REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Remember the Twitter Files?
- Thread starter $kully
- Start date
The same way I characterize the fact that Fox News lawyers argued in court that nothing Tucker Carlson ever said on his show was truthful and was intended solely for entertainment and it was the fault of his idiotic viewers (you!) for believing him and won.
From the article…..
”“Nothing in the new materials shows any governmental actor compelling or even discussing any content-moderation action with respect to Trump” and others participating in the suit, Twitter argued.”
So you’re basically siding with Trump in the assertion that he didn’t do anything illegal re: Twitter.
Also, this is a lawyer arguing in court to protect his client.
”Even as the filing undercuts Musk’s effort to portray the Twitter Files as a smoking gun, the filing may still work to his benefit because, if successful, it may save Twitter from a costly re-litigation…”
All it refutes is the handling Biden laptop story, which is in the middle of a larger legal shitstorm, so of course they are doing damage control.
Some of you don’t understand how legal arguments are sometimes made.
Let’s take the SCOTUS case on Obama Care.
There were two separate questions.
One was that because the mandate was essentially a tax and tax laws must originate in the House of Reps, Obamacare was unconstitutional because the law originated in the senate.
The other was that the mandate was unconstitutional because the government couldn’t force people to buy a product.
On the first question it was argued successfully that obamacare was not a tax so it’s origination in the senate passed muster.
Then on the second question it was argued successfully that the Obamacare mandate was in fact a tax, and since the federal government has the power to impose taxes the law could stand.
Same lawyers, same court, same case.
Not a tax, so it’s ok.
Is a tax, so it’s ok.
In reality it can’t be both. In the legal system it can.
Let’s take the SCOTUS case on Obama Care.
There were two separate questions.
One was that because the mandate was essentially a tax and tax laws must originate in the House of Reps, Obamacare was unconstitutional because the law originated in the senate.
The other was that the mandate was unconstitutional because the government couldn’t force people to buy a product.
On the first question it was argued successfully that obamacare was not a tax so it’s origination in the senate passed muster.
Then on the second question it was argued successfully that the Obamacare mandate was in fact a tax, and since the federal government has the power to impose taxes the law could stand.
Same lawyers, same court, same case.
Not a tax, so it’s ok.
Is a tax, so it’s ok.
In reality it can’t be both. In the legal system it can.
i don’t think anyone but Trumptards alleges Twitter did anything illegal, period. Same goes for Trump, Biden, Fauci, the FBI etc.