It's amazing: I'm listening to this #DCCircuit argument in the NARA case, and Donald Trump's lawyers seem to be arguing the case as though their client is not the incumbent president.
Almost like that whole thing about Trump's being restored to office in August wasn't true.
They are even using the words "incumbent president" to refer to Joe Biden.
I think Trump just conceded the election in court.
I wonder if he knows.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
.@anneapplebaum has done more to educate the English-speaking world about the mass crimes of the Soviet Union than any other writer of her generation. Not since Robert Conquest has there been a more important contribution, and unlike Conquest, who couldn’t write, Anne can.
Her book “Gulag” remains the single most important single volume of its kind. Here’s a story about Anne, John McCain and the book party for “Gulag” back when Poland still represented proudly democratic values.
Whenever I speak about Section 230, I always use the chat site Omegle as the prototype of a site that should not be immune for third-party posted content. I am so glad *someone*--the redoubtable @cagoldberglaw--is finally testing whether 230 really protects Omegle.
I have my doubts that this suit will survive a motion to dismiss under current law. But if you can read it without seething rage, and an overpowering sense that it *should* survive such a motion, I would love to hear a coherent argument that what Omegle...
…other haters on their toes, I try to keep a stream of new dog shirts coming on the show—a stream of ever-escalating offensiveness to the anti-dog-shirt aesthetic.
I was bouncing dog shirt ideas off of @eve_gaumond (who is a young AI scholar you should follow). We both…
Good question. Answer: No.
We did not publish it.
We made sure it was in appropriate hands. (It is a matter of public record that I gave it to Jim Comey after he already had it.)
And we published a VERY cautious piece on @lawfareblog about it when it became public.