What a pile of crap:

“A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.

She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact…”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...cal-views-judge.html

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
What a pile of crap:

“A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.

She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact…”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...cal-views-judge.html

I'm sure Obama was treated equally, NOT.

Huh, I'll be damned. Now try focusing on the bigger picture and things that effect the country as a whole. You know, things that really matter to most people.



Caitlyn Jenner calls Trump 'worst president' on LGBT issues, says she won't support his re-election


http://www.foxnews.com/enterta...his-re-election.html

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
What a pile of crap:

“A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.

She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact…”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...cal-views-judge.html

How does it work?

Does he have to read them?

Does it clog up the feed or something?

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
What a pile of crap:

“A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I'm not so sure I disagree with that. After all, as the President of the United States, doesn't he represent the government? Especially since a great majority of his tweets deal with government and public matters?

Oh, my, yes. It's not as if there are countless people who hate the man and who are now being told that they can screw with him with impunity.

This is further evidence that people will stop at nothing with their chronic tantrum. How does being fucked with on Twitter help the President and help the country? Did Barack Obama have to put up with shit online?

I haven't yet read the opinion to know if it is reasonable or not (doesn't seem right from what I have heard so far), but I will say that it shall be amusing to apply it. Most of our favorite progressive politicians - including Schumer, Pelosi, Ellison and Sanders -have blocked conservative personalities from their twitter accounts. It will be nice to see those blocks removed as well. Good for the goose and all....

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
What a pile of crap:

“A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that President Donald Trump may not legally block Twitter users because doing so violates their right to free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Buchwald agreed with the plaintiffs' contention that the discussions arising from Trump's tweets should be considered a public forum.

She rejected an argument made by Justice Department lawyers that Trump's own First Amendment rights allowed him to block people with whom he did not wish to interact…”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...cal-views-judge.html

How does it work?

Does he have to read them?

Does it clog up the feed or something?

I don’t have a Twitter account, but I think an account holder can block specific individuals from posting on his Twitter feed. Except President Trump can’t – now.

Now leftists will be flooding his Twitter feed, making it nearly useless for anyone attempting to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
It will be nice to see those blocks removed as well. Good for the goose and all....

Absolutely.

A Constitutional Right to be heard on twitter.

It would seem any public official would have the same Twitter Blocking restrictions?

So that means twitter cant shadow ban conservatives. Excellent.

It’ll be interesting to see if the ban on President Trump’s Twitter blockings can be enforced.

Twitter can modify his account to prevent blocking.

Wouldn't the Twitter User Agreement be the controlling document here? Not some left-wing nutjob judge in New York?? I don't know the first damned thing about Twattle, nor do I care to, so I could be talking out of my sphincter...

What’s next? Does he have to open his windows so he can hear what’s being said to him from Lafayette Square (across Pennsylvania Avenue)?

The judge isn't doing anything radical and it's not even a close argument that it is.

This comes up rather frequently where local city council members or Board of Supervisors have their Twitter accounts constantly and routinely clogged with people who hate them posting stuff just to post it and the politicos don't want the trolling to be posted on their account.

So some politicians have started deleting the tweets leaving only the favorable ones. That's where the judge is coming from when she issued her ruling.

A politician cannot hold open a means of communication on a particular topic with the public where only favorable comments are allowed to be posted. In essence, a politician, once he invites public comment, cannot limit it to just good things because that's a 1st Amendment violation. The same rule applies to the internet as other means of communication.

Trump's handlers can offer tweaks such as deleting some defined classes of posts and a few other things as a work around.

Remember this isn't a Trump thing because there are trolls who post on Democrat and Republican Twitter accounts just to fill them up and Democrats want to delete them as bad as Republicans.

Newspaper web sites and blogs generally have restrictions on what one can post in their comment sections. No vulgarity, hate speech etc. same with Twitter accounts perhaps? So what Trump will use it against them anyhow by retweeting all the stupid shit and hateful things the loonies will surely post for everyone to see the idiocy.

http://thehill.com/opinion/whi...-rod-rosenstein-made

Steven G. Calabresi is a co-author of “The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush” and the Clayton J. & Henry R. Barber Professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Many liberals and critics are under the mistaken belief that President Trump is violating the rule of law and civil liberties by criticizing the Robert Mueller investigation and by ordering the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate whether or not the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign. In fact, the president is behaving totally lawfully, and it is Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who are acting unconstitutionally and who are violating Trump’s civil liberties.

Presidents George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson all gave orders to federal prosecutors to bring prosecutions, and Jefferson ordered a prosecution stopped. President Trump is entirely within his rights to ask the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate whether the Obama administration got the FBI to spy on Trump’s campaign.


I’ve explained in previous writings why Robert Mueller’s appointment is unconstitutional under Chief Justice Rehnquist’s majority opinion in Morrison v. Olson. The basic problem is that Mueller is more powerful and famous than are any of the 96 U.S. attorneys, but unlike them he was never nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

In this investigation, Mueller is not acting like an assistant U.S. attorney who is an inferior officer. He is instead acting like a U.S. attorney, who is a principal officer and who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The unconstitutionality of Mueller’s appointment renders everything he has done since May 17, 2017, unconstitutional as well. This includes obtaining a log of calls by President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, and his referral of Cohen to the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. Both the logging and the referral are examples of what the Supreme Court calls the fruit of a poisonous tree.

When an official uses government power in an unconstitutional way, anything that results from it is subject to the exclusionary rule and is not admissible in court. Since the investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York was started due to an arguably unconstitutional call log that violates both the Appointments Clause and attorney-client privilege, the federal courts should hold that any prosecutions that result of Cohen or anyone else that grew out of the Mueller referral are unconstitutional and null and void.

Moreover, Mueller’s prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in Virginia is unconstitutional even if some of his prosecutors have special status as members of the relevant U.S. Attorney’s office in that state. Their actions are under Mueller’s supervision. Because of Mueller’s unconstitutional appointment as special counsel, the raid of Manafort’s house is also the fruit of a poisonous tree.

Deputy Attorney General’s Rod Rosenstein’s refusing to make public his full order appointing Mueller and defining the scope of Mueller’s investigation calls to mind the secret trials of the Court of Star Chamber in England, which has been justifiably reviled since its abolition in 1641.

I am not aware of any prior deputy attorney general of the United States who has made as big and as consequential a mistake as has Rosenstein in his appointment of Robert Mueller. Not only has he violated Trump’s civil liberties and the rule of law by unconstitutionally giving Robert Mueller the powers of a principal officer without Mueller’s having been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, he has undermined in the American people’s eyes the integrity of the Justice Department itself.

Calebresi (Steven, not Guido) is one of the founders of the Federalist Society. Mark Levin has picked up on his analysis and conclusion that Mueller's appointment is unconstitutional, and is trumpeting it as loudly as he can. Which given Levin, is pretty loud.

Jared Kushner has finally received his Top Secret/SCI-level permanent clearance.

https://hotair.com/archives/20...rity-clearance-back/

Mark S. Zaid, a veteran Washington lawyer who handles security clearances, said it was highly unlikely that the special counsel would uncover evidence of improper foreign entanglements and not flag it for security officials.

“If I were Jared Kushner, I’d be sighing a breath of relief today,” Mr. Zaid said.