.@emptywheel The implication of your tweet is the ruling addresses your grievances. You can support extension with a clean conscience!
-
-
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk You made a factually false claim. Paul is right: the program has been found unlawful.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel You are conflating bulk collection with the entirety of what is under discussion, and (1/2)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@emptywheel Congress could simply make it legal. What he means is that it is unwise. (2/2)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk No. What he means is it is illegal. Unlawful might be a better word. But it is, in fact, unlawful.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Read his remarks. He uses it in exactly the same war he uses "unconstitutional" -- to mean "unwise."2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk No. He means it violates the 4th Amendment. 2nd Circuit reserved on that front but implied they believed it was that too.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Ok, well, enjoy your talking point about illegal, unconstitutional surveillance!2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ArmsControlWonk
@ArmsControlWonk There are facts. And you are wrong on them, apparently deliberately to dismiss a legal issue as a mere policy issue.1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
.
@emptywheel I just want to make sure I understand you: You are arguing that Congress must make illegal an illegal program.4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
@ArmsControlWonk Not at all. You're the one who invented such claims. The program has been found unlawful. Paul is correct on that point.
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.