@rachelblevinson I don’t read him as distinguishing but as using Edmond as authority for the proposition. Here’s the sentence….
-
-
Replying to @granick
@rachelblevinson “Indeed, as the Supreme Court recognized in Edmond, warrantless, random searches undertaken for national security purposes2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RachelBLevinson
@rachelblevinson Exactly. I didn’t think Yoo could surprise me…but here he has. I am still so naive.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @granick
@granick I'm still tracking down some on this but reminder how govt used it w/FISCR in 2002. https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/082102appeal.html …@rachelblevinson1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel imho FISCR’s use of the case is reasonable—establish special needs exception. Yoo, however, is outlandish.@rachelblevinson2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @granick
@granick That Yoo letter likely tracks the 11/02/01 memo very close ex 2 pages. https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/04/06/john-yoos-two-justifications-for-stellar-wind/ …@rachelblevinson1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel yeah because he wrote the letter in one day. Cut and paste job from the memo.@RachelBLevinson2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@granick Somewhere Yoo said "POTUS determines whether action lawful under POTUS' Article II authority." Memo I want to see @RachelBLevinson
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.