I'm not sure how that logic works.
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
https://t.co/IKpBkDzahB
Trump's "lawyers" have said they only need one day (tomorrow) to defend Trump.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 11, 2021
My guesses for what they'll do:
Distract, lie, distort, and deflect.
1/11
Of course, he also referred to "incitement to resurrection," so it's hard to say.
There is no "due process" consideration in either a grand jury or a House Impeachment. That's not how it works. It's like saying you can't checkmate someone in chess without holding a straight flush.
https://t.co/KyCcL1HyOK
Schoen is pretending courtroom "due process" must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
More from Law
High crime talk from Fredo
VA curfew
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
March
The #TexasCase has them terrified.
— Major Patriot (@MajorPatriot) December 10, 2020
They are losing it.#CNN pic.twitter.com/FtdWKIXBlB
VA curfew
#BREAKING: Virginia will implement a statewide curfew from midnight to 5 a.m. starting on Dec. 14. Here's what else is changing for Virginians.https://t.co/cH4jdCOZgt
— WUSA9 (@wusa9) December 10, 2020
Sen. Grassley - Biden family investigated, potential financial crimes WW including China
Warning
— Dan Scavino\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985 (@DanScavino) December 11, 2020
March
@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan
Wisconsin
Georgia
Arizona
Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
The Michigan case in the US Supreme Court originally filed by Sidney Powell and Lin Wood was just distributed today for Conference on 02/19/2021!
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Feb 03 2021 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. https://t.co/jZO624pf7j
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin case in the US Supreme Court is also
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
distributed for Conference on 02/19/2021!https://t.co/zkpTubcG1C
Georgia
This Georgia case, originally filed by Lin Wood, is alo distributed for conference on February 21, 2021!https://t.co/l7j43v5pfD
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Arizona
This Arizona case is also distributed for conference on Febraury 21, 2021!https://t.co/56g1Fphg2l
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
Another Pennsylvania case distributed for conference February 21, 2021.
— Truth (@1foreverseeking) February 4, 2021
Filed by a Republican Congressman who lost his seat because PA Republican Legislature illegally created a mail in ballot law October, 2019, against the Constitution of PA.https://t.co/RYJE6ENZGk
I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25
One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/
So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/
So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/
Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/
You May Also Like
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
