Charlie Savage’s Twitter Archive—№ 14,750

The judge in the Sussmann-Durham case has issued a ruling about a number of evidentiary issues. May write about this later, but for in-the-weeds enthusiasts here's my preliminary read of the takeaways: /a pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/235637/04519212781.pdf
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 20 Favorites 2022 May 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
1 - Emails among researchers with Joffe can’t come in 2 - Emails from FusionGPS to press can come in 3 - Joffe "VIPs" email can’t come in 4 - Joffe “was going to get a cybersecurity job” email can’t come in /b (cont'd)
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 10 Favorites 2022 May 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
5 - Joffe "what would a security expert/non DNS expert think of this white paper" email can come in 6 - Anderson/Priestap notes can come in only if Baker’s memory is challenged and then Anderson/Priestap testify they don’t remember the conversations (I think) /c (cont'd)
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 6 Favorites 2022 May 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
7 - What Sussmann said to CIA in February 2017 can come in 8 - How the Yotaphone data was gathered/analyzed and what the CIA did with it and thought about it can’t come in /d (cont'd)
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 2 Retweets ❤️ 6 Favorites 2022 May 7 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
9 - No order to immunize Joffe so he'll agree to testify as defense witness, but prosecutors are forbidden from raising whether Joffe’s role in the collection effort was somehow “objectionable” or illegal so judge says maybe he'll choose to testify w/out immunity /e (cont'd)
On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 10 Favorites 2022 May 7 Mood -5 🙁