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
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: California judge enters TRO against ICE actions. OMgosh...I so called it...it is an "obey the law injunction" that is worthless!
2/ BUT this is different and it complete bullshit!
3/ Here's my earlier thread where I predicted this "follow the law" worthless injunction. (The training requirements/and documentation is entirely different).
🚨Trump is appealing district court's refusal to discharge Preliminary Injunction related to passport sex designations. Trump asked it to be discharged based on recent SCOTUS decision re bars on puberty blockers...stay with me, I'll explain. 1/
2/ In deciding if a law is constitutional, a court has to decide what standard to review the law with, i.e. how carefully to review it. The district court applied "intermediate scrutiny" in deciding if gov't had grounds to limit to sex M/F. SCOTUS then said no, you only use rational basis scrutiny which is easy to pass.
3/ Under correct standard, then Trump Administration has a rationale basis to require passports to designate a person's actual sex, and therefore the court should discharge the injunction. The court refused because . . . wait for it. . . the President hates transgenders.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge dissolves TRO granted Planned Parenthood to enter a new one that supposedly complies with the requirements. She's so full of bias, it's crazy! 1/
2/ This is the most blatantly ridiculous point: Even in the case of aliens possibly being deported, the court held a hearing. Even in the case of national guard on streets, court held a hearing. And 14 days later is not quickly setting a hearing.
3/ And it isn't a matter of DOJ objecting that no reasons were provided. THE FEDERAL RULES REQUIRED THOSE REASONS BE PROVIDED!
2/ ~2 weeks ago, Judge Breyer entered injunction against Trump Administration barring Trump from federalizing (i.e., taking over control) of National Guard from Gov. Newsom. Newsom had sued. A 3-judge panel of the 9th Cir. court of appeals immediately stayed injunction, meaning
3/ injunction had no effort & Trump remained in charge of National Guard. NOW, Newsom could have asked "full" 9th Cir. to rehear case in something called "en banc." (Note: Not really "full" b/c 9th Cir. is so large, it is just more judges ~11) OR could have appealed to SCOTUS.
4/ Newsom didn't and instead went back to Breyer and said we still get an injunction under Posse Comitatus Act--something not addressed in the original injunction & Breyer has entered several orders, i.e. ordering discovery, setting hearing on merits.
🚨In the THREAD below I detail how Khalil (Columbia student whom Rubio revoked permanent residency status for harming foreign relations), was found removable by an Immigration Judge but Khalil claims district court habeas decision trump IJ's removal decision. 1/
2/ As I noted in THREAD, that is nuts and contrary to how immigration cases work. District court's don't have jurisdiction--that is for IJ and then Board of Immigration Appeals and then circuit court (5th Cir.) to decide. And yet judge JUST entered order for briefing on this.
3/ Congress expressly deprived district court's of jurisdiction over immigration cases to streamline process & yet under Trump these district court's are putting their hands in gears & not only that, because it is not something properly litigated before them, they are clueless!