@brettmaxkaufman @jameeljaffer @just_security I straight-up do not understand this argument. (Not yours, DOJ's.) I've read it now 3x.
@attackerman Cause if govt has to release those pics, gotta make sure no one gets charged. @brettmaxkaufman @jameeljaffer @just_security
-
-
@emptywheel I'm not being cute. I don't even understand this, like the dumb kid at the seder.@brettmaxkaufman@jameeljaffer@just_security -
@attackerman What's w/urge for understanding? It's a legal tactic, nothing more.@brettmaxkaufman@jameeljaffer@just_security -
@emptywheel I grant you, but I wonder if it has any internal logic beyond "Nuh-uh"@brettmaxkaufman@jameeljaffer@just_security -
@attackerman Again, what's with this fetishization of logic?@brettmaxkaufman@jameeljaffer@just_security -
@emptywheel is it really a fetish to want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding?@brettmaxkaufman@jameeljaffer@just_security -
.
@attackerman It's basically treating court-compelled disclosure like a leak. The executive has the privilege & hasn't voluntarily waived it -
.
@attackerman I.E., the court publication of this memo can't be used to claim that exec waived privilege for similar stuff in other memos -
@charlie_savage@attackerman There is analogous precedent that info disclosed by Congress does not constitute disclosure or waiver by govt - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@attackerman@brettmaxkaufman@JameelJaffer@just_security i find it interesting that we rely on DoJ to prosecute police abuse -
@emptywheel@attackerman@brettmaxkaufman@JameelJaffer@just_security in light of extreme measures taken to avoid acctblty for fed abuses
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.