@AdamSerwer I see. it's just that 1) we know this is authorized by finding 2) law limited to findings, 3) post doesn't mention that.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel we don't know what legal analysis exists, because it's secret. There could be other memos not related to specific finding3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer
@AdamSerwer We also know DOJ and CIA have withheld Drafts, and we k now DOJ always withholds "drafts" under execpriv.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel but we just don't know what they have, or if there are legal memos on tk not related to specific ops1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer
@AdamSerwer They have admitted there is a memo. They have also hidden other analysis as draft analysis.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @AdamSerwer
@AdamSerwer Our disagreement is you read SSCI as good faith attempt. I read it as attempt to forestall Cornyn bc it leaves in loopholes used1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I took it at face value, but I don't think you make a bad argument.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer
@AdamSerwer It might be useful if you noted that DiFi got Cornyn's tabled by saying she'd submit language to address it. Hers doesn't.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel hers doesn't disclose to other committees. I mean it's clear that Cornyn's is better3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@AdamSerwer Right. And she told SJC that her language would address Cornyn's request. It doesn't.
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.