The Second Circuit seemed skeptical:
He had blocked many critics from his account, which prevents them from directly responding to his tweets.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled last May that this violated the users’ First Amendment rights, prompting Trump to unblock at least some of these accounts. The decision came in a lawsuit brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and several Twitter users.
A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, arguing for the president on Tuesday, urged three judges of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan to overturn Buchwald’s decision.
While Trump does use his Twitter account for government business, it was not a public forum, the attorney, Jennifer Utrecht, told the judges.
When Judge Barrington Parker asked why blocking users for their political views did not violate the First Amendment, Utrecht said blocking was akin to Trump walking away from a person trying to talk to him on the street.
The judges had fewer questions for Jameel Jaffer, the lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Jaffer said that although Twitter is a private platform, Trump was effectively inviting the public to participate in an open forum by using it for government purposes.
“The whole point of Twitter is to facilitate interactions between users,” Jaffer said.
Could this President, while facing an obstruction investigation, appoint an AG who wrote an unsolicited memo that there was no obstruction? Go figure.
ReplyDelete951
DeleteRather than whining like a little child and impugning the integrity of anyone who disagrees with you, why dont go through each of the elements of whatever obstruction charge you imagine is appropriate, and explain what evidence supports each of the elements. Of course, take into consideration that there was no collusion, and also presidential authority under article 2. Looking forward to your response!
I saw today that President Trump said the GOP is the party of healthcare.
ReplyDelete2:36 - MAGA Please!!
ReplyDeleteHere is just one of MANY:
Junior and members of Trump 2016 met with Russian operatives at Trump Tower to talk about alleged dirt Russians had on Hillary. When investigators looking into possible collusion asked Junior what the meeting was about, Trump Sr. authored a letter instruction Junior to say that the meeting was about adoptions (that stable genius!).
Trump thus corruptly persuaded another person to provide misleading information to hinder, delay or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3).
Oh yeah, and then later Trump lied about what he had done.
Let's see, Trump Tower, hmmm. I believe that is S.D.N.Y.
To 921 from your friend 236:
DeleteSince you are clearly not a lawyer, i give you an A for effort. Much, much better post.
Keep the faith!
The defunding of Special Olympics is a nice touch.
ReplyDelete2:46
ReplyDeleteSounds like a concession of Trump's obvious guilt.
854
DeleteAlright, ill take the bait.
As far as I'm concerned, the infamous trump tower meeting is a nothingburger. People like you (met with "russian operatives") and the media love to hype up the meeting like its treason. I respectfully disagree. At its core, what we are talking about is the *receipt* of negative information from foreigners. Im totally against *trading* negative information from foreigners in exchange for policy concessions, but we are just talking about the *receipt* of information. Remember, the trump camp had reason to belive Clinton was dirty (she almost got indicted for fraud in whitewater) and she was running for president. If there really was highly damaging dirt, didnt the american people have a right to know about it? Thats the way id have viewed it if i was in a political campaign and was convinced my opponent was dirty.
Take a counterexample. Clinton thru intermediaries *purchased* dirt, some of it categorically false, directly from russians in russia (the steele dossier), and then peddled the false info to the media in an effort to dirty up trump. If you think *receipt* of info from a russian lobbyist with "connections to the kremlin" in NYC is treason, what is your view on *purchasing* dirt from russians in russia? Also treason? I think both are more accurately categorized as "politics as usual."
Trump tried to create a false narrative about the purpose of the meeting? Sorry im underwhelmed. Unfortunately lying to the media is entirely normal behavior for almost all politicians, and is not criminal. While it would be a crime to direct trump jr to lie to congress or law enforcement, there is simply no evidence he did that.
Keep the faith!
People are saying very strongly that he's guilty.
ReplyDeleteLying to the media? No.
ReplyDeleteYou have been watching too much foxandfriends.
The purpose of the meeting is really not that important.
The two important things:
1) The meeting was part of a federal investigation.
2) Trump told Junior to lie to investigators about the meeting. And yes, there is evidence of that.
That's obstruction of justice.
And here I thought the effect of the Kool Aid wearing off. You must have had an extra helping recently.