@mattblaze Please don't give him ideas.
Conversation
Notices
-
murph :amiga: (murph@hackers.town)'s status on Monday, 10-Feb-2025 02:20:25 JST 
murph :amiga:
-
Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Feb-2025 02:20:27 JST 
Matt Blaze
The barring from federal property is also questionable. Will Trump next try to ban Democrats from national parks?
-
Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Feb-2025 02:20:28 JST
Matt Blaze
The revocations are obviously arbitrary - Trump essentially admits this was done for revenge - but they also raise some interesting issues. Security clearances are an executive branch concept, and (almost) no one has a "right" to access classified information. But defendants also have the right to counsel of their choosing, and the government should't be able to dictate who is allow to litigate against it or punish people for lawfully exercising their first amendment rights.
-
Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Feb-2025 02:20:29 JST
Matt Blaze
He also apparently barred them from entering federal property, including prosecutors' offices (where they might need to meet with opposing counsel), and perhaps even courthouses and congressional offices (even though those are different branches of government).
-
Matt Blaze (mattblaze@federate.social)'s status on Monday, 10-Feb-2025 02:20:30 JST
Matt Blaze
Buried in the avalanche of vengeful executive orders and executive social media posts is the fact that Trump has revoked the security clearances of several lawyers in private practice who specialize in national security cases (Mark Zaid, etc). No reasons given other than that he doesn't like positions they've taken or clients they represent (which, of course, is their job).
Especially if they represent criminal defendants, the 6th Amendment implications are interesting.
-
All ０７６萌ＳＮＳ content and data are available under the