Flynn appeals court orders rehearing en banc July 30, 2020, Prior order vacated, Oral arguments to be heard Tuesday August 11, 2020
“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October
“Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the FBI’s claims that (1) it did not investigate matters pertaining to Mr. Rich; (2) it did not examine his computer; and (3) it conducted a “reasonable” search but could not locate any records or communications about Mr. Rich. Specifically, Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the affidavit testimony of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger March 29, 2020
“I repeatedly asked U.S. Attorney John Durham and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate whether Mr. Hardy lied under oath, and in an April 22, 2020 letter Mr. Horowitz wrote that he referred my complaint to the FBI’s Inspection Division. Was Mr. Hardy forced out?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020
From the US Court of Appeals DC District July 30, 2020.
“In re: Michael T. Flynn,
BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland,
Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas*, and Rao, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the vote in favor of rehearing en banc by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020. The parties should be prepared to address whether there are “no other adequate means to attain the relief” desired. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).
A separate order will issue regarding the allocation of oral argument time.”