Mr. Chief justice, made please the court, it is an antihacking statute. Seatingprohibits the that succeeding access. It also covers not only outside but inside hackers. The government seeks to transform the prong into a different prohibition. It covers obtaining information by a computer that predecessor is not entitled under the circumstances to obtain. It is no overstatement to say this would brand most americans criminals on a daily basis. Scenarios are limitless. Imagine a secretary whose employee handbook says her emailers them account may be used only for business purposes, or a person using a dating site using false information to obtain information about a lossal mates, or student. If a government is right, any of these people commits a federal crime. Any employee that use the zoom account over the next giving to connect with relatives would be subject to federal prosecutors. The main argument is that a single two letter word in the definition under exceeds authorized access. T
Valid and the president appealed and now the case is before the appeals court. Thank you, judge. Oyea oyea oyea, all person having business before the United States court of appeals for the District Of Columbia circuit are admonished to draw near and give attention, god save the United States and Honorable Courts. 195142, donald j. Trump,et al, and [inaudible] mr. Norris. Good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. In april of 2019 when the Oversight Committee issued this subpoena to mazars it had an extraordinarily broad view of its own investigative authority. According to the committee, the power to subpoena the president s personal papers was could he extensive with the power to legislate and did not have to give any reasons or explanation with what legislative goals its pursuing and had no duty to meaningful narrow or tailor its request. That view of its own authority is reflected in the subpoena which is drafted in incredibly broad terms and substantiated wit
President mike pence. Later, an update on the u. S. Response to the coronavirus with a doctor from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Host good morning. It is wednesday, october 7. After announcing yesterday that he was cutting out talks for more Coronavirus Relief until after the election, President Trump appeared to reverse course last night and signaled he would be open to signing specific measures as lawmakers try to get a handle on where negotiations are. Your reaction to the latest relief talks and what you need in your part of the country. You are unemployed or furloughed, the number is 202 7488000. If you are a Small Business owner or employee, 202 7488001. If you are an essential worker, 202 7488002. All others can call in at 7488003. That is also where you can send us a text. If you do, include your name and where youre from. Catch up with us on twitter at cspan w j and on facebook. Com cspan. You can start calling in now as we take you to the president s tender twitter page. Last
Petitioner michael flynn. We are here now to stop further impermissible intrusion into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care clause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. The government here provided an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution, weighing as it should all of those factors that go into that, including the exculpatory evidence that came to light through an independent review by mr. Jenson, who know the only had 10 Years Experience as an fbi agent, but 10 years as a federal prosecutor before attorney general barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case from mandamus, because we have issues of judicial hurts her and at usurpation clear abuse of discretion. The judge has no authority to do anything further in the case. Theres no case or controversy any longer. The parties have decided, the government has quit, and he also has no authority t
Mr. Walls, part of u. S. Department of justice. The honorable emme g sullivan. Would morning, counsel. We will hear first from ms. Powell. Good morning. May it please the court, this is Sidney Powell for position or michael flynn. We are here to stop further impermissible intrusions into the sole power of the executive branch under the take care applause to decide to dismiss a case and what circumstances warrant that dismissal. Dismissal. Ge extensive and thoroughly ocumented motion to dismiss this prosecution, weighing as it should all the factors that go including the provision of extraordinary exculpatory evidence that came independent ugh an review by mr. Jensen who not only had 10 Years Experience as 10 years as nt but a federal prosecutor before barr asked him to review this case. It cannot go on any longer. This is the quintessential case. Executive prerogatives and a clear abuse of discretion. No authority to do anything further in the case. There is no case or controversy any