DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him

from the how's-that-work-again? dept

Investigative reporter/FOIA terrorist Jason Leopold has been suing the US government for a while now, trying to get access to the full Robert Mueller special counsel report investigating President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. While a version of the report has been released, it was heavily redacted, sometimes in important areas. Leopold and Buzzfeed are seeking the report along with additional interview details, emails, memos, letters, and charts used by Mueller’s office in preparing it. Not surprisingly, the DOJ has been fighting this.

Then, on October 6th, Trump announced on Twitter (naturally) that he had “fully authorized the total declassification of any & all documents” regarding the investigation:

About 40 minutes later, he tweeted that “all Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly”:

That put the DOJ in a bit of a bind, because it had been saying in the lawsuit that it couldn’t reveal this classified information. Leopold and his lawyers quickly filed an emergency motion, pointing out that the President had now declassified this information, and thus the DOJ no longer had any excuse to withhold it:

On October 6, 2020, the President of the United States directed that all documents pertaining to investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which includes the Mueller investigation, be released to the public, and stated that he had, in fact, previously ordered this be done. Twitter, @realDonaldTrump, Oct. 6, 2020 at 8:41pm (?I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!?); Twitter, @realDonaldTrump, Oct. 6, 2020 at 9:21pm (?All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago. Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country. Act!!!?) (attached as Group Exhibit A). As a result, (1) Exemption 1 no longer applies because the records are no longer classified, and (2) any FOIA exemptions have been waived with the exception of disclosures prohibited by the Privacy Act, Rule 6(e), or other statutes that prohibit release.

As a result, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the government to reprocess the 302s to remove all redactions or withholdings based on Exemption 1 or any discretionary exemptions like Exemption 5, by October 28, 2020. This should be a simple process that requires no independent analysis or consultation beyond simply reviewing which exemptions were asserted and removing the applicable redactions based solely on which exemption claimed.

It should be noted here (and this is kind of important) that the President of the United States has total freedom to declassify anything on his own whims at any time. And these tweets sure looked like him doing exactly that.

The DOJ has now decided to pretend that the statements from the President are not actually official statements from the President. In its opposition to Leopold’s filing as well as the declaration in support, they argue that the President’s tweets insisting that he is declassifying everything don’t mean jack squat.

There is no basis to require the Federal Bureau of Investigation (?FBI?) to reprocess over 4,000 pages of FD-302s from the Special Counsel?s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election by October 28. The President?s recent statements on Twitter referencing the ?declassification? of information were not an order to the Department of Justice (the ?Department? or ?DOJ?) to declassify the materials in this case…. The Twitter statements do not constitute a self-executing declassification order. …

Oh really? The declaration from the Deputy Attorney General Bradley Weinsheimer basically says that White House lawyers told them to ignore the tweets.

As concerns the above-referenced tweets from the President, the Department has not received a declassification order from the President related to the materials at issue in this or any other FOIA case. After the President issued his statements on Twitter, I and other Department officials consulted with the White House Counsel’s Office about the matters discussed in those statements, including potential declassification of documents related to the Russia Investigation and Hillary Clinton’s emails, and whether the Twitter statements were meant as an order to alter any redactions that have already been taken on any materials in this case and other FOIA cases. The purpose of this consultation was to obtain the official position of the White House regarding the meaning and effect of the President’s statements.

In other words, the DOJ is saying that it can’t actually follow the plain language of the President’s own tweets, and must check with the White House’s lawyers to ask “did he really mean that?”

The White House Counsel’s Office informed the Department that there is no order requiring wholesale declassification or disclosure of documents at issue in this matter. The Department was further informed that the President’s statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not required the declassification of any particular documents. Instead, the President has authorized the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters. The Attorney General has not ordered the declassification and release of any of the redacted material in this case based on the President’s tweets. The Department was further informed that the President’s statements on Twitter do not require altering any redactions on any record at issue in this case, including, but not limited to, any redactions taken pursuant to any discretionary FOIA exemptions. Nor do the President’s statements on Twitter prevent the Department from taking appropriate exemptions and redacting documents consistent with law and the positions the Department takes in FOIA matters.

So: we’re just ignoring what the President tweeted because we want to.

Leopold and Buzzfeed have since responded by pointing out that the President regularly makes decrees by Twitter, and that those are him “conducting official business.” The DOJ can’t just ignore that:

or the last three years and nine months, the President has governed this country by tweet. The President has stipulated that he uses Twitter ?to announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s legislative agenda; to announce official decisions; to engage with foreign political leaders; [and] to publicize state visits.? Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226, 231-32 (2d Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). His administration describes the President?s Twitter account as ?one of the White House?s main vehicles for conducting official business? and his tweets are ?official statements of the President.? Id. at 232. He has even used his tweets to make ?official? ?legal notice? to Congress. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Twitter (Jan. 5, 2020, 2:25 PM), available at https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1213919480574812160 (notifying Congress the United States ?will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,? should Iran attack any U.S. target).

It is not at all surprising, therefore, that the President would use Twitter as the means by which he would declassify records and waive FOIA exemptions on behalf of the Executive Branch over which is holds Constitutional authority. Indeed, it would be surprising if he did so by any other means. The Court should reject the Government?s back-pedaling and order DOJ to comply with the President?s clear directive to declassify and remove redactions from the narrative FD-302 forms responsive to Plaintiffs? FOIA requests. And if the Court requires any clarity beyond the President?s unequivocal tweets, it should direct the Office of White House Counsel to appear at the hearing scheduled for Friday.

The filing further notes that there is no rule that declassification can’t come by tweet or has to take a special form. If the President says something is declassified it is declassified.

There is nothing in the Constitution, Executive Order 13,526, or otherwise that prohibits a president from declassifying records in whatever way and through whatever form of communication the president sees fit. Thus, an official presidential tweet stating ?I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. . . . No redactions!? is more than sufficient to exercise that Constitutional authority. The government offers nothing indicating that the President did not mean exactly what he said or that he lacked the Constitutional authority to do what he has done. Instead, it claims that Plaintiffs ?have pointed to no order declassifying the documents at issue in this case,? ECF No. 107 at 4, which is plainly wrong: the tweet is the order, and it came in an official statement directly from the President himself.

The filing also notes that what the White House counsel thinks doesn’t matter. The only one who matters here is the President himself:

The Weinsheimer declaration does not support the government?s position, and in fact supports Plaintiffs?. As the declaration makes clear, the question is whether the tweets were ?meant as an order to alter any redactions that have already been taken on any materials in this case and other cases.? …. But the declaration makes clear that neither the DOJ nor the White House Counsel?s Office actually attempted to get an answer to that question from the only person who can definitively answer it: the President. Instead, they sought, apparently without actually asking the President, to determine whether the President issued some further ?self-executing declassification order? beyond the tweets and somehow concluded that the President merely ?authorized the Attorney General to declassify documents as part of his ongoing review of intelligence activities relating to the 2016 Presidential election and certain related matters.?…. But the President himself has already made clear that this interpretation of his intent is wrong: he clearly stated in an official presidential communication that this same material ?was Declassified by me long ago,? but ?people have acted very slowly.?

This morning, in a hearing before Judge Reggie Walton (who is not known for being happy when the government plays games in front of him), it appears that Leopold’s argument is absolutely winning the day. Walton told the DOJ that Trump’s tweets seem pretty clear and he doesn’t see how they can argue he didn’t declassify stuff. He also seemed perturbed that no one actually asked the President what he meant, and postponed the rest of the hearing to tell the DOJ to go ask the President if he actually meant what he tweeted:

Of course, it now seems likely that the White House lawyers and the DOJ will very carefully explain to the President why they want him to say he didn’t mean what he clearly said, potentially allowing him to walk back his fairly unequivocal statements. At the very least, though, that should enable reporters to question the President further on why he falsely claimed to have declassified stuff. At the end of the day, either all of the documents have been declassified or the President will need to admit that he lied about declassifying them.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: buzzfeed, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
70 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

At the end of the day…the President will need to admit that he lied….

This is a person who has been shown to be a liar over 20,000 times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-false-or-misleading-claims/

What makes anyone think that Donald "I’m lying again" Trump will [b]need[/b] to admit he lied?

E

ThatOtherOtherGuy says:

Please be specific

There are two problems:

1.) Trump often reneges on a prior tweet with a subsequent tweet. Sometimes in very quick succession.

2.) Trump uses non-specific language like "Russian hoax" and "greatest crime ever" that cannot be assumed if the tweet is to be treated like an official Presidential decree.

Anonymous Coward says:

who's the Boss

vvv "It should be noted here (and this is kind of important) that the President of the United States has total freedom to declassify anything on his own whims at any time."

Quite Correct.

And he can communicate his declassification orders in any manner he chooses.

A US President is the top boss for the entire Executive Branch and is also the ultimate Classification/Declasification Authority for the Federal government.

He can also fire everyone in DOJ tomorrow, at his whim.

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: who's the Boss

And he can communicate his declassification orders in any manner he chooses.

Formal orders from the White House aren’t sent "in any matter he chooses." So, no, that’s not how it works. If it’s a real order-portent it’s followed by an official dispatch to the right agency.

He can also fire everyone in DOJ tomorrow, at his whim.

No, he can’t do that either. There’s a process for termination of staffers (vs appointees).

HR is a thing, as are official memos.

E

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: who's the Boss

Trump ain’t alone in the WH — he has a huge staff to issue the official paperwork after he expresses his decisions by any means (and yes, that staff reads his Tweets and listens to him in informal meetings and exchange)
There’s a White House Chief of Staff to make sure all the details are completed correctly for the President.

A President can summarily order all DOJ personnel to cease work and bar them from government facilities — that’s de facto firing.

yes, the personnel bureaucracy would take substantial time to formally process the termination paperwork — but the practical dismissal action could be done quickly.

Point is that Presidents have enormous discretionary power and that everybody in DOJ works for the President.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss

Leadership requires more than just officially occupying the chair. If the people under a leader don’t trust or respect him then they will not always blindly follow orders. Some will actively work to undermine him. When the leader is widely regarded as an ignorant, incompetent buffoon, this probaly happens a lot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 who's the Boss

and thats wrong.

Whether he’s a buffoon or not, he’s still the elected President of the United States.

You can’t decide yourself "i’m just not following the law…ya boo sucks!"

If you can’t follow a Presidential Order, then you should immediately resign all government positions you hold.

And run for office yourself if you think you can do a better job.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:3 who's the Boss

Ah, the old "just follow the orders". History remembers that as Befehl ist Befehl, guess who used that defense in an attempt to avoid punishment after WWII.

It’s amazing that Trump-supporters don’t understand that if they get what they are asking for it will result in a severe circumscription of their rights by a fascist state.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 who's the Boss

"You can’t decide yourself "i’m just not following the law…ya boo sucks!""

Funny … Many within the GOP do not share your opinion.
They know the DOJ will not charge them and they get away with it so often that they actually think they are allowed to do those things. Weird huh.

One does not have to follow orders, especially illegal ones. Do you like living in a police state?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TKnarr (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss

Unfortunately for you, no. The President only has the power to arbitrarily hire and fire appointed officials. Other than a few people at the top, the DOJ is staffed by hired staff who are not appointed (thus not subject to the President’s authority to replace) but are subject to USC Title 5 per Congress’s authority under Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution.

This was done expressly to prevent the President from arbitrarily firing all employees of a department and replacing them with his own people, after severe abuses of the spoils system.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

there is indeed a Deep State beyond the control of any President

If by “deep state” you mean “a selection of government employees whose jobs are protected from the whims of a given presidential administration so said employees can do important work without ostensibly having politics get in the way”? Yeah, sure, there is a “deep state”.

You really don’t get it, do you? Trump shouldn’t be able to fire everyone in the DOJ and replace them all with people who will carry out his explicit wishes without question. Neither should Joe Biden, should he win in November. Neither should the president elected in 2024, 2028, and so on. That would lead to not only a likely understaffed DOJ, but a DOJ full of sycophants who would allow corruption to run rampant because they want to curry favor with the boss. For what reason should we ignore that outcome only because the Constitution doesn’t set up the right “framework” for preventing it?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

That would lead to not only a likely understaffed DOJ, but a DOJ full of sycophants who would allow corruption to run rampant because they want to curry favor with the boss.

Arguably we already have that, which makes the idea that it could be even worse all the more horrifying.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

<sigh>

the point is not that Trump should or would fire everybody in DOJ — it’s merely to illustrate that everyone in the Federal Executive Branch is absolutely subordinate administratively to the sitting President.

This ain’t rocket science — this is standard hierarchic management throughout America public & private.

However, government organizations are particularly vulnerable to entrenched-bureaucracies, where quasi-permanent lower-echelon personnel establish de facto oligarchic control … due to constant turnover in top management & low quality of top management.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

government organizations are particularly vulnerable to entrenched-bureaucracies

At this point, I’d rather have one of those running the CDC and the FDA instead of having the current president ordering them to fuck with, respectively, the COVID numbers and the vaccine approval process.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:3 who's the Boss

… so you agree there is indeed a Deep State beyond the control of any President.

That directly nullifies the Federal government framework established by the Constitution.

Uh, the Constitution does not establish a Dictatorship last time I looked. There has been some executive power creep due to Congress relinquishing some of its control in the wake of 09/11. But that’s rather against the division of powers established by the Constitution.

It would seem that you did not get the memo of how Benjamin Franklin replied to the question "what did you get us? A monarchy or a republic?" when exiting the constitutional assembly. Do try catching up.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: who's the Boss

Formal orders from the White House aren’t sent "in any matter he chooses." So, no, that’s not how it works. If it’s a real order-portent it’s followed by an official dispatch to the right agency.

Is there a constitutional provision or statute that requires that? Or is it just the way it’s always been done?

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss

Is there a constitutional provision or statute that requires that?

The COTUS is a guiding document, but it’s not the end-all be-all of codified law. There is USC, CFR, CFE, and those are just a few at the federal level.

It doesn’t say in COTUS anything about the right to life or the right not be killed if you’re a murderer yourself. You have to look at other avenues.

In this case, there are processes by which the POTUS communicates. For example, EOs are signed by him (with his signature, even if the page is blank) and promulgated further.

I gurantee you "Twitter" and "Social Media" are not listed anywhere in USC/CFR, etc. as methods of communication. If you would like to argue they SHOULD BE we’d get into the whole "Nagh, if anyone’s social media account can be easily hacked by you in your momma’s basement then it SHOULD NOT BE ever authorized for communication of orders."

I’m not sure why this is hard to understand… but he could SHOULD THROUGH A MEGAPHONE at his adoring stupid crowds, and everything he says is absolutely 100% NOT an order of any kind… even if we see him doing it.

We live in idiot times.

E

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 who's the Boss

I gurantee you "Twitter" and "Social Media" are not listed anywhere in USC/CFR, etc. as methods of communication.

Do they list methods of communication that are or are not permitted for official declarations or communications from the president? If so, where are they listed? If not, why do you think Twitter is not permitted?

Ehud Gavron (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 who's the Boss

Communication protocols specify how things DO WORK not which thousands or millions of ways they won’t.

Why do you think Twitter is not permitted?

What I think isn’t the operative question. Twitter isn’t a listed protocol for the CIC to communicate.

If you can’t get around that, try this: "What in the law prevents him from scribbling on a paper airplane and throwing it in your eye?" Nothing. It’s still not protocol.

E

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 who's the Boss

Twitter isn’t a listed protocol for the CIC to communicate.

Listed where?

"What in the law prevents him from scribbling on a paper airplane and throwing it in your eye?" Nothing. It’s still not protocol.

By protocol do you mean the normal way things have been done before? Nobody would argue nearly everything Trump does violates that. But I got the impression you were saying issuing orders via Twitter is not only irregular, but not permitted to the President. And if it’s the latter, I would expect there to be a specific law that either prohibits Twitter, or explicitly lists which methods are legally permissible.

ysth (profile) says:

the President of the United States has total freedom to declassify anything on his own whims at any time. And these tweets sure looked like him doing exactly that.

Not by my reading. The tweets do not declassify, they are only statements about what Trump has done. And they are lies, but Trump lying in a tweet is legal and in fact usual. I (unfortunately) don’t see how it has any bearing on the court cases at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Somewhat in support of DOJ on this one...

Trump’s Twitter account is ultimately under control of whoever administers Twitter’s servers. Yes, it is very likely that this tweet was written by, or on order from, the president. However, I wouldn’t want to be the one to hand over previously classified material in reliance of a presidential tweet, and then find out that no, that tweet was not actually from the president, or didn’t actually declassify the documents I thought it did. Therefore, I think it is very reasonable for DOJ to want a confirmation through official channels. On the other hand, I think the DOJ lawyers should have anticipated the judge’s order and set in motion that confirmation before the judge ordered them to do so. Screwing around as they did here will just annoy the judge, and nothing good for them can come of that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Somewhat in support of DOJ on this one...

That’s not the argument they went with though, they weren’t arguing that the tweet might not be from Trump because someone hijacked his account, rather they were arguing that the very clear an unambiguous tweets didn’t actually count because reasons.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Somewhat in support of DOJ on this one...

the very clear an unambiguous tweets didn’t actually count because reasons.

The "very clear" statements don’t say what Leopold thinks they do. As ysth said, they don’t say Trump authorizes or orders declassification—only that he’s done so in the past. But what if he didn’t? Those tweets were not made under penalty of perjury.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Bartonktw (user link) says:

chineseladydate

EA Opens All of Its number Patents to Everyone

The need for better accessibility in gaming is something that a lot of developers have realized. at present, EA steps up to the plate with its new Patents Pledge thing, Giving its competitors immediate access to its accessibility patents.

It is encouraging other developers to join this eating routine, insanely. Competing devs can then incorporate these accessibility tools into their own games and applications without the fear of legal retribution from EA.

don’t forget; EA has also invited other developers to add <a href=https://www.bestbrides.net/meet-hot-viet-girl-the-sexiest-influencers-to-follow-in-vietnam/>hot vietnamese girls</a> their amount patents to the pool, For all others to use, additionally. This is a market changing step by EA which, If skillful, Will see the floodgates open for better entry in games.

The pledge, directed above, states in america:

At electronic arts buys, We believe that it’s imperative to meet the needs of diverse populations in gaming and beyond. contain specialties such as, important, the needs of those with disabilities. via our patent pledge, We’re committing that every developer in the industry can now use our accessibility centered technology patents royalty free.

therefore,really, This is excellent news for gamers with additional gain access to requirements. we hope, More manufacturers will join the scheme.

useful: Accessibility Options Making Video Games More offered to All

What gain access to Patents Are EA Sharing? EA has kindly listed possible patents on the Pledge page linked above.

obtained Apex Legends’ Ping System, so that those living with hearing, engaging, Or cognitive access requirements, To get in touch with other team members in game, Via control inputs that trigger certain commands or communiques in Apex.

There are also patents that appear in a wide range of immeasurably popular titles, for example, the FIFA franchise, Which assist those living with sight issues. These patents alter settings in game like contrast and lumination.

at last, There is a patent that allows the generation of music suited to the hearing needs of a gamer playing titles with the feature.

Why Has EA recorded This Patents Pledge? At the end throughout, It is all about making games offered to everyone, it doesn’t their abilities outside of gaming. EA its own matters says:

This pledge covers some of our state-of-the-art technologies designed to break down barriers for players living with disabilities or medical issues. this consists of those with vision, studying, Speaking or intellectual issues.

EA wants everyone to enjoy its games and recognizes that, Only by sharing concept between competition brands, Can this become the case.

a beneficial Step From EA

This is a landmark decision by EA that will certainly improve accessibility in gaming. subsequently, We’ll see other major players like microsoft and Sony joining the Patents Pledge, because well. this way, Gaming will build up to everybody.

Ste dark night (425 Articles written and published) Ste is the Junior Gaming Editor you will come to MUO. He is a faithful PlayStation fans, But has enough for other platforms, because. Loves numerous tech, caused from AV, throughout home theatre, and furthermore (For some disconcerting reason) detoxification tech. Meal specialist for four cats. Likes to be repetitive beats.

you’ll Like Also

Accessibility Options Making Video Games More accessible to AllBe My Eyes and Seeing AI: How These amount Apps Benefit the Visually Disabled Think smartphones can’t get any more amazing? Learn how mobile apps connect the visually impaired with all mankind around them. understand NextParamount+ vs. blockbuster online: what’s best?How to Use Google Home to Keep Your Family OrganizedHere Everything the Digital Crown and Side Button Can Do on Your Apple Watch11 Amazing Android Apps That Change How You Use Your PhoneThe 7 Best Websites for Design and Architectural InspirationHow to Type Emojis on a Mac6 Ways to Speed Up Your USB bandwith on WindowsHow to Connect and Get Data Off a Hard Drive With These 6 MethodsWhat Is Lorem Ipsum Text and What Does It Mean?The 5 Best Free Repair Tools for Windows 117 Reasons advertising and marketing Shut Down Your Computer Every NightWhatsApp Enables Disappearing Messages by Default: Here What ChangingWhat Is a Mood tracker? How to Use It EffectivelyIt sounds like Samsung Has Killed the Galaxy Note Series. But exactly?Why you no longer require a KVM Switch for Multi PC SetupsWhat Is Discovery+? everything you should to KnowWhat Is Session Hijacking and How Can You Prevent It?15 Fun Websites to right Beat Boredom Online.
[—-]

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...