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/ …
-
-
Replying to @mattblaze
@OrinKerr DOJ letter also could be referring to 59 days of phone records instead of 60 days. Presumably DOJ could clarify.@mattblaze1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @declanm
@declanm@mattblaze The point is that we don't know. Bad to pretend we know when we don't, at least to this naive non-journalist.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze
@mattblaze@declanm When policy balances two interests, isn't the scope of records obtained very relevant? Or do you object to balancing?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr
@OrinKerr@mattblaze@declanm Also, isn't it job of courts to balance interests? Biggest complaint is DOJ made sure AP couldn't appeal to 11 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm The courts are open; the AP just lacks a legal cause of action. Courts not in charge of every policy, yet.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@OrinKerr Given known facts of WH & CIA actions b4 story hard to believe subpoena would have withstood court review @mattblaze @declanm
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.