SDNY Showed Probable Cause Rudy Giuliani Was Criming While He Represented Trump in the Russian Investigation

In August, the Special Master reviewing Rudy Giuliani and Victoria Toensing’s seized phone contents for privilege determinations, Barbara Jones, publicly filed notice of a conflict between the Trumpsters and the government: how to apply the date range in the warrants.

There is a dispute between Mr. Giuliani and the Government over whether the Special Master’s review process should be limited to materials with electronic metadata within the date range set forth in the search warrants. Mr. Giuliani argues for such a date range limitation; the Government argues against it. I have informed the parties that the issue should be briefed to, and decided by, the Court, and that I would set a briefing schedule for Mr. Giuliani’s motion.

On Thursday, Judge Paul Oetken released his decision deciding the matter. Effectively, he adopted the government’s compromise that it exclude everything that pre-dates 2018.

On June 9, 2021, this Court appointed the Honorable Barbara S. Jones (Ret.) as Special Master to “render decisions regarding privilege issues relating to the materials seized in the execution of certain search warrants” that are the subject of this matter. (Dkt. No. 25.) Giuliani and Toensing ask the Court to restrict the Special Master’s review to the time periods set forth in the search warrants: August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 for Giuliani; and January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 for Toensing.

The Government has proposed a compromise that significantly limits the scope of the parties’ dispute: it consents to the Special Master’s excluding from her review any documents that clearly and entirely predate 2018. The Court approves this compromise and directs the Special Master to proceed accordingly.

But Oetken notes that the warrants permit the government to determine what materials are responsive to the warrant, meaning Jones should not determine anything further than what is privileged. And he laid out that the warrants permit the government to access materials that were deleted (or accessed, sent, or modified) between — for Rudy — August 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019.

Third, the warrants cover materials “sent, received, posted, created, or otherwise accessed, established, modified, or deleted during [the time range].” It is entirely possible that a document “dated” outside the time range may have been “accessed,” “sent,” “modified,” or “deleted” during the time range. Moreover, the warrants permit review of any of the seized material “if necessary to evaluate its contents and to locate all data responsive to the warrant.” See, e.g., United States v. Gatto, 313 F. Supp. 3d 551, 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).

The timeline here is consistent with what I intuited in this post — and, based on what Lev Parnas and others previously revealed, it clarifies the exact date range of the files obtained in November 2019. The Rudy range covers eight months of the period when he was representing Donald Trump in the Russian investigation, goes through the period when (Parnas has earlier alleged) people started deleting files during Trump’s first impeachment, and continues through the meeting Rudy had with Andrii Derkach in December 2019.

And unsurprisingly, the government obtained warrants covering the same period of the earlier search on the parties’ iCloud accounts by providing probable cause to show that they were deleting and modifying earlier files, even files from earlier in 2018, to include the period when both lawyers were pitching a means to represent Trump.

But it’s clear that Rudy and Toensing worry the government may find evidence of crimes that exceeds this timeline, which would give them the opportunity to obtain new warrants with a broader timeframe. That’s because they asked Oetken to force the government to delete everything else.

Finally, the Court denies Giuliani’s and Toensing’s request to order the Government to return or destroy any material at this time.

Oetken denied this request. This means materials that predate these warrants, but also materials from more recently, when Rudy was laundering Russian disinformation and making wildly false claims about the election results, would remain available for further search, if the government can or has demonstrated probable cause.

We’ll learn more about this next week. Oetken also ruled that the letters disputing all this, including those from Dmitro Firtash, will be docketed after the parties fight over redactions.

87 replies
  1. Rod Read says:

    Looks like the wheels of justice are grinding, somewhat slow bit mighty fine. As it should be, though I would prefer a bit more speed, and that is difficult with reluctant recalcitrant offenders.

  2. earlofhuntingdon says:

    “[I]t consents to the Special Master’s excluding from her review any documents that clearly and entirely predate 2018.”

    That “clearly” and “entirely” ought to worry Rudy just a smidgeon.

    • Rugger9 says:

      Perhaps I’m being more dense than usual, but does the restriction on the Special Master’s review mean that the pre-2018 communications, etc. would be open for prosecutors or closed off as evidence?

      • emptywheel says:

        She will only eliminate from possibility the stuff that is entirely pre-2018 and/or stuff after that that is privileged.

        If there’s an email thread that starts in 2017 but continues until later, or one that is forwarded, prosecutors can get to it if it’s not privileged.

        • Spencer Dawkins says:

          I am curious about email that someone might have replied to, in 2018, but may have included long threads of replied-to email from 2017 at the bottom of the reply (or am I the only person who sees ping-ponged email threads that are top-posted, go on for weeks or months, and never trimmed so that the oldest emails in the thread are still being included?)

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        My assumption is that under these warrants and this review process, the government should not see the pre-2018 information from the seized devices. The point of my comment was that information that overlaps that cut-off date would be potentially subject to disclosure.

        If the government independently finds probable cause, however, it should have access to that earlier information, so long as it’s not subject to a legitimate privilege claim.

        • Rugger9 says:

          Thanks to both for this clarification. However, given how much is already known about Russian interference in the 2016 election as well as how there are potential connections between Rudy and the Russians then, why would those actions be off the table? Is there so much more to hammer from 2018 onward that there is no need to look at 2016?

          • earlofhuntingdon says:

            This part of the process is only about what’s on the specific digital devices seized under warrant from Rudy and Toensing. That doesn’t bar the DoJ from using pre-2018 evidence from other sources, so long as there’s a legal basis to obtain and use it, and that it’s relevant to the charges.

          • Drew says:

            The warrants are about specific, potentially criminal, actions–not the global idea that Giuliani/Trump/Toensing crimed or conspired. Those actions seem to be in the midst of the strongarming of Ukraine/first impeachment of Trump. So those are why the timelines are there. Now, if these dinguses were forwarding 2016/2017 stuff that can be used as evidence of conspiracy with the Russians to violate election laws, or cover up crimes, then it opens up new vistas. But that’s not the case that SDNY is currently pursuing.

          • Leoghann says:

            The way I’m reading it, even if a thread containing only pre-range messages and topics was simply deleted during the period allowed by the ruling, it’s fair game for prosecutors.

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              I think that’s right:

              “It is entirely possible that a document “dated” outside the time range may have been “accessed,” “sent,” “modified,” or “deleted” during the time range [and is therefore subject to disclosure to the government].

            • emptywheel says:

              Right: And these warrants were obtained in significant part because Rudy and Lev were deleting things in October 2019 when impeachment made their earlier actions more important.

              I suspect DOJ now has reason to go further back. Thing is, DOJ could have ALREADY obtained warrants to search earlier or later stuff (which is precisely what happened with Trump’s last personal lawyer who was prosecuted).

              • Rugger9 says:

                How much of Parnas’ evidence could be leveraged here? How long until Rudy yaps about something that points to earlier events (I would think that establishes a reason to dig)?

              • Leoghann says:

                I rather expect that DOJ developed probable cause to search communications from years <2018 just from the information they have harvested from their previous warrant for his cloud.

                • bmaz says:

                  Eh, maybe, but warrants are supposed to be narrowly tailored. And prior to that time arguably is not as to what is at issue as to putatively pertinent criminal offenses.

  3. What Constitution? says:

    The DOJ is not moving anywhere near rapidly enough in the direction of protecting America’s Constitutional order (aka dealing with Trump & his followers’ election interference and sedition). Sure, there have been things which can, to a degree, be tolerated in their present insufficiency, but there has been precious little follow-through (apparently not one subpoena issued in follow-up to simple congressional “evidence hold” letters that generated artificial media heart palpitations on the part of target Republican traitors?).

    But they’ve got to be running out of time for the “we wouldn’t want to appear rash or ‘ungenteel'” deflections. There’s a system of government and a rule of law to save and to repair, and there isn’t unlimited time.

    The slack afforded Sullivan these past months has now — if nothing else — established just how low the rethug faction is willing to set the bar for indictments, however. The best Sullivan could come up with plainly reminds one of nothing more than the old saw “you can indict a ham sandwich”. But the clear evidence surrounding the calculated and fraudulent attacks on the 2020 election vastly exceeds that low bar.

    Garland & Co. should take their cue and start the Sedition, Felonies and Consequences Train rolling in earnest. Get some indictments out there. Georgia, New York, J6, there’s dozens more on apparent back burners due to what? Comity? NYT clucking? Fear of Manchin? COVID deniers? None of these are excusable grounds for continued inaction.

    • bmaz says:

      Nonsense, they are doing fine. Nearly 650 defendants have been charged, and about 75 have already pled out. There is an absolutely stunning amount of evidence and disclosure to deal with. DOJ is moving along fine. It is literally moving at warp speed for a large conspiracy investigation and prosecution. And I would not hold my breath for seditious conspiracy charges. There may be a few filed, but it would be controversial and more difficult to prove up than standard obstruction and conspiracy charges that have the same sentencing consequences. In short, DOJ is doing fine.

    • Zirc says:

      ‘The slack afforded Sullivan these past months has now — if nothing else — established just how low the rethug faction is willing to set the bar for indictments, however. The best Sullivan could come up with plainly reminds one of nothing more than the old saw “you can indict a ham sandwich”.’

      Do you mean John Durham???


      • bmaz says:

        Keep in mind that most all of that “slack” was built into Durham’s status intentionally by Barr. It was a monkey wrench. Could Garland have short circuited it? I think so, but it would have gotten really ugly. His case against Sussmann is complete shit. We will see, but it may have been smart to let it play out (although Sussmann probably disagrees).

        • Rugger9 says:

          I’m pretty sure Sussman minds the expense and the concern over how Trumpy the judge is that he’ll get, but as far as the actual case goes the chatter is pretty universal that Durham threw this dreck out there to justify his five years’ worth of wasted time. The tell will be how much airplay it gets on the RWNM and what’s being said.

        • Rugger9 says:

          Judge Sullivan letting this play out limits opportunities for the defendants to claim unfair treatment, and Sullivan knows he has the last word here.

          Until I start seeing prosecutions getting time-limited like Durham’s did I’d rather see preparation that will make charges stick. As time goes on DJT’s circle of movement will get smaller starting with the reports today regarding the Weisselberg trial. When DJT gets his time in a barrel he just might have no friends left.

          • Alan Charbonneau says:

            ‘When DJT gets his time in a barrel he just might have no friends left.”

            You are right. DJT won’t have any friends, just people who’ll take advantage of the guy whose barrel time has come. He isn’t going to like it.

            But I am going to like it, I am going to enjoy a healthy diet of schadenfreude. I know it isn’t the end with Trump’s ouster from office, his prosecution, or even his death; he forged a path for other tyrants who are smarter than he (pretty much everyone) and whose tactics are less crude and obvious (again, pretty much everyone) to take power by force.

            Still, I am going to enjoy any consequences hitting Team Tump and the little Trumpistas, Don Jr, Ivanka, and Eric. To the extent the Calamaris or the Weisselbergs or the Jared Kushner’s in the world get taken down with TFG, so much the better.

      • What Constitution? says:

        Uh, yeah, that’s the ticket…. Spelled Sullivan right, at least. Sorry. I meant the guy that looks like Wilford Brimley.

  4. Norskeflamthrower says:

    I’m an impatient old man and not really optimistic about the current system of justice (players on the federal investigation and prosecution side and ultimately the federal court system) holding anyone in the leadership of this rolling coup accountable primarily because of the pardons and the statute of limitations. So my question is: are the pardons to Flynn, Stone and Manafort limited so that information outside the parameters that comes up in investigations could be used to charge any of ’em with anything? I do agree with bmaz that “the system” is working as intended and that’s the reason for my pessimism.

    • Geoff says:

      I’m trying to be patient, and trying not to test Bmaz’s patience. ;-) But I thought I would chime in here with this :

      Given the content of this leak, it could probably help tie together a lot of the ongoing investigations – but how, and does this, get incorporated in any way? And what happens when you’ve made deals with the various people that have already been prosecuted only to find out they were blowing smoke up your a&*es? And for those ongoing, does this end up helping, or lengthening the time now that they have more info to dig through?

      or is this a nothing burger?

      • Rayne says:

        The breach is massive — it’s a lot of material to comb through. It will likely contain material relevant given the identities whose data has been disclosed (like Ali Alexander), but it’s going to take time and resources to determine how the Epik content will affect numerous investigations.

      • bmaz says:

        I don’t know, but having some hacker twatwaffles supposedly steal and release things does not necessarily help in any short term. Frankly it might even hurt. Prosecuting the 1/6 cases is not some kind of internet serial pod joyride.

        • Norskeflamthrower says:

          “Prosecuting the 1/6 cases is not some kind of internet serial pod joyride.”

          Indeed it’s not, it’s been the continuing sharp stick in the ass of all the federal investigators from day 1!!

      • FL Resister says:

        Since tech legislation appears to be on the tip of everyone’s tongue lately, perhaps the massive Epik demographic will help inform the US Congress about how to effectively prune the poison fruit of Big Tech so that the most vulnerable public doesn’t easily consume it.

  5. pablo says:

    The frustrating part of this is that a coup can travel around the world and back again while the courts are lacing up their boots.

  6. harpie says:

    1/5/21 TRUMP tries to convince PENCE to overturn the next day’s certification. One meeting was with John EASTMAN who argued PENCE did have the power to act.
    Here’s the MEMO

    [Via: [Christian Vanderbrouk] 5:17 PM · Sep 20, 2021]

    January 6 scenario […]
    The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: […]
    This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. […]
    So here’s the scenario we propose: […]

    • harpie says:

      EASTMAN traveled from the WILLARD Hotel to the 1/6/21 rally with Rudy GIULIANI:

      Both EASTMAN and GIULIANI were among the speakers:

      GIULIANI: […] Number one: Every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today, is perfectly legal.
      I have Professor EASTMAN here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States. (cheering) It is perfectly appropriate, given the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act of 1887, that the Vice President can cast it aside, and he can do what a president called Jefferson did, when he was Vice President. […]

      • Rayne says:

        Hey harpie – it dawned on me that we might be able to stitch all your work together more easily into a single timeline if you use a hashtag at the end of your comments. Maybe #Jan6Timeline?

        • harpie says:

          Sure, I could do that…maybe #J6TL, and I would maybe put that only on the first comment of each set of threaded comments.

          About 2 months ago, I started a folder in WORD with all the comments. If you’re interested, I’ll [try to] send it to your e-mail.

      • timbo says:

        “questionable constitionality” is an interesting word for Rudy to be uttering. I’m pretty sure that it is of “questionable constitutionality” to get a crowd of seditionists ginned up for a riot that trashes the Capitol building myself… when one can’t think of anything else. These guys decided that it was good to get a crowd fired up and angry to descend on the Congress during an electoral vote count by the Congress, claiming that they and not the Congress had more of a preeminent right to decide what and how >Congress should be running itself<. There certainly seems to be a conspiracy afoot here that is of "questionable constitutionality" by the Twitler and his gang and they were and are pretty open about it.

        Looking back, why wasn't this document entered into evidence during Trump's second impeachment trial? Seems like it was conveniently was missing from the trial… as it would be good evidence that there was a conspiracy to attack the Congress if they didn't do what the Twisslerings wanted… and that that actually came to pass.

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        Thanks, Harpie.
        Your comments are quite helpful to those of us who aren’t on top of this material each day.

  7. Molly Pitcher says:

    According to Meidas Touch and Occupy Democrats on Instagram, Eric Trumps attorney for the AG civil lawsuit in NY against the Trump Org., has just quit.

  8. harpie says:


    12/8/20 EASTMAN pushes Texas lawsuit on FOX
    12/9/20 TRUMP and 17 states want SCOTUS to let them join Texas suit; brief is signed by EASTMAN
    12/10/20 EASTMAN again touts Texas lawsuit on FOX

    3:28 PM TRUMP tweets: If the Supreme Court shows great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our Electoral Process will be respected again!
    5:30 PM [approx] SCOTUS DISMISSES Texas v Pennsylvania for lack of standing
    11:50 PM TRUMP tweets: The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!

    1/2/21 On BANNON’s show, EASTMAN details his ideas for 1/6. [For more about MEMO, see 1/5/21]
    1/5/21 TRUMP tries to convince PENCE to overturn the next day’s certification. One meeting was with John EASTMAN who argued PENCE did have the power to act. Here’s the MEMO
    1/5/21 Former Judge LUTTIG tweets:
    9:53 AM · Jan 5, 2021

    The only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast.

    The Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain of them or otherwise. […]

    PENCE will quote this section exactly in his 1/6 letter to Congress.

    10:00 AM EASTMAN and GUILIANI travel from WILLARD Hotel to RALLY
    10:48 AM GUILIANI and then EASTMAN speak at RALLY
    12:00 TRUMP begins speech at RALLY
    1:00 PM [approx.]

    TRUMP: The Republicans have to get tougher. You’re not going to have a Republican Party if you don’t get tougher. They want to play so straight. They want to play so, sir, yes, the United States. The Constitution doesn’t allow me to send them back to the States. Well, I say, yes it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud. And fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.

    So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do. And I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.

    1:02 PM PENCE tweets letter to Congress, quoting LUTTIG:

    […] More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.” […]


    Great swaths of the texts from January 6 — almost 10 full pages — are redacted. What’s left are seemingly one after another Proud Boy (not all present) claiming to be storming the Capitol right at 1:02 PM.

    Just before 6:00 PM EASTMAN was on BANNON’s show again, claiming that PENCE was “exaggerating what the request was” for him to do and argued that the vice president had ignored his “constitutional obligation not to allow our Constitution to be shredded by allowing illegally cast electoral votes to decide the election.”

    • harpie says:

      These were the first two entries in an early timeline:

      11:40 AM TRUMP departs 50 minutes late for his rally on the Ellipse
      12:00 PM [approx.] TRUMP speech scheduled to begin

      I can’t find the exact quote for the WH departure time. It was probably in a “live-update” that got rewritten into this article by Maggie Haberman:

      Trump Told Crowd ‘You Will Never Take Back Our Country With Weakness’ As Congress prepared to certify the victory of his successor, President Trump railed against the election and helped set in motion hours of violence. Published Jan. 6, 2021 Updated Jan. 15, 2021

      Shortly before leaving the White House on Wednesday morning for the Ellipse, where a stage had been set up for him to address supporters, President Trump had a word with Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Pence repeated what he had told Mr. Trump a day earlier: […] he would not have the power to do what the president wanted and overturn the results. […] Mr. Trump was somber as he got into the presidential motorcade for the short ride over to the Ellipse […]

      • harpie says:

        So, I guess…IF Trump left later than expected for the rally, it may have been because he had been talking to, and reacting/retaliated against what Pence had told him.

      • harpie says:
        7:30 PM · Sep 23, 2021

        News: The 1/6 select committee just dropped subpoenas on Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, Dan Scavino, and Kashyap Patel, a senior Defense official.

        All were apparently either
        1] with Trump on 1/6, or
        2] talked to him in the runup to it, or
        3] helped plan the effort to overturn the election: […] [links]

        Sep 23, 2021

        • harpie says:

          [quote] […] [Select Committee] hearby transmits a subpoena that compels you to produce the documents set forth in the accompanying schedule by October 7, 2021, and to appear for a deposition on October 14, 2021 [for Bannon and Patel] October 15, 2021 [for Meadows and Scavino] […] This inquiry includes examination of how various individuals and entities coordinated their activities leading up to the events of January 6, 2021 […] [end quote]

          • harpie says:

            Some of the “individuals and entities” mentioned:

            PATEL: White House; senior DOD officials; Meadows
            BANNON: Members of Congress; Trump
            MEADOWS: Trump and others; highest officials at the DoJ; several state officials; organizers, including Amy KREMER
            SCAVINO: Trump and others; White House

        • harpie says:

          PATEL letter:

          […] Based on documents obtained by the Select Committee and published accounts, there is substantial reason to believe that you have additional documents and information relevant to understanding the role played by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the White House in preparing for and responding to the attack on the the U.S. Capitol, as well as documents and information related to your personal involvement in planning for events on January 6 and the peaceful transfer of power. […]

        • harpie says:

          PATEL letter [following directly]

          According to documents provided by DoD, you were involved in discussions with senior DoD officials regarding planning for security at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and responding to events that followed the attack.3 In addition, you were quoted by a reporter as saying that you were talking to the President’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, “nonstop that day.”4 […]

        • harpie says:

          BANNON letter:

          […] The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. For example, you have been identified as present at the Willard Hotel on January 5, 2021, during an effort to persuade Members of Congress to block the certification of the election the next day, and in relation to other activities on January 6.1 You are also described as communicating with then-president Trump on December 30, 2020, and potentially other occasions, urging him to plan for and focus his efforts on January 6.2 Moreover, you are quoted as stating, on January 5, 2021, that “[a]ll hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”3 […]

        • harpie says:

          MEADOWS letter:

          […] You were the President’s Chief of Staff and have critical information regarding many elements of our inquiry. It appears that you were with or in the vicinity of President Trump on January 6, had communications with the President and others on January 6 regarding events at the Capitol, and are a witness regarding activities of that day. Moreover, it has been reported that you were engaged in multiple elements of the planning and preparation of efforts to contest the presidential election and delay the counting of electoral votes. In addition, according to documents provided by the Department of Justice, while you were the President’s Chief of Staff, you directly communicated with the highest officials at the Department of Justice requesting investigations into election fraud matters in several states.1 We understand that in the weeks after the November 2020 election, you contacted several state officials to encourage investigation of allegations of election fraud, even after such allegations had been dismissed by state and federal courts, and after the Electoral College had met and voted on December 14, 2020.2 Moreover, at least one press report indicates you were in communication with organizers of the January 6 rally, including Amy Kremer of Women for America First.3 […]

        • harpie says:

          SCAVINO letter:

          […] The Select Committee has reason to believe that you have information relevant to understanding important activities that led to and informed the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and relevant to former President Trump’s activities and communications in the period leading up to and on January 6. For example, the Select Committee has reason to believe that you have knowledge regarding the communications strategy of the former President and his supporters leading up to the events on January 6. As the Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications, reporting indicates that you were with the former President on January 5, when he and others were considering how to convince members of Congress not to certify the election for Joe Biden.1 Your public Twitter account makes clear that you were tweeting messages from the White House on January 6, 2021.2 And prior to January 6, 2021, you promoted, through your Twitter messaging, the January 6 March for Trump, which encouraged people to “be a part of history.”3 Your long service with the former President — spanning more than a decade and which included service as his digital strategy director, overseeing his social media presence, including on Twitter — suggest that you have knowledge concerning communications involving the 2020 presidential election and rallies and activities supporting and including the former President on January 6.

          It also appears that you were with or in the vicinity of former President Trump on January 6 and are a witness regarding his activities that day. You may also have materials relevant to his videotaping and tweeting messages on January 6. […]

        • harpie says:

          1/5/21 MEETING at the WILLARD Hotel focused on how to convince members of Congress to commit to NOT certifying the election. BANNON is at the meeting.

          1/5/21 MEETING at the WHITE HOUSE, during which TRUMP, SCAVINO and others consider “how to convince members of Congress not to certify the election”.

          • harpie says:

            As I mentioned in the TL, EASTMAN and GIULIANI [and btw, also STONE] were filmed outside the WILLARD around 10 AM on 1/6.

            Also, there’s a photo of
            Alex JONES outside the WILLARD on 1/5 evening.

          • harpie says:

            Also, this ew tweet in her thread about OK JAMES and MINUTA and the Grand Theft Golf Cart Conspiracy:
            10:02 AM · Apr 9, 2021

            Oh, this is likely what the USG is not telling us (which was hinted at): The golf carts were at the Willard before the chase. That means [dum dum dum!!!]… [Link] [screenshot]

            If James and Minuta DID take the golf carts from the Willard to the Capitol it means all the calls in yellow, particularly the back and forth ones, happened while the Oath Keepers were co-located with Roger Stone (among others). [CHART]

            That’s MINUTA, who had phone calls with RHODES at 12:58 PM and 1:02 PM on 1/6/21. [See above]

      • Rugger9 says:

        When would the SoL clock start? When Hobby Lobby became aware of the source or when the government made the connection?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I would assume it’s the date HL purportedly “purchased” the tablet. HL sure as hell knew it wasn’t obtaining this object with a verified provenance from Sotheby’s. But obtaining an object from an illegal source isn’t sufficient to establish HL knew it was Isis.

          • bmaz says:

            That would be my assumption as well. And, yes, exactly as to knowledge and intent. Best guess is they probably got it from a sketchy antiquities dealer, but who knows? The relevant SOL would depend on how it is charged, but 5 and 8 years are possibilities. 5 is gone, 8 would be very close. I would bet there is zero interest at DOJ for taking this on.

Comments are closed.