![]() ![]() Here they claim the “record is replete” with information like what they seek from Psaki, insinuating that the Plaintiffs have enough government officials pressuring and threatening social media companies to censor Americans’ speech-they wouldn’t need MORE. They use the 5th circuit decision and make sure the judge knows what it said, but again, the record was incorrectly reviewed in the decision. Of course, defendants don’t believe discovery of Psaki is necessary AT ALL, let alone in an expedited manner. It’s “aging” because the government delayed, obfuscated, refused, stamped their feet, screamed, appealed, and threw tantrums the ENTIRE TIME. I am only adding this to show you how malicious they truly are they cite here the plaintiffs “aging preliminary-injunction motion.” If he doesn’t, it should order them to amend their previous responses to questions they have already been asked. ![]() The government states that the judge should decline to extend the expedited discovery period. This judge doesn’t deal well with these tactics. They are leaving out a few key statements from the 5th about the case to shift the narrative their way. None of what they are saying here is accurate, even though they accurately portray what the 5th circuit said. We will see a lot of why that is later on. The court ordered the parties to file regarding the stay that the 5th circuit placed on the Psaki deposition, a deposition they are trying desperately to avoid. The defendants (the government) filed this today. The 5th erred in their interpretation of the record. The government brought the case to the 5th circuit, which again sent it back to the district court to re-evaluate taking the deposition of lower-level officials. ![]() We previously discussed the deposition (or lack thereof) of Jen Psaki. Every single point in this article is important. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |