@emptywheel You're referring to the 'definitive and binding DOJ legal analysis' bit, right?
@mazinmelegy Also note, the part of memo that @benjaminwittes says is most important is what I've shown to be false.
-
-
-
@mazinmelegy Yup. That's what I've presented 4 instances where Fredman (or his office) didn't do what he claimed he had done, over 1 year. -
@emptywheel Yeah I really can't argue with you on this one. Besides the fax point, which seems a bit overblown. -
@mazinmelegy Any good explanation why he'd use a fax rather than the authoritative, binding DOJ legal analysis, then? -
@emptywheel Well no, but the fax doesn't seem to contain any information that authoritative, binding DOJ legal analysis doesn't. -
@mazinmelegy It doesn't ADD anything, but it doesn't INCLUDE a lot of the caveats, meaning intent is unlimited. -
@emptywheel But the caveats are all "a matter of practice", not law. In fact, DOJ explicitly rejects the alternate legal interpretation -
@emptywheel They simply acknowledge that someone can argue it, and that a jury might buy it. That doesn't seem like guiding legal analysis. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel Hold on. Sorting through the weeds now. (see what i did there)Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.