@OrinKerr Currently? They say they may try. But do you disagree they would have had notice been given? @mattblaze @declanm
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm They say they may try based on what? What legal claims do they have?4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr
@OrinKerr But it also seems if anyone is indicted based on this, there'll be ample reason to challenge AP-tied evidence@mattblaze@declanm1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm On what ground?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr
@OrinKerr Not saying that'd work. But if entire reason to avoid subpoena was time, it'll hold up case for some time@mattblaze@declanm1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel If your point is that a crim def could file frivolous motions to supress on this, ok. But so what?@mattblaze@declanm2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr
@OrinKerr No, my point is this subpoena would not have survived court review intact, only avoided ct review bc DAG.@mattblaze@declanm1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel@mattblaze@declanm So you agree that based on actual facts, AP has no legal claims?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr
@OrinKerr I don't know. We'll see. But you're conflating legitimacy of complaint abt subpoena and legal claim now.@mattblaze@declanm1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@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.5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.