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
The Maryland Father's attorneys sure seemed to be playing fast and loose with the facts!
2/ Garcia: "I won't plead guilty unless you deport me to Costa Rica."
DOJ: "Well, if you insist."
Garcia: "Judge you must dismiss this case because they are forcing me to plead guilty."
🚨🚨🚨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).