Thank you Adam. Was trying to follow along on Substack, so now it all makes sense. Crazy how no one is off limits to these people. Fuming here abt Jack Smith, but I think he’s more than ready to take them on. Anyway.. I digress.
I have a video explainer on Jim Jordan's so-called referral letter that will be published soon. Preview: Jordan knows that Jack Smith told the truth, and he all but admits that in his letter.
Sue, I am wondering if Jack Smith is left unscathed by DJT's suit, if Jack Smith might counter sue for costs or a frivolous law suit, or whatever legal term is best. Somebody has to get to DJT about how wrong all of these cases are. Bad for our courts, for the defendants and for US tax payers, as we pick up costs for DJT's lawyers and use of the courts. For pity sake they are even bad for DJT! If Jack were to win such a suit, maybe other DJT targets would do the same.
No worries Sue. I know how covering so many of these Substack reporters can blur at times. :-) Not Adam though! His covering the court cases stands out!!!
I get obsessed wanting to know. lol I was so sure it was Harry. I’m try to back track who I read today, but some of them I listened to. Anyway, it’s Jim Jordan referral, at this time, but we know DOj will do what it can to comply (and Trump likes this idea)… but they falter at getting indictments…say they do, as I understand that charge is for lying to Congress. Think that’s likely a hard pass…if it were to make it to court. I also think I heard Smith say that he has a team already. I think the implication was that they are working together in prep of this and other cases.
Sue, my understanding is that they assume that they know how Jack Smith obtained the message records, when in fact he used publicly available records that do not include the 'text' of messages, only the day and times and phone numbers. No text!
I haven’t read the whole thing.., bear with me as I follow too many people and get who wrote what mixed up sometimes, but I think Harry Litman’s piece today addresses some issues that are likely to arise.. like an indictment. I’ll go look and link it for you if I’m right abt what he wrote.
Thanks Adam for your diligence in keeping us all up-to-date and well-informed on this important development in the DOJ’s decision to withdraw their subpoenas against the New York Times Reporters and members of their families instead of the Judge quashing them.
I am astounded how inept the DOJ lawyers are. Again and again, botching things that even *I* learned in my lowly BusLaw 101 in college. Let alone the malevolence behind it all. May the bar sanctions begin!
It would appear that this DOJ doesn't understand how our government works. The three co-equal branches of government, it you were paying attention in grade school. Or, rock-paper-scissors from kindergarten. Sheesh.
OK…the only thing I can’t follow is the last paragraph about an NDA. Was that for the grand jury or for the defendants? It’s the first time I hear about it in this case.
Thank you Adam. Was trying to follow along on Substack, so now it all makes sense. Crazy how no one is off limits to these people. Fuming here abt Jack Smith, but I think he’s more than ready to take them on. Anyway.. I digress.
I have a video explainer on Jim Jordan's so-called referral letter that will be published soon. Preview: Jordan knows that Jack Smith told the truth, and he all but admits that in his letter.
Anticipating your unimpeachable video.
Can't friggin' wait!
Ty!
Sue, I am wondering if Jack Smith is left unscathed by DJT's suit, if Jack Smith might counter sue for costs or a frivolous law suit, or whatever legal term is best. Somebody has to get to DJT about how wrong all of these cases are. Bad for our courts, for the defendants and for US tax payers, as we pick up costs for DJT's lawyers and use of the courts. For pity sake they are even bad for DJT! If Jack were to win such a suit, maybe other DJT targets would do the same.
It wasn’t Harry.. when I figure out who it was I will link it. Ugh. 🙄😀
No worries Sue. I know how covering so many of these Substack reporters can blur at times. :-) Not Adam though! His covering the court cases stands out!!!
I get obsessed wanting to know. lol I was so sure it was Harry. I’m try to back track who I read today, but some of them I listened to. Anyway, it’s Jim Jordan referral, at this time, but we know DOj will do what it can to comply (and Trump likes this idea)… but they falter at getting indictments…say they do, as I understand that charge is for lying to Congress. Think that’s likely a hard pass…if it were to make it to court. I also think I heard Smith say that he has a team already. I think the implication was that they are working together in prep of this and other cases.
Sue, my understanding is that they assume that they know how Jack Smith obtained the message records, when in fact he used publicly available records that do not include the 'text' of messages, only the day and times and phone numbers. No text!
I just got this notification. I haven’t read it yet:
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/jack-smith-and-gop-shamelessness?r=3rdmfm&utm_medium=ios
I doubt they’ll get an indictment, but they’ve gotten some through. I’m not to concerned yet bc this is just abt keeping the base in tact, imo.
I haven’t read the whole thing.., bear with me as I follow too many people and get who wrote what mixed up sometimes, but I think Harry Litman’s piece today addresses some issues that are likely to arise.. like an indictment. I’ll go look and link it for you if I’m right abt what he wrote.
Thanks Adam for your diligence in keeping us all up-to-date and well-informed on this important development in the DOJ’s decision to withdraw their subpoenas against the New York Times Reporters and members of their families instead of the Judge quashing them.
"Denouncing the subpoenas, the Freedom of the Press Foundation noted: “Even the Mafia says families are off limits.”
That sums it up:
The actions of the Trump administration are worse than the mafia.
I am astounded how inept the DOJ lawyers are. Again and again, botching things that even *I* learned in my lowly BusLaw 101 in college. Let alone the malevolence behind it all. May the bar sanctions begin!
It would appear that this DOJ doesn't understand how our government works. The three co-equal branches of government, it you were paying attention in grade school. Or, rock-paper-scissors from kindergarten. Sheesh.
How does anyone "accidentally" issue too many subpoenas?
Hi Adam…had an initial hiccup trying to find you. Thank you for the hearing update.
As I understand it, the plaintiff cannot refile a different subpoena on this same matter. Any future action has to be put before this same judge.
OK…the only thing I can’t follow is the last paragraph about an NDA. Was that for the grand jury or for the defendants? It’s the first time I hear about it in this case.
THe federal judges need to be more like Trump and break the law. They need to require the DOJ run everthing past them before filing anything
Imagine that.