” (read more)
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-intelligence-committee-classified-pentagon-documents
2/2
Executive Order 13526
Sec 1.7
"Classification Prohibitions and Limitations. (a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security."
Q