@BradMossEsq This is why I invited you to master the dates before you blathered on. To avoid very obvious facts of timing like this.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Hence my comment about the district court ruling alone not settling the issue. Make sense?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq You were flying off handle abt it criminal charges being absurd when they weren't absurd, they were just spiked by DOJ.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Where did I say "absurd"?? I said "not likely" and listed two criteria that would have to be met first.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq And they were met. Which are basic facts that should be known.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel The "no reasonable interpretation" criteria was resolved? Where? I saw one ruling. There were others?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq One ruling in that case, delayed by the Obama admin until after SOLs tolled. So for that case, yes, wasn't it?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Oh, and I keep forgetting. The 9th Circuit reversed Walker and threw the whole thing out.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BradMossEsq
@BradMossEsq By "whole" you mean not the judgement but the interpretation of penalties NOT involving crim, so it's irrelevant to your point.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I'm saying don't rely on Al-H as the holy grail.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@BradMossEsq No, you're saying "let me present false interpretation and ignore facts to dismiss that case."
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.