I will spend the first part of tomorrow's Twitch livestream talking about the Big Lie that Jordan is pushing here - the one that the Republicans seem to have congealed around - that Trump lost because states acted "unconstitutionally."
That argument is hot garbage. It is a lie being peddled by lying liars who are using that lie in an ongoing assault on our Democracy.

But it is proving to be a persistent lie.
It's one I've seen everywhere from family members on Facebook to garbage legal filings like the one that Texas spewed at the Supreme Court to the Halls of Congress.

It's also, fortunately, one that should be relatively easy to discuss.
That will be the first part of tomorrow's lawsplaining stream, starting at 7:30 Central, at twitch.tv/questauthority.

If you have specific questions about this particular lie, please feel free to leave them in the comments here.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Dunford

Mike Dunford Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @questauthority

14 Jan
Wow - skimmed Parler's reply in their "case" against Amazon. Entire platoons of clowns must be searching for their missing shoes, because Parler's one lawyer is wearing all of them at the same time.
I'm basing that on the part of the reply that touches on the section 230 defense Amazon raised.

To refresh your recollection, Amazon argued that they were immune under 230(c)(2) - which I've included here as a screenshot along with Amazon's argument. ImageImage
In reply, Parler seems to mostly argue that Amazon isn't immune because they're not being treated as a publisher or speaker. That is, sadly for Parler, what 230(c)(1) says, not 230(c)(2).

Amazon didn't mention (c)(1). Image
Read 7 tweets
13 Jan
So a couple of things:
1: This is, it appears a pro se complaint from the same plaintiff that sued Twitch for $25 mil over the summer because he allegedly sustained injury from - how should I put this - repetitively engaging in very solo recreating while watching streams.
2: I'd like to sleep this week, so I'm not going to livetweet this tonight. (Sorry, @wolmanj) But I did skim it.

3: It's every bit as totally off-the-rails-insane as one would expect from a pro se complaint of this nature.
4: That said, the plaintiff did find and attempt to argue (badly, but the attempt was at least made) both Marsh v Alabama and Pruneyard Shopping Center. That alone puts the quality of legal argumentation in this case miles ahead of literally anything Team Kraken produced.
Read 4 tweets
13 Jan
Guess what! It's PACER billing day!!

As I mentioned last week, court filings aren't free. They should be, but they're not. I've had to buy quite a few of the election filings I've livetweeted - over 2,000 pages at $0.10 per page this quarter, the vast majority election-related.
Some of you have offered to help out, which is wonderful, but I'm really in a place where I'm fortunate enough to be able to absorb the expense. So let's see if we can turn this to some good instead.
Usually I suggest that people donate to their local food bank, but I'd like to do something different this time. If you've benefitted from reading the court filings, please consider donating to @FreeLawProject - which works to make it possible for people to read them for free.
Read 5 tweets
13 Jan
Litigation update: Parler

Although proof of service has yet to be filed, Amazon filed their response to Parler's motion for a temporary restraining order. It's short and looks like it's a "take no prisoners" approach, at least based on the 1st paragraph.

courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
And when I say "take no prisoners" I'm not kidding. Image
If Amazon can prove what they say in this paragraph, it is extremely likely (given the AWS terms of service) that Parler winds up paying not just the solo they hired, but also Davis Wright Tremaine. Image
Read 32 tweets
11 Jan
OK, I've got to get some work done today, so there's no way I can do a full livetweet on this stuff. But I have skimmed through everything relevant on the docket, and I can give a quick overview of where things stand.

courtlistener.com/docket/2909551…
1: Parler has, as its champion in this life-and-death struggle, retained the services of *checks notes* a lawyer who appears to be a small solo practitioner who does not specialize in emergency anti-trust litigation.
Read 9 tweets
11 Jan
CPT Rainey was already leaving the Army after receiving a letter of reprimand due to earlier antics. And I read a thing she wrote about what political actions you can (under her view of the law) take part in.

My level of confidence she was "doing everything right" ain't high.
The link in the Tweet below provides CPT Rainey's take on the military's regulations on partisan speech. I've had reason to take a close look at these regulations before. They are territory where non-lawyers should fear to tread.

CPT Rainey treads this ground fearlessly, despite her apparent lack of legal education. As to her skill level in navigating this ground, permit me to draw your attention to these two screenshots - one from her take, one from the actual regulation.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!