@emptywheel BTW, don't know for sure if you agree, but strongly guessing you might: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10847
@TheBradBlog You left out what should be Verrilli's biggest diqualifier. He lied to SCOTUS, and refuses to correct that lie.
-
-
@emptywheel which lie u referring to? -
@TheBradBlog That govt gave notice to defendants under 702, in Amnesty v. Clapper. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/06214727229/doj-still-trying-to-hide-fact-it-flat-out-lied-to-supreme-court-about-domestic-surveillance.shtml … -
@emptywheel Cld forgive original "lie" if he didn't know abt it (seems plausible). But later justification letter is pretty horrible. -
@TheBradBlog Agree he didn't know, just as Paul Clement didn't know we torture when he didn't tell SCOTUS. But failure to correct is big. -
@emptywheel What wld be correct process in such a case? Admit error and seek new hearing before SCOTUS?! How wld that even happen?? -
@TheBradBlog@emptywheel It is not hard. You simply file a "Notice of Correction of Record" -
@bmaz@emptywheel Even after case already decided at SCOTUS? Only matters for future cases? Or can they reissue an opinion? (Ever happened?) -
@TheBradBlog@emptywheel Any time, and in fact I maintain you are ethically required to even after decision. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@TheBradBlog Not that such is a disqualifier for any position at DOJ anymore.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.