@cmuratori not to mention he's being charged under 792, not 641, last I heard. @declanm @adampetrone
@pthread @declanm @adampetrone I'm not sure I know what you are referring to by "point one"?
-
-
@cmuratori what I repeated - the fact that he gained access to material under false pretenses means charge is approp.@declanm@adampetroneThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@cmuratori I can perhaps buy that there's an argument for why he shouldn't be convicted. (I disagree, but oh well)@declanm@adampetroneThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@cmuratori given final pgrph he clearly violated spirit of law, and argument cld be made for satis. (3).@declanm@adampetroneThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@cmuratori overarching point - stating he shouldn't even be charged seems a hard position to defend, IMO, given facts@declanm@adampetrone -
@pthread@declanm@adampetrone I don't understand your argument. Nowhere in those regulations does it say any of these things. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.