like the government just conceded that they're totally okay if the government agrees that the letter is not law
-
-
Government really doesn't want to talk about the DAG letter, they want to talk about FISA because the letter is too weird
-
like now that I'm thinking about it, the letter exists in an odd limbo of not-law
-
not just in the sense of "fuck FISC and all it stands for," i really can't decide how it works inside of administrative law
-
journalists: please do not aggregate my tweets, i am not a nat sec law expert
-
so basically gov't is arguing that Twitter can be menaced by a not-law letter telling them what they can and can't say and it doesn't matter
-
LMAO the government is arguing that the FISC is the right forum but they are also arguing...
-
... they can't even acknowledge there is a FISC-reated order involved because that information is in itself classified
-
welp separation of powers talk, i'm zoning out for this one, sorry guyspic.twitter.com/a4MOpBONKs
-
now talking about pending 9th circuit stuff that would affect this case
-
now plaintiff is asking about the 0 issue.
-
(warrant canaries)
-
government says what they said about the 0 issue (warrant canaries) is not a concession, slightly flustered
-
but repeats what he said. Saying you've received 0 is not a problem. Warrant canaries good to go?
-
What's awesome* about this case is how the government keeps not being able to say stuff or describe stuff bc classification
-
and they don't even seem ashamed
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.