This one should be a slam dunk, as long as the government argues that (some) tweets have the status of official pronouncement. (Also means itâs a crime to delete tweets.)
âIf the President does it, it isnât Illegalâ.
So, of course. As long as Trump is the one blocking them, itâs legal. How dare the Courts say otherwise?
How is the DOJ going to get any of its attorneys to write that appeal? Good luck with that.
Because Dear Leaderâs lack of right to block critics on Twitter is what we should be spending DOJ resources on.
Sorry Donny, your Twitter feed is an official presidential record. An incredibly embarrassing official presidential record the stupidity, venality, and corruption of which historians will marvel, but stillâŚ
Iâm glad DOJ is keeping its priorities in mind and definitely not frivolously spending tax dollars on stupid bullshit.
Clearly, this is what DOJ should be spending our resources on: attacking the First Amendment rights of political dissidents. Itâs just as the Founding Fathers imagined.
Justice Department attorney Michael Baer wrote in August 2017 that the case could prove to be harmful to the First Amendment and that dictating âthat a presidentâs choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter,â a private company, could âviolate the Constitution.â
The first amendment says that goverment may not interfere (with well known limits - yelling fire in crowded theatre) with the right of individuals to speak their minds freely.
Trump IS the fucking government, you idiot.
I guarantee you thereâs a slavering imbecile sycophant conservative attorney among the ranks who is chomping at the bit to get his hands on this in hopes of protecting and impressing his white Christian nationalist messiah.
Another instance where the wee tiny helper elf has an audience of exactly one.
BIngo. Any other A.G. would have told Trump that he canât violate the First Amendment to avoid having his feelings hurt. And make no mistake about it, this is a classic First Amendment violation - itâs a textbook example of prior restraint. Trump doesnât want to punish people for the consequences of what they post (the âshouting fireâ example) - he wants to prevent them posting from the get-go.
Youâre rightâand it will be a straight white male
The first amendment ensures that Americans have a right to âpetition the Government for a redress of grievancesâ. Given Trumpâs lâetat câest moi approach to governance, Trumpâs Twitter account has to fall into the category of âpetitionâ
Speaking of the wee helper elf:
He needs to speak to the elven shop steward.
They can tweet their appeal for all I care. OOops, only 280 characters allowed. Thatâs 140 more than theyâll need by trumpâs personal team of crackpot DOJ lawyers who have been ordered by Sessions to comply with the Dear Leaderâs request.
Canât wait for Donald J. Trump, Esq. to give his legal rationale. âEveryone knowsâ Don the Con also has a law degree from the Wharton School of Business and Law. Its right there in his book, The Art of The Steal.
When the fuck will this Barnum and Bailey shitshow of a presidency end?
His obsession with repeating the same shit over and over again has gone from simply annoying to pure bonkers. Thatâs a dangerous sign in some ways.
Heâs become the Perseverator in Chief. If only he could just wash his hands a hundred times a day instead, to get rid of his inner cooties.
The quote from the mother of one of the TX school shooting victims (I know, without a scorecard, itâs tough to keep your school shootings sorted out) is germaine:
She ⌠said Trump âkept mentioningâ arming classroom teachers. âIt was like talking to a toddlerâŚâ
Justice Department attorney Michael Baer wrote in August 2017 that the case could prove to be harmful to the First Amendment and that dictating âthat a presidentâs choices about whom to follow, and whom to block, on Twitter,â a private company, could âviolate the Constitution.â
I am greatly confused.
Denying the President the right to prevent comments on his public forum official document Twitter account is a violation of the Constitution?
Oh, the Russian constitution. Sorry, I forgot.
Heâs confessing to obstructing justice. Heâs saying he would have picked someone else, in hindsight, who would have killed the Russia probe.
So we should be suing to garnish the Dixie Pixieâs salary for this blatant attempt of sucking up to LâOrange?