3 ms·

I would imagine the government's case will center around a small number of tweets which they will claim "leaked" confidential information. If they can show pro

I would imagine the government's case will center around a small number of tweets which they will claim "leaked" confidential information. If they can show probable cause that the owner of the account broke federal law, they have legal grounds to demand Twitter release his information. But unless he has released classified information via the account, I'm not sure what law they'll be able to allege he violated.

Steko 10y ago
Except this isn't supposed to be investigating a leak, they're using a tool designed to ensure proper tax on imports.
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  19 USC 1509 has a catchall that extends the SHS's authority to compel documents to "insuring compliance with the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service." [1] It's definitely a stretch. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> If they can show probable cause that the owner of the account broke federal law, they have legal grounds to demand Twitter release his information. They have a legal mechanism, too. It's called a subpoena. If I understand correctly, they didn't use that here.
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  Subpoenas are only available for investigations pertaining to an open court case.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Then file one. Look, I care about limiting the power of the Federal government to the parameters outlined in the law and the Constitution. I do not care how hard that makes their lives. I do not care that it crimps their ability to go get any information that they want. They have rules that their supposed to follow. If they want the information, they should go follow them.
  - thedufer 10y ago
    It isn't that hard to open a court case with a TBD defendant. If the USG thought they could get a subpoena, I have every faith that they could have figured it out.
clarkcox3 10y ago
If they could show probable cause, then they'd already have a warrant. They don't.

Steko 10y ago

Except this isn't supposed to be investigating a leak, they're using a tool designed to ensure proper tax on imports.

gingerbread-man 10y ago
19 USC 1509 has a catchall that extends the SHS's authority to compel documents to "insuring compliance with the laws of the United States administered by the United States Customs Service." [1] It's definitely a stretch. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1509

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> If they can show probable cause that the owner of the account broke federal law, they have legal grounds to demand Twitter release his information. They have a legal mechanism, too. It's called a subpoena. If I understand correctly, they didn't use that here.

gingerbread-man 10y ago
Subpoenas are only available for investigations pertaining to an open court case.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Then file one. Look, I care about limiting the power of the Federal government to the parameters outlined in the law and the Constitution. I do not care how hard that makes their lives. I do not care that it crimps their ability to go get any information that they want. They have rules that their supposed to follow. If they want the information, they should go follow them.
- thedufer 10y ago
  It isn't that hard to open a court case with a TBD defendant. If the USG thought they could get a subpoena, I have every faith that they could have figured it out.

clarkcox3 10y ago

If they could show probable cause, then they'd already have a warrant. They don't.