[spacemanmatt]

If the POTUS had not conducted the country's business on his personal account I might be able to agree with your point. But your point is not in agreement with the ruling. The court investigates what he's doing with the account, not whose name is on it.

[SegFaultCDumped]

But, all the official policies and government information are released by proper White House channel and media releases. Trump is not blocking that. Also, tweets are not considered binding legal business until they are officially released by White House. So, why should it violate any law? Or any journalist trying to obtain information. They, like any other citizen, are entitled to the information released by White House.

Consider, it like this. If Trump had a group of friends who he likes to discuss country's policy with. Is it legally binding that, he has to inculde everyone in that group and cannot ban enyone from his friend club? Consider this friend club to be his twitter followers.

P.S. I am not a republican or even an American. I am just trying to create a constructive dialogue about the ruling and what laws come to play to enforce it.

[jsgo]

If he's discussing with his group of friends behind closed doors either at the White House, a dinner, or the like, there is no expectation that he must share it publicly (but there's the possibility of leaks).

If he does so on a public forum, then he is not allowed to blacklist people from hearing/seeing it. He has the @POTUS account. If he's concerned about his public vs private privileges, he may wish to consider moving his government related tweets to the @POTUS account. At that point, he can tweet support for Tomi Laren (sp?) to his heart's content from his personal account. When he's discussing world stage stuff, though, that should stick to the POTUS account. That's all.