THREAD: Tomorrow is hearing on Government's Motion to Dismiss criminal charge against @GenFlynn. I didn't have time to write up a lawsplainer tying in new exculpatory evidence @SidneyPowell1 and DOJ filed, so here's a thread. (Limiting comments until finished). 1/
2/ This @FDRLST provides the lawsplaining of the elements for 1001 charge and why DOJ properly filed motion to dismiss. In short, any "lies" were not material and no lies. thefederalist.com/2020/05/04/you…
3/ Starting with "no lies." Let's first point out that Statement of Offense undisputed and inaccurately stated Flynn lied about discussing sanctions. thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/new…
4/ On any other supposed lies in conversation, the evidence since revealed shows that: a) agent's did not believe Flynn lied (not merely that they thought he didn't show signs of lying) thefederalist.com/2020/08/28/the…
5/ The mosaic of evidence now also strongly indicates that the goal was to question Flynn in such a way they could claim he lied. We have the notes saying "what's our goal," get him to lie? We have changes to 302 and missing 302. We have testimony that FBI cut out agent
6/ who would have interviewed Flynn and that agent said the other team members purposefully didn't ask follow-up questions, which when asked would clarify the testimony and change meaning of testimony.
7/ We have Strzok and Page after chatting w/ Strzok talking about how he felt when Flynn said something they knew was not true. We have Flynn's actual words hedged with "I don't think so." There was no lying and Special Counsel knew it.
8/ And even if you think there was lying, the withholding of this evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel, justify dismissing charges. AND that is all without considering "materiality," which is even stronger basis. Continued after Latin Review.
9/ Okay, back. So on materiality: As my article linked above explained, any lie must be material. If it isn't material, there is no crime. Period. As that article also explained, the "materiality" set forth by Special Counsel's office was false.
10/ Special Counsel argued material to Russia collusion investigation BUT documents uncovered showed that was not reason they interviewed Flynn. They interviewed either a) for Logan Act; or b) perjury trap. And we no investigation of Logan open or would there be a basis for that.
11/ New evidence proves that in spade. We had notes before saying either Logan or perjury trap; but now we have FBI agent confirming, along with evidence they cut him out to prevent Flynn from clarifying. AND also that Flynn case was kept open for no legitimate reason.
12/12 And again, EVEN if this wasn't all true, the withholding of this evidence in violation of Sullivan's standing order would justify DOJ dismissing charges anyway. Sullivan has a choice: Mea cupla, even though much delayed. Or, Resist and leave unsalvageable his reputation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another Trump win on appeal with D.C. Circuit vacating preliminary injunction. Order isn't loading yet so details to follow. 1/
2/ Here's what the case is about:
3/ And this isn't one of the cases where things were stayed, meaning this decision now frees the Trump Administration to get back to work. The court had originally stayed a portion of the injunction, allowing Trump to fire folks but then Plaintiffs claimed Trump didn't make individualized assessment so Court of Appeals decided it wasn't going to get into that morass and just said Trump can't fire anyone (it shouldn't have and I believe one of the judge's dissented on that cop out).
2/ So as background this is the consolidated (joined) cases involving USAID where the district court originally ordered payment of millions within like 36 hours and Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and then said basically redo so it is feasible.
3/ The judge sorta redid and Trump has been complying, i.e., there was no stay in place so this is a WIN. Trump has also sought dismissal which should be granted based on this decision. AND the plaintiffs sought to enforce AND to depose to enforce so the ruling will 86 that!
THREADETTE: ⬇️is my play-by-play of 9th Cir. decision. Top-line: Loss to Trump AND horrible opinion b/c law is clear that "reasonable suspicion" depends on totality of circumstances & yet court prevents ICE from considering totality of circumstances. 1/
2/ District court had actually allowed for that by including "expected as permitted by law," which the 9th Cir. struck. 9th Cir. THEN, after saying ICE could consider other circumstances, actually altered injunction's language of "presence at a particular location"
3/ THIS is what 9th Cir. said was enjoined: that "whether that be a random location . . . or a location selected 'because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize or seek work at these locations, . . ." That ADDED a limitation of a circumstance ICE CAN consider in totality of the circumstances.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: 9th Cir. denies Trump Administration stay regarding district court's efforts to micromanage ICE "except as to a single clause" but that single clause is what allowed ICE to do it's job! Still reading so clarity to follow. 1/
2/ As I noted before one of the problems with the court's injunction is that you can't enjoin a situation where the situation depends on all of the facts and circumstances, for instance, if a voluntary encounter which needs no reasonable suspicion.
3/ On that point: That is exactly what the training is. You can see from this language the specific details needed to know whether there is or isn't reasonable suspicion.