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
🚨🚨🚨District Court just ordered Trump Administration to return O.C.G. to U.S. He had a final removal order but withholding of removal to Guatemala. He was removed to Mexico & then fled to Guatemala b/c he apparently feared Mexico more. Read this note. 1/
2/ Note how when he first came in the "correct" way and sought asylum, he could immediately be denied based on lack of fear of persecution. But when he came in the incorrect way, and ordered removed, now Court is saying you can't remove even if no claim of fear.
3/ O.C.G. case has a bad wrinkle, though, as government submitted an inaccurate affidavit based on computer records & had to correct it to court and thus Court doesn't trust government. BUT Court's ruling re other aliens removed is presumed on same mistake:
🚨🚨🚨Rubio files declaration in case involving removal of illegal aliens exposing how federal judge's meddling is prompting problems in other countries:
2/ A second declaration confirms the removed aliens were told in a language they understood they were being removed to South Sudan and states the obvious: If they had a well-founded fear of persecution they would raise the issue immediately.
3/ Trump Administration also seeks reconsideration of court's decision he violated preliminary injunction and new rules court entered. Of note: Court has now ordered MORE process than Congress mandated in other cases of expedited removal AND here they were already ordered removed.
Here's the background of the aliens ordered removed after immigration proceedings whom Trump Administration then removed to South Sudan. 1) Ordered removed in 1999!!! Kidnapper, attempted murdered,
2/ Second guy, arson, attempted murder, drug stuff...unclear when ordered removed.
3/ Judge is literally holding a hearing to decide whether Trump Administration office is properly managing the department, with questioning concerning how offices operate.
THREAD on broad thoughts from hearing: My "gut" is that SCOTUS will follow what I call the Kavanaugh approach to nationwide injunctions and hold that there are rules & those must be followed and those rules require class certification to provide relief beyond Plaintiffs. 1/
2/ Justice Kavanaugh (echoed by several other justices) stressed that exigent circumstances purportedly justifying nationwide injunctions don't exist because courts can grant TRO/Preliminary Injunctions for putative classes (meaning class action lawsuits not yet certified).
3/ Given that reality, Justice Kavanaugh suggested the argument that we need nationwide injunctions collapses. And as he stressed couple times, there is a rule & those rules must be followed. If you listened to the argument, Justice Kavanaugh's approach came off balanced & sane.
🧵on SCOTUS Nationwide Injunction re birthright citizenship case. Couple preliminary points: The argument is NOT about the merits of the birthright citizenship case. You may hear reference to the APA or the Administrative Procedure Act. This case does NOT concern APA. 1/
2/ Justices may reference APA b/c whether nationwide injunctions are appropriate under APA is a different issue (again not before the court). You'll also hear discussion of "organizational standing". Standing means ability to "stand" before court & ask for remedy b/c YOU are hurt
3/ Organizations have "standing" to sue if at least one member has standing to sue. But to have a remedy, Trump Administration maintains CASA, the organizational plaintiff, must establish which members are actually injured (by affidavit) & injunction is limited to them.