Does this mean we can demand to speak to her manager?
Nope, donāt wanna, aināt gonna. FOAD you hag.
oh no! /s
Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā°Ā·Ā·Ā°ā¢Ā·ā¢ā¢Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā°hicĀ°Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā·ā¢Ā·ā¢Ā°Ā°
āFailed on the Meritsā would be an appropriate epitaph Giuliani.
Sorry for the delayed response.
How would it violate 1A? Negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States when one does not hold a position within the government goes way past free speech into action. Otherwise no one would ever be able to be prosecuted for fraud or espionage. Sorry, I donāt buy it.
If Noem is banned from all of the reservations in the state, thatās almost 6000 square miles or 8.5% of the land in the state.
Thereās also the unresolved question of how the Constitution applies outside of the United States. Which is concerning.
Well, it would apply if the US government sought to prosecute a US citizen. The State Dept requesting a foreign government detain him would be shady as hell but maybe not unconstitutional.
But thatās not what heās doing. Do you think any of these governments think he has any authority to do that? If heās pretending he does, then sure, thatās problematic. If all heās doing is saying what Trump is going to do if heās elected, thatās probably protected 1A speech.
I hate it, but I do understand that this is true. This timeline, I hate it.
Sure, but if heās doing T****ās bidding, then you know itās transactional. And that could be as simple as āif you support T**** by [fill in the blank], then when heās re-elected, he will [fill in the blank] for you.ā Thatās negotiation and crosses the line.
Just like he did with Zelensky. Thatās how T**** operates, and Grennell is 100% T****ās creature.
I suspect that would make sense to us common folk, but would not fly legally. And probably also why the Logan Act is most likely unconstitutional. I defer to @danimagoo on the details, of course, but yeah, Iāve come around on my thinking in this. Stupid law, unenforceable law, probably should just go away.
Only if itās in regards to an actual dispute the US currently has with that country.
Trump was actually President when that happened. The issue there was that Congress had already committed us to giving them the money and Trump was withholding it, which he had no legal right to do. That didnāt implicate the Logan Act at all.
And again, I know I sound like a broken record, but that law hasnāt been used since 1852, and no one has ever been convicted of violating it. Even if it looks like it applies, itās not going to happen. Itās just not.
I was using that as an example of how T**** only operates transactionally, not the Logan Act.
I get it. Iāve moved from ācouldā to āshould.ā
