But they are not actually destroying government records, they are just removing them from view. If someone does a FOIA request, the tweets will be there.
Oh sure, we'll just take everything the government has ever said ever, scrub it from all public records, and put it somewhere in display at the local planning office in Alpha Centauri. That's totally "keeping the records".
"We kept them, there's all in that rocket orbiting the sun, you can go get them whenever you want."
I mean....this is how most government records work. You want a government official's emails? You have to do a FOIA request.
My main point is that I don't think Twitter is breaking the law because there is no way the tweets have been "destroyed" as the law mentions. Nothing is destroyed.
No, not even close. Most government records are not scrubbed from the public sphere.
That has never happened, and is absolutely not how most government records works.
Government records like emails? Judicial Watch spent years getting Hillary Clinton's emails. The law says that they cannot be DESTROYED. Banning a Twitter account does not destroy any records.
They deleted the entire account, making all data unavailable in a way that IS entirely illegal. All communications of the president are considered to be official. Silicon valley dweebs can't decide to erase them. Well.. They can, but they'll pay the price for doing so.
However, you're also ignoring the fact that “no records.exist“ response for Seth rich.until, what, 2 months ago, then 20k show up?
Deleted does not, as you say, mean destroyed or unrecoverable. However, it does put up a layer of defense to pretend that the deletes weren't soft, or that snapshots.don't exist, or that there's not months of incrementals that can be restored.
Why are they downvoting you? You made the point they will use in their legal defense. It’s not fair, but it’s what they will probably say (if they have too).
But they are not actually destroying government records, they are just removing them from view. If someone does a FOIA request, the tweets will be there.
what you just did there...
is called a 'weasel'
A wREEEEasel
^^ Found @Jack
Jack goes the weasel
Okay, now hang him! In minecraft, sheesh. Hey FBI.
Oh sure, we'll just take everything the government has ever said ever, scrub it from all public records, and put it somewhere in display at the local planning office in Alpha Centauri. That's totally "keeping the records".
"We kept them, there's all in that rocket orbiting the sun, you can go get them whenever you want."
Oh For Heaven's Sake mankind it's only four light-years away you know
I mean....this is how most government records work. You want a government official's emails? You have to do a FOIA request.
My main point is that I don't think Twitter is breaking the law because there is no way the tweets have been "destroyed" as the law mentions. Nothing is destroyed.
No, not even close. Most government records are not scrubbed from the public sphere. That has never happened, and is absolutely not how most government records works.
Edit: Also, eat a dick, gab has everything. XD
Government records like emails? Judicial Watch spent years getting Hillary Clinton's emails. The law says that they cannot be DESTROYED. Banning a Twitter account does not destroy any records.
They deleted the entire account, making all data unavailable in a way that IS entirely illegal. All communications of the president are considered to be official. Silicon valley dweebs can't decide to erase them. Well.. They can, but they'll pay the price for doing so.
Let’s FOIA request them.
FAFO Request please
I'm a software engineer. Nothing was deleted. Everything is still in the database.
Yes, most deletes are soft.
However, you're also ignoring the fact that “no records.exist“ response for Seth rich.until, what, 2 months ago, then 20k show up?
Deleted does not, as you say, mean destroyed or unrecoverable. However, it does put up a layer of defense to pretend that the deletes weren't soft, or that snapshots.don't exist, or that there's not months of incrementals that can be restored.
Your argument hinges on specifics and not intent.
With Seth Rich, they didn't commit a crime of destroying government records. They just lied about them existing.
To amend section 2201 of title 44, United States Code, to require the preservation of Presidential social media accounts, and for other purposes.
Deleting the account and banning the president from accessing it is a violation of COVFEFE.
Why are they downvoting you? You made the point they will use in their legal defense. It’s not fair, but it’s what they will probably say (if they have too).