The Alabama duo—Mo Brooks and Tommy Tuberville—is one I suspect the FBI will want to investigate. At all stages of the insurrection it seems Trump was working with two Alabama Republicans to ensure the insurrection and the opposition to Biden's certification worked hand-in-glove.

(THREAD) There is so much less to this headline than meets the eye—indeed, one could argue the story is interesting *only* in ways the headline doesn't hint at—that it's a shame Bloomberg, a great media outlet, published this in this way. Read on for more.

1/ *Everyone* knows that the next step in the Mueller probe will come after the November 6 election, as Mueller is currently foregoing any additional steps in his work because of the DOJ's recommended "60-day pre-election" rule against action on cases with political implications.

2/ *Everyone* knows that Mueller has completed or nearly completed the Obstruction portion of his investigation (indeed, might have completed it long ago), so even news that Mueller would be ready to issue findings on Obstruction sometime after November 6 would not be surprising.

3/ *Everyone* knows that Rosenstein fears for his job, and fears for Sessions' job, and fears for Mueller's job, so *no one* would be surprised to learn that Rosenstein was pressuring Mueller to release *some* sort of report shortly after November 6 in order to show his progress.

4/ *Everyone* knows that behind the scenes Trump has been pressuring the FBI/DOJ to "wrap up" their work, so—while it was not just inappropriate but possibly illegal for Trump to pressure Rosenstein during a recent plane trip—*no one* would be surprised to learn that he did that.

(1 of 2) Paul Manafort—a longtime associate of Howard Liebengood Sr.—is an exec at Event Strategies, which planned the 1/6 rally that ended with a breach of security at the Capitol, where Howard Liebengood Jr. worked security (USCP). 2 days later Liebengood Jr. committed suicide.

(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.

(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.

(PS2) I'm sure there'll be those who say that a Donald Trump event giving tons of money to a company that enriches Paul Manafort at a time when Trump continues to need Manafort to stay quiet and Manafort is having money problems is a mere coincidence.

*That* I do not agree with.

(PS3) By the same token, as a federal criminal investigative matter, when you are about to have numerous investigations into whether security at a government building had been pre-compromised and someone who worked security at that building commits suicide, it gets investigated.

BREAKING NEWS: Trump May Be Planning to Leave Country 24 Hours Before He Loses Immunity From Prosecution

"Prestwick Airport has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft which has been occasionally used by Trump, on January 19."

(PS) With Scotland going into lockdown, I don't know if this is a realistic option for Trump. But every major media report we've gotten for the last 2 months has said that Trump is almost *preternaturally* obsessed with losing his immunity from criminal prosecution on January 20.

(PS2) I've repeatedly said that—based upon my experience with 2,000+ criminal defendants—I don't believe that Trump would flee the country unless he believed he was facing imminent arrest (which, to be very clear, I don't think he believes). But this story is real and intriguing.

(PS3) The proper course of action now is for media to find out if Trump will be leaving the country at the moment that he loses his immunity from criminal prosecution. That is *also* the proper frame for the story—given what we know to be Trump's state of mind and preoccupations.

(PS4) The other, concurrent news story to at least keep in mind here is that Trump is in a legal dispute with his neighbors in Florida over whether he can reside at Mar-A-Lago. It gives him the perfect excuse to say that he needs to spend a few months at his property in Scotland.

(🔐) PROOF EXCLUSIVE: Kimberly Guilfoyle’s Congressional Testimony About January 6 Was As Bizarre As Any the House January 6 Committee Received

This is the fourth entry in PROOF’s year-long JANUARY 6 FILES series.

I hope you’ll subscribe and RT. #J6Files

1/ This part of the PROOF analysis of Guilfoyle’s absolutely shocking January 6 testimony focuses on the last week of December 2020, when Trump was at Mar-a-Lago plotting his January 6 coup.

2/ At the time, Guilfoyle was living at Mar-a-Lago. As was Don Jr. Guilfoyle’s top aide, Caroline Wren, was the chief organizer of January 6 at the time. And the top donor Guilfoyle had personally developed for Trump (Julie Jenkins Fancelli) was the chief funder of January 6.

3/ From December 22 to December 31, 2020, Trump repeatedly met with co-conspirators at Mar-a-Lago, where (again) Guilfoyle was then living. Guilfoyle was at the time a Trump presidential adviser, a Trump campaign finance chair, a Trump cultist, and Trump’s future daughter-in-law.

4/ If you know just these basic facts, the claims Guilfoyle made UNDER OATH to Congress will absolutely blow your hair back.

Counter-claim - when the defendant in a case “counter-sues” the plaintiff. So in this case JD is the plaintiff, AH is the defendant, she has counter-sued JD - in layman’s terms that’s her saying ‘you sued me, so I’m going to sue you!”. 🙄

AH’s counter-claim is actually rather poorly drafted (IMO!) and, to quote AH herself is “very dramatic”. It contains very little in the way of valid case law (see my video on caselaw) to support her claims and, to me, actually does read like someone throwing a tantrum!

Her counter-claim, when you cut through the crap, seeks: Declaratory Judgment, seeks to pursue a defamation claim against JD, and to pursue a claim against JD under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act (“Bot-Gate”)

So… Declaratory Judgment. This duplicates the Anti-SLAPP immunity that AH has included in her Defence so this part of the counter-claim DUPLICATES an argument she has already made. The Judge decided that Declaratory Judgment was not appropriate.

So the issue she sought to resolve with the DJ is already being dealt with in her Defence & will be dealt with at Trial… which is what the Judge means when he said to hear her Defence and her counter claim for declaratory judgment would be to hear the same issue twice.

Several questions about protecting the inaugural, put to me by @ShawnAndersonDC and @bhaseltonWTOP on the air @wtop today.

1. How is Secret Service planning to protect the Inauguration from the violence that occurred last week?

Planning is the key word. They’ve been planning this inauguration for more than a year. And it’s important to note that comparing security around the Capitol on an ordinary day and an inauguration are like comparing an Apple to an entire Orange tree.

On Inauguration Day there are many thousands of people involved in protection that we don't see. There are technological capabilities, military and cyber assets, There are #WMD assets. The air, water and land are covered like a blanket.

2. What kind of threats are you hearing about...not just for the 20th...but other days too?

Many looking to engage violence in the run up to or during the inaugural are really upset because some of their social media sites are being taken offline, but plenty of others are still active and they are STILL talking about violence on those sites.

I keep hearing the average age of the few protestors who were arrested during the Capitol attack was about 40 years old.

There were some really dangerous people in that crowd. III Percenters, neo-nazis, the vanguard, the fist of hate in America. Do not let them off the hook.

I don't care if Elizabeth from Knoxville has her day in court. I want to know who this guy is and what the zipties were for and who his buddies are. And I want them off the street.

I want to know if active duty or reserve military were involved. I want to know if law enforcement officers were involved. And I want their networks broken.

I want to know who funds the organizations that financially support the fist of hate. I want to know who funds their media platforms. These are the accessories to murder that should be investigated.

MIT mechanical engineer prof Gang Chan arrested. DOJ accuses of undisclosed grants, $$, from

COMPLAINT "Since in or about 2013, CHEN’s research at MIT has been funded by more than $19 million in grants awarded by .. U.S. Department of Defense (“DOD”), the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (“DARPA”).

"investigating CHEN for several violations of
federal law, including wire fraud due to his failure to disclose contracts, appointments, and awards
from various entities in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) in connection with his receipt of
federal grant funding from DOE"

"Since in or about 2012, CHEN has held various PRC contractual appointments
designed to promote the PRC’s technological and scientific development, including acting as an
“overseas expert” for the PRC government at the request of the PRC Consulate Office in New
York "

... "CHEN assessed and reviewed grant
applications, helped determine which grants the PRC government would fund, and reviewed the
results of PRC funded research. Yet, CHEN never disclosed his work for NNSFC when he applied
for grants from DOE or even his employer, MIT. "....

I love the smell of a leaked legal service opinion in the morning

The conclusion: the EU Council legal service says that it's OK for the Brexit deal to be concluded with the UK by the EU only, not needing Member States' participation

The reasoning: the legal service distinguishes between competences reserved to Member States, and competences shared with the EU. For the latter, the EU has the choice of concluding an EU-only treaty.

The legal service summarises the prior case law backing up its interpretation.

It refers to the Weddell case, concerning competence to conclude a treaty on the Antarctic environment, where Member States *could* be involved. But that was based on the particular legal features of the Antarctic treaty; and the UK is not Antarctica.