Short Thread: I keep thinking about the fact that @gibsondunn attorney Ted Olson is representing @CNN in this 1st amendment case involving @Acosta vs. the WH. Ted is a well-known long-time establishment Republican who has been w Gibson Dunn forever & who led & won Bush v. Gore./1
@gibsondunn @CNN @Acosta Ted likes to take on big cases, and certainly this is that in terms of the 1st amendment. But Ted’s Gibson Dunn colleague @BoutrousTed is more specifically a renowned 1st amendment lawyer at the firm & nationally. Which leads me to think that Olson handling it (over Boutrous) /2
@gibsondunn @CNN @Acosta @BoutrousTed Has greater significance or meaning. To have one of the top 3 premier establishment Republican attorneys in the country lead the case against the White House sends a glaringly loud message: not just to the WH, but to the Republican Party as a whole, that this badge revocation /3
@gibsondunn @CNN @Acosta @BoutrousTed Nonsense has raised a red flag. Here is a reasonable, long-time DC Republican top top top lawyer saying NO to the WH on and on behalf of - of all the networks - CNN. Maybe Boutrous the usual 1st amendment expert was too busy to lead this, so Olson has it. But I think it’s more /4
@gibsondunn @CNN @Acosta @BoutrousTed Than a matter of scheduling availability. I think that Olson & Gibson Dunn are sending a strategic message, & this isn’t the first time. Gibson Dunn also had refused to represent the POTUS previously. Just spitballing but I’ve been thinking all day it was a bold statement. 🤷🏻♀️ END
