@OrinKerr DOJ letter also could be referring to 59 days of phone records instead of 60 days. Presumably DOJ could clarify. @mattblaze
@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 -
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm So you agree that based on actual facts, AP has no legal claims? -
@OrinKerr I don't know. We'll see. But you're conflating legitimacy of complaint abt subpoena and legal claim now.@mattblaze@declanm -
@emptywheel Regs themselves say no civil claims, 50.10(n). And I'm not conflating; I am interested in one and you are interested in other. -
@emptywheel "The principles set forth in this section are not intended to create or recognize any legally enforceable right in any person."
End of conversation
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.