Charlie Savage’s Twitter Archive—№ 15,005

Good morning again from the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in downtown Washington, DC. The Sussmann-Durham trial will at least start to wrap up today with closing arguments. /1
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 59 Retweets ❤️ 186 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Jury deliberations should start this afternoon. But because the judge is leaving at 2:30 p.m. for his planned Memorial Day weekend vacation, deliberations would have to go very quickly if we're going to hear any verdict today./2
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 69 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
They neglected to read a jury instruction yesterday about character witness. Durham team objects to doing so now as it would highlight; judge says he'll read it to the jury but soft pedal it. Jonathan Algor will do the initial part of the closing argument for Durham team./3
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 8 Retweets ❤️ 63 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
The jury is brought in. Algor begins his argument: Sussmann lied on Sept. 19 to conceal his clients because he knew the chances of FBI investigation would be seriously diminished if they knew Clinton campaign role and Joffe wanted to conceal his role./4
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 11 Retweets ❤️ 75 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor talks about the billing records, the thumb drives purchase, the pushing of same allegations to the media. "It wasn’t about national security. It was about promoting opposition research against the opposition candidate, Donald trump."/5
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 16 Retweets ❤️ 88 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor claims it's not in dispute - equivalent to the fact FBI is part of govt - that Sussmann told Baker *on Sept. 19* he was not there on behalf of any client, based on Baker testimony & Priestap/Anderson notes. (Defense will disagree given Baker's conflicting statements.) /6
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 44 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -6 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor launches into "The origins of the Alfa Bank allegations" with a power point. He begins the story with a July 29 meeting with Marc Elias and Fusion GPS and Sussmann, billed to HFA for "confidential project." So he starts the story w/ Sussmann "joining forces" with them./7
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 13 Retweets ❤️ 50 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Mtgs/calls in mid Aug involving Joffe, Elias, Fusion GPS, billed to HFA. Evidence "leveraging his client, Rodney Joffe, to benefit his other client, the Clinton campaign. This is not cyber security work. This is nothing related to national security. This is pure oppo research."/8
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 20 Retweets ❤️ 64 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Late Aug. Fusion GPS works on its white paper describing Kremlin links to Alfa Bank. Eric Lichtblau reaches out to Sussmann re Russian hackings. Sussmann communicates with Fusion GPS and Joffe and Elias, incl re NYT. /9
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 43 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Basically Algor is hitting the theme this was all opposition research billed to HFA. If their focus was legitimate national security concerns, why go to media first rather than FBI right away? /10
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 25 Retweets ❤️ 74 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Comment: The defense's narrative, as I understand it, is Sussmann *was* working for HFA in trying to get media to write about Alfa, but not in his decision to later give copy of same materials to FBI. If so they will argue that most of this is beside the point./11
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 42 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor continues to march through Sussmann's meetings and calls and preparing of materials on Alfa Bank, talking with Elias, talking with Lichtblau and Joffe - Sept 7, 8, 12 - and billing it to the Clinton campaign. /12
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 43 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor reaches Sept 13 receipt from Staples showing purchasing some flash drives, meeting with Joffe. Meets with Joffe again Sept. 14. Emailing Lichtblau Sept. 15. Working on paper/confidential project. Billing his time for all this to Clinton campaign. /13
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 47 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Saturday Sept. 17 - Sussmann is talking to David Dagon, one of the cyber experts who developed the Alfa suspicions and drafted one of the white papers. Talking to Elias, reporters. Billing to HFA. /14
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 8 Retweets ❤️ 33 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Sunday Sept 18 - Sussmann spends 5.5 hours working on Alfa, billed to campaign. Texts Baker and says he wants a meeting and is coming on behalf of no client. That was a false statement Algor said. /15
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 43 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Sept. 19 - At the meeting, Baker testified 100% confident Sussmann repeated that he was not there on behalf of any client. The truthful statement would have been the defendant was there on behalf of campaign/Joffe and gave the info to NYT. /16
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 11 Retweets ❤️ 58 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Priestap notes and Anderson notes from talking to Baker on Sept. 19, after the Sussmann-Baker meeting, write that Baker said he said he was not there for a client. /17
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 32 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor you've seen the billing practices, that the entire time working on Alfa he was working for HFA. Defendant's story is he stops working for HFA on that topic when he steps into mtg with Baker. /18
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 34 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor notes that on Sept. 20 email, Sussmann logged 4.4 hours working for HFA on 9/19. But on 11/6/2016, Sussmann sent email changing that log, saying he spent only 3.1 hours working for HFA on 9/19. Algor argues Sussmann changed time entry to cover that./19
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 39 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor leads up to Sussmann expensing the thumb drives he bought at Staples to HFA. Who did the defendant think he was representing at that meeting on Sept. 19? I submit this show he thought he was representing the Clinton campaign./20
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 44 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor points to notes after CIA meeting on Feb 17, 2017, saying defendant said he was not there on behalf of particular client so info not privileged. Then moves to Dec 2017 testimony to Congress when he said he had brought info to FBI on behalf of unnamed client (Joffe). /21
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 38 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor accuses Sussmann of having concealed from Congress that he had worked with Fusion GPS which wrote one of the white papers he gave the FBI, and of making no mention of the Clinton campaign, which he had been billing "day after day."/22
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 14 Retweets ❤️ 40 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor goes over Sussmann and FusionGPS trying to get reporters to write about Alfa Bank allegations later in Sept and then October. Lichtblau and Franklin Foer finally write about them Oct. 31, 2016 and Clinton campaign promotes. fruition: "October surprise." /23
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 11 Retweets ❤️ 51 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
(Comment: Algor doesn't mention that Lichtblau's Oct 31 article only mentioned the allegations in passing and said the FBI had already dismissed them, nor that Foer's Slate article didn't say anything about FBI investigation.) /24
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 47 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor goes over testimony from FBI agents Hellmann, Sands, Heide saying they disagreed with and evidence didn't substantiate the white paper, calling it "The opposition research that the Clinton campaign paid for, that the defendant brought to the FBI.” /25
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 41 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor cites Baker's testimony about how he would have handled the material differently if Sussmann had told FBI it was coming from the Clinton campaign, saying this proves materiality. Sands and Heide said similar things./26
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 41 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor said Joffe had "lucrative contracts" w/ FBI and gave it other info as a confidential human source, but in this case he says Joffe wanted to hide that this data was coming from him. This was not nat-sec info, it was oppo research, so Joffe concealed his role. /27
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 48 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor: "When you look at all of the evidence, is the defendant’s statement that he is not acting on behalf of a client the truth? No. A person acting in good faith, a person who knows the law, would not say and do the things that Mr. Sussmann did on Sept. 19." /28
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 49 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Algor sums up the main points and tells jury the evidence is overwhelming that Sussmann is guilty of making a false statement to the FBI on Sept. 19, 2016. Now we're in a 10-minute break and then the defense will open its closing argument. /29
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 49 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz opens with the 1983 magic trick where David Copperfield made the statute of liberty disappear. How did he do it? misdirection. the platform slowly pivoted while the curtain was up, so when it dropped they were facing a different direction. That's what govt did. /39
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 55 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
The govt's magic trick was to turn a 15-30 min meeting into a much longer swath of time Sussmann spent that day and billed to the Clinton campaign./40
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 52 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
"These are serious charges. Mr. Sussmanns’ liberty is at stake. The time for political conspiracy theories is over. The time to talk about the evidence is now."/41
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 22 Retweets ❤️ 143 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -5 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: Political opposition research and trying to get reporters to write about it is legal. They own Sussmann was doing that. But Clinton campaign officials testified they didn't tell him to take it to the FBI./42
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 59 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says they own the Sept. 18 text but there's a big dispute about whether Sussmann repeated that statement on Sept. 19. Isn't it more likely Sussman didn't repeat it bc meeting short and Baker is misremembering that it was in his head from the text?/43
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 58 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
No notes of the meeting itself. Going through how Baker has told many different versions of what Sussmann said on different occasions, and only recalls this version after DeFilippis showed him the Priestap notes. /44
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 51 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz notes they hadn't recovered the existence of the text until much later, so Baker places the recovered memory in the meting itself. Isn't there reasonable doubt? Case is over if you aren't confident that thought came from the meeting itself/ 45
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 51 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +1 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz talks about other ways Baker has recalled the meeting in different ways, like how long it was. "I submit to you the govt has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that on Sept. 19 Mr. Sussmann repeated the words from his text." You can go home based on that alone./46
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 8 Retweets ❤️ 44 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz is now making the case it was true that he was not there on behalf of any client. He had no ask, wasn't advocating for anything. Sussmann testified to Congress he had no ask. Baker testified at the trial Sussmann didn't ask him to do anything. /47
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 66 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz - CIA notes are the same, he was just giving them info. Doesn't mean he doesn't have clients. But there is a difference between having clients and doing something on their behalf./48
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 60 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz puts up testimony from Elias and Mook - they didn't ask him to go to the FBI or authorize him to go to the FBI. Indeed, they said it wasn't in their interests for him to go. Mook didn't trust the FBI bc email investigation, wouldn't even go to briefing with FBI. /49
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 51 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: Elias said they wanted the NYT to run the story; get the FBI and it could get messed up. That's what happened here./50
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 53 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Comment: Berkowitz told jury the NYT had vetted the story and decided to run it before the FBI asked it to hold it. If the NYT is "Lichtblau" perhaps he wanted to run it, but as has been reported, NYT *as an institution* - his editors - were skeptical and never ready to pub. /51
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 42 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz is pointing to how Sussmann's habit in billing records to say "meeting with FBI" on other occasions when he did so, but he didn't say that in billing records to HFA on Sept. 19./52
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 42 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz mocks the Staples receipt for flash drives and google map. bought the drives on Sept. 13 when he was doing tremendous amount of work for campaign. Doesn't text Baker for meeting until Sept. 18 -- right after email saying Trump freaking ouet r imminent Russia story. /53
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 46 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz focuses on how Sussmann didn't bill HFA for his taxi rides for the FBI meeting, even though he knew how to bill expenses to clients. /54
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 46 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz acknowledges that Joffe was a client of Sussmann's. But there are no records of any bills to Joffe for a meeting of Sept. 19, 2016, or other hours spent or expenses./55
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 52 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -1 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says prosecution's theory seems to be Joffe would get business benefit from turning that information to the FBI. What financial benefit would he get? Brasso said Joffe said he was providing info for the good and was terrified for his security, what Russians could do./56
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 45 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +4 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says their best evidence is Sussmann's congressional testimony when he said he went "on behalf" of a client (Joffe). Suggests in context, the words were inaccurate, imprecise, product of confusion. /57
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 42 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz reads the portion of the same congressional testimony he read into evidence at the end of his case, Sussmann said he was giving the information because thought Baker would know what if anything to do with it, wasn't looking for the FBI to do anything. /58
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 42 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Reads from Baker's trial testimony about how the FBI would in fact want a heads up if the NYT was about to publish an article about a national security matter. /59
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 39 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +2 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz again says he gave the info to the NYT, wasn't conclusive, NYT presumably investigated further and then when it had vetted and was prepared to publish (Comment: *see earlier tweet re how that is not true, tho unclear if Sussmann understood that), he went to FBI. /60
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 34 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -2 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: What did he have to gain by giving this info on the eve of the NYT publishing a story? (*see above) Why lie? He had a top secret clearance, vibrant nat-sec practice. Prosecution's political conspiracy theory doesn't make any sense-everything to lose nothing to gain./61
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 67 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +6 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Talks about Joffe's expertise, contracts with millions of $ in govt contracts. Why would Sussmann, not a DNS expert, have any reason to doubt what Joffe was telling him? If evidence shoddy, why take to Pulitzer Prize winning reporter? /62
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 44 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: Shows picture of Lichtblau with Pulitzer Prize medal. Sussmann told Baker Lichtblau was shooting to publish on Sunday but may not have all the details wrapped up by then. (*see above)/63
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 29 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz talks about the Perkins Coie letter to the editor in 2018 which denied Sussmann had been sent to the FBI by the Clinton campaign but did say he had a client (Joffe). Sussmann sent it to Baker. Doesn't make sense he'd do that if Sussmann thought he had lied to Baker. /64
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 8 Retweets ❤️ 45 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz talks about the March 2017 FBI/DOJ meeting at which it was discussed how Sussmann had brought the information to Baker and had a client, and Baker didn't object and say no that's wrong./65
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 36 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz notes that Baker and Sussmann had a number of interactions in the days following the Sept. 19 meeting -- after the Priestap/Anderson notes. (I think he is implying maybe Sussmann clarified later?)/66
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 4 Retweets ❤️ 27 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz talks about the reach-out to the CIA in Jan/Feb 2017. Certainly not doing that on behalf of the now-defunct Clinton campaign. The reachout notes to CIA says has a client with information, not asking for anything. /67
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 36 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says Sept 21 there was a 13 min call btwn Baker & Sussmann. Baker testified he asked who the reporter was & Sussmann said had to check. That takes 10 sec to say. Berkowitz suggests maybe Sussmann discussed with Baker how he had to check w/ client before divulging. /68
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 29 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz notes follow-up discussion. Why did Baker and Sussmann talk about client in subsequent testimony? These are not necessarily precise terms, confusion, ongoing dialogue. They want to give you a snapshot in time. I want to give you context. I want to give you evidence. /69
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 27 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood +3 🙂

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz turns to materiality. Did it matter? No. Put yourself back to 2016. Russia had hacked Democrats and released emails. There was an ongoing FBI investigation irrespective of this into allegations of Trump connections to Russia. /70
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 10 Retweets ❤️ 41 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: Investigation into those allegations was viewed as a serious national security matter. Argues Alfa allegations coming from a serious DNS expert (Joffe), brought in by a serious national security lawyer, would have been taken seriously regardless./71
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 9 Retweets ❤️ 46 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says Baker testimony he might not have taken the meeting if Sussmann had told him he was bringing info on behalf of Clinton campaign is red herring because the text is not the charged statement, it's what was said at the meeting that is at issue./72
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 11 Retweets ❤️ 56 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz says Baker would have given the information to Crossfire Hurricane agents regardless. "Look at what they did back then, not what they are saying now. ... They would have taken the same investigative steps no matter what." /73
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 31 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Cites Hellman testimony saying from technical point of view, they would have taken same steps analyzing the data regardless. Sands said wouldn't have done anything different. Berkowitz says makes sense: they were given actual data w/ nat-sec implications./74
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 5 Retweets ❤️ 34 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz said Sussmann had DNC tattooed on his forehead. Cites FBI notes of people identifying him with that. The claim not on behalf client doesn't filter down to agents, in notes. But files littered with references to DNC. /75
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 39 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Berkowitz: They all thought it came from DNC anyway. Cites all the FBI meetings in Aug/Sept when Sussmann was representing DNC on other things. They all knew he was a lawyer for Democrats. Why would they send Sussmann in if there was conspiracy to hide source? /76
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 43 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -4 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
The special counsel has come up with a convoluted theory. Notes Ryan Gaynor had told prosecutors in earlier interviews he thought it came from DNC lawyer and they kept pushing him if he remembered if that was what S was for the mtg. On stand he said otherwise. /77
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 7 Retweets ❤️ 31 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0

…in reply to @charlie_savage
Notes that after Gaynor told them in interview he didn't want investigators to know the info came from Dem lawyer because didn't want them to view the data as biased. Then special counsel told him he was not a subject of criminal investigation. Then he changes to close hold./78
Permalink On twitter.com ♻️ 6 Retweets ❤️ 32 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood -3 🙁

…in reply to @charlie_savage
CORRECTION: Then special counsel told him he WAS now a subject of investigation, not wasn't.
On twitter.com ❤️ 3 Favorites 2022 May 27 Mood 0