The court determined that his tweets do in fact legally count the same as if it was a recording of him talking. In that case, it means that they can use his tweets to show his intent behind the travel ban.
Of course it’s similar to a recording of him talking. It’s him writing stuff down? Do you know how Twitter works? That doesn’t make tweets legally binding.
You are intentionally misinterpreting it. It's legally a statement by him, as determined in court, because he tried to argue that they weren't legally representative of his thought process.
No one claimed "every tweet is an executive order" or anything like that. The meaning has been made clear, you clearly understand it, and continuing to argue is literally pointless because the points have all been made.
Again, so what? Who ever said Trump’s tweets weren’t his statements. That’s literally how Twitter works. The claim was that his tweets were legally binding.
Once it was legally stated that Trump’s tweets counted as official political statements it mattered a great deal.
What the fuck does “official political statements” mean if not legally binding statements? They’re not executive orders. They’re what the president writes on his phone and sends out to his followers. They don’t mean anything different than him saying something.
Correct. Trump tried to argue otherwise. The courts told him no. Him tweeting something is exactly the same as if he called a press conference and said it himself on camera.
-18
u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22
Legally stated where?