THREAD-HUGELY IMPORTANT: While without seeing the transcript, I can only be 99% sure, but I am 99% sure this is 100% FALSE. SO, journalists, and "jouralists" before retweeting or writing an article parroting this claim, READ. THIS. THREAD.
2/ Here's the lede. BUT what exactly did the attoney say? First, the reporters paraphrase and then the actual words:
3/ What the attorney said IS NOT--REPEAT--is NOT an admission that the DC Police used tear gas. And here it's important to understand both the law and court procedures: The DC Police Officers were sued and the Plaintiffs ALLEGED tear gas was used:
4/ Rather than answer the complaint (and deny using tear gas) and then allowing the lawsuit to continue, the D.C. Police Officers filed a motion to dismiss. And at the motion to dismiss stage the court MUST accept the allegations in the complaint as true:
5/ So 99% DC Police Officers' attorney did not admit tear gas was used, but instead, as the law required, proceeded as if it were true, arguing that even if true there was not constitutional violation OR if there were, it was not clearly established (i.e. qualified immunity).
6/ In fact, check out this footnote saying the allegations are unbelieveable, but okay, we'll accept them as true.
7/ Here's the D.C. Police's brief doing exactly that--assuming tear gas was used and arguing that still not a violation of the Plaintiffs' constitutional rights:
8/ Continuing & moving to qualified immunity:
9/ Now contrast the lede/Tweet versus the actual in-court quote. Did the DC Police admit using tear gas? 99% NO. But how many "journalists" will parrot the claim while mocking conservatives?
23/ Here's the Tweet with the reporter whose has the byline for the article:
24/ Yet another one:
25/ A related THREAD which corrects one point: D.C. Officials (as far as I can divine as of now), have never said they did NOT use tear gas outside Lafayette Park on June 1. I wrongly believed they had and thus had there been an admission, it would mean they had lied.
26/ But now I'm intrigued: Why have district officials REFUSED to answer that question and, if motion to dismiss is granted, will avoid being forced to answer it by a court????
Thought experiment: If Trump orders flight & pilots are obeying President & if judge lacks authority to enter injunction against Trump (he does), can pilots follow order of Trump subordinate who Court ordered to turn flight around, OVER President who gave order to fly? 1/
2/ This is why I said I see Article 2 being a bigger point than Alien Enemies Act because NO matter the analysis under Alien Enemies Act, pilots can't disobey order of President because subordinate tells them to because judge told subordinate to.
3/ Also why reinstating executive officials was nuts & creates constitutional crisis. THERE, court didn't order Trump to reinstate but said to other Board members/staff you MUST treat them as Board member. But what if Trump said to them "you must NOT treat them as Board member"
THREADETTE: Legacy media will undoubtedly frame this as Trump Administration ignore court order BUT that is not at all what order says. Two possibilities: 1) Planes had already landed in another country--then no violation at all OR 2) planes were in international air in which case
2/ Court would likely think in violation of TRO but a) if no jurisdiction, order is void so not ignoring it and could be no jurisdiction b/c no jurisdiction over habeas or no jurisdiction to order return once in international air or no jurisdiction to order Article II to return.
3/ OR appellate courts could well see this as a non-judicial political question which is not for a COURT to resolve. Watch for Judge to DEMAND Trump say if planes had landed, when, where, etc.
🚨OMgosh...Judge in Hamas supporter habeas case (Khalil) seemed to have clerk just scanning venue statute for basis to keep case b/c he just filed notice directing parties to brief totally inapplicable sections. You'd think 1 of Khalil ~20 attorneys would have thought of them! 1/
2/ 1404(a) provides allows FOR transfer...that would be a different court transferring to THIS judge. It isn't a basis to allow THIS judge to not transfer. And that only allows for transfer "where it might have been brought," Khalil's habeas WAS brought hear but could not be!
3/ Only thing I can think of is ridiculous argument that "well, it could have been brought here if his attorney filed it during the few hours Khalil was in this jurisdiction AND I entered an order preventing transfer. BUT that doesn't work either b/c that would require
3/ There are several reasons why the Motion should be denied, first being that there is no habeas petition properly pending before the court because habeas jurisdiction exists only in district where Defendant is physically present & he is not present in S.D. New York.
🚨THREAD: Earlier this week Judge Ali (judge who ordered Trump to pay some $2 billion in contracts w/i 36 hours to have that order stayed by Roberts & then told by court to be more clear on who to pay & reasonable on time), entered a preliminary injunction as noted below.1/
2/ At time, I said order was confusing & in part merely ordered Trump to comply with law, but nonetheless said I expected immediate appeal. Well, gov't has filed status report saying still deciding on whether to immediately appeal and/or seek stay. Why? B/c they don't
3/ read order as really tying their hands. As status report explains, they are reviewing and paying for past work and since they would be doing that any way, absent court enter a pay now order, Trump can just plod ahead.
2/ This was case Court held hearing on earlier today about the DEI clause in contracts. So will they need to execute contracts as is?storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…