The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

A federal appeals court told Trump he couldn’t block users on Twitter, but he isn’t going to take no for an answer. He’s now appealed the decision to the entire 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the full court to reconsider the case.

In July, a three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs in the case had a First Amendment right to engage in speech — via Twitter — with Trump on Twitter, upholding an earlier district court decision. Though Trump’s Twitter handle, @realDonaldTrump, pre-dates his election, he uses it as a vehicle for official pronouncements, including announcing the firing of officials and imposing the ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Because of that, people have the right to interact with him, even if they disagree with him. Put another way, the government couldn’t ban a newspaper that was critical of Trump or stop someone from criticizing him by protesting outside one of his rallies because people have the right to criticize and protest. They even have the right to try to make sure the president himself is aware of those criticisms.

But Trump hates that idea. He wants his Twitter to be a place where he can air his grievances, bully others, and scream about fake news. But he can’t stand anyone talking back to him in anything but a flattering way.

Because of that, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is spending taxpayer money to argue, confusingly, that they must defend Trump’s Twitter account because his account “is his personal account and will remain his handle after he leaves office.”

This is called trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, the government is arguing that this is a matter of “exceptional importance” to the government — in other words, that they’re representing Trump in his official capacity as president. On the other hand, the very crux of their argument is that they need to represent Trump so he can keep his blocklist for his personal Twitter account once he’s no longer president.

The DOJ absurdly compared Twitter to Trump’s “personal residence” and argued that Trump could certainly block someone from his house, even if he gave official statements there.

Of course, Twitter is not a house. It’s a public platform, and it’s one that Trump is using for political communication. Trump has also called for Twitter to be more tightly regulated, making it more akin to a public utility like electric companies. That argument may come back to haunt him. It’s awful hard to say that on the one hand Twitter is a vehicle available to everyone and must be regulated to allow all viewpoints, and on the other hand, argue the president is so delicate he must be shielded from competing viewpoints.

In the end, this is just the behavior of a bully. Trump can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

Published with permission of The American Independent.


Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Supreme Court of the United States

YouTube Screenshot

A new analysis is explaining the disturbing circumstances surrounding the overturning of Roe v. Wade and how the U.S. Supreme Court has morphed into an entity actively working toward authoritarianism.

In a new op-ed published by The Guardian, Jill Filipovic —author of the book, The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness—offered an assessment of the message being sent with the Supreme Court's rollback of the 1973 landmark ruling.

Keep reading... Show less


YouTube Screenshot

After a year of reporting on the tax machinations of the ultrawealthy, ProPublica spotlights the top tax-avoidance techniques that provide massive benefits to billionaires.

Last June, drawing on the largest trove of confidential American tax data that’s ever been obtained, ProPublica launched a series of stories documenting the key ways the ultrawealthy avoid taxes, strategies that are largely unavailable to most taxpayers. To mark the first anniversary of the launch, we decided to assemble a quick summary of the techniques — all of which can generate tax savings on a massive scale — revealed in the series.

1. The Ultra Wealth Effect

Our first story unraveled how billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos were able to amass some of the largest fortunes in history while paying remarkably little tax relative to their immense wealth. They did it in part by avoiding selling off their vast holdings of stock. The U.S. system taxes income. Selling stock generates income, so they avoid income as the system defines it. Meanwhile, billionaires can tap into their wealth by borrowing against it. And borrowing isn’t taxable. (Buffett said he followed the law and preferred that his wealth go to charity; the others didn’t comment beyond a “?” from Musk.)

Keep reading... Show less
{{ }}