Okay, this is hilarious! Peter Strzok's attorney is telling Judge Sullivan that @SidneyPowell1 is violating a court order by filing these additional disclosures. 1/
2/ NOPE! The court order was to not file supplements to "pending motions," which were motions to withdraw and motion for dismissal b/c of prosecutorial misconduct. The government's motion to dismiss was not filed until later! And even Sullivan wouldn't dare say you can't file
3/ relevant evidence to that motion. But what makes it even richer?
4/ Strzok knew of the Sullivan's standing order to turn over evidence and also that if there was a debate on materiality, it had to be presented to Judge Sullivan. But did Strzok's attorney send a note to Sullivan saying "hey, you should know we didn't think he was lying" and
5/5 "we're concerned that Van Quack hasn't turned over the documents that confirm that." UNREAL!
OMgosh...post-script: Strzok's attorney calls the documents "Brady production." Ummm, nothing like admitting government violated the standing order!!!!
And I have no idea how the dates were added, but assume someone was taking notes and accidently copied wrong document, was it Jensen's team, or Powell's (if true),but really, maybe Sullivan should look at the "mistake" made by the Special Counsel's office: thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/new…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨THREAD: Earlier this week Judge Ali (judge who ordered Trump to pay some $2 billion in contracts w/i 36 hours to have that order stayed by Roberts & then told by court to be more clear on who to pay & reasonable on time), entered a preliminary injunction as noted below.1/
2/ At time, I said order was confusing & in part merely ordered Trump to comply with law, but nonetheless said I expected immediate appeal. Well, gov't has filed status report saying still deciding on whether to immediately appeal and/or seek stay. Why? B/c they don't
3/ read order as really tying their hands. As status report explains, they are reviewing and paying for past work and since they would be doing that any way, absent court enter a pay now order, Trump can just plod ahead.
2/ This was case Court held hearing on earlier today about the DEI clause in contracts. So will they need to execute contracts as is?storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Hearing beginning: Noting merely a scheduling conference and not an evidentiary hearing so sounds like he's trying to get handle on it. Asking for 3 things: 1) Baltimore has received notice to certify non-DEI in gov' contract which claims is in violation of order; 2) seek compliance plan b/c systemic failure & idea of how to get to compliance b/c people are suffering; not sure what #3 is. Judge says don't get into now--what do you want. Baltimore wants ruling today; compliance & remediation do a briefing as court asks.
🚨🚨🚨OMGosh...TDS is making judges ignore diff. b/w "restraining order" to maintain status quo & an injunction requiring affirmative action? THIS order is NOT a "restraining order": It is an injunction masquerading as a TRO which makes it immediately appealable. 1/
3/ Yesterday's reporting that court ordered reinstatement is possibly inaccurate as the only written order extended TRO which didn't order reinstatement. Not sure if oral order did, but government said court entered Preliminary Injunction. THREADS on that: