Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked Sept. 7, 2022

Created

Mon Sep 05 20:35:14 +0000 2022

Likes

750

Retweets

131

Source

Twitter Web App

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

19/ So yes, perhaps inadvisedly, DOJ electively—not by judicial fiat—adopted some controversial rules designed to protect voters by protecting *active candidates* from certain actions in the run-up to an election those candidates are running in. This has nothing to do with Trump. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 5, 2022

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

18/ Even when Barr expanded these rules in a thoroughly corrupt way, it (a) was unilaterally and so recently it’s hardly a clear precedent, and (b) was intended to protect *anyone associated with a current campaign*, rather than an ex-president who is *pointedly* not a candidate. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 5, 2022

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

20/ And to be clear, even if a judge thought DOJ’s new rules involving elections were *wise* and *just*, this wouldn’t be the same thing as institutionalizing them by judicial fiat. (And need we add that every Trump voter *opposed* such DOJ rules when it was Hillary under probe?) — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Sept. 5, 2022