Watch out for claims that DOJ collected two months of telephone records. Not true, it seems: http://www.volokh.com/2013/05/16/doj-clarifies-that-only-a-portion-of-two-months-of-telephone-records-were-collected/ …
@OrinKerr AP wouldn't have had a cause of action if DOJ had given them notice of the subpoena? @mattblaze @declanm
-
-
@emptywheel AP has no cause of action based on what actually happened. Do you disagree?@mattblaze@declanm -
@OrinKerr Currently? They say they may try. But do you disagree they would have had notice been given?@mattblaze@declanm -
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm They say they may try based on what? What legal claims do they have? -
@OrinKerr But it also seems if anyone is indicted based on this, there'll be ample reason to challenge AP-tied evidence@mattblaze@declanm -
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm On what ground? -
@OrinKerr Not saying that'd work. But if entire reason to avoid subpoena was time, it'll hold up case for some time@mattblaze@declanm -
@emptywheel If your point is that a crim def could file frivolous motions to supress on this, ok. But so what?@mattblaze@declanm -
@OrinKerr No, my point is this subpoena would not have survived court review intact, only avoided ct review bc DAG.@mattblaze@declanm - 4 more 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.