Put them in cages. If it’s good enough for central American children, it’s good enough for them.
3 Likes
The SCROTUS will give Donny Two Scoops whatever he tells it to.
I honestly can’t tell if that’s been @beschizza’ed or if it’s just Steve Doocy’s face.
I hate the stupid timeline.
4 Likes
From what I can tell, it’s all Doocy. [shudder]
1 Like
That’s far from certain, despite what the despairmongers keep saying.
1 Like
I bet 45 is great at Calvinball.
2 Likes
Gerrymandering does affect presidential elections.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-gerrymandering-and-how-can-it-affect-presidential-elections
Where are the teeth here? Why aren’t these jackholes being hit with 12 months?
“Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who “willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry” shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.”
*edited to reply regarding gerrymandering
1 Like
Thomas - yes
Alito - yes
Gorsuch - yes
Kavanaugh - on record as saying Presidents cannot be investigated
Roberts - more likely than not
I would agree with this except for the fact that Trump can’t shut up about it which keeps giving it fuel.
Executive privilege doesn’t extend to unlawful actions. Both Nixon and Clinton lost that fought.
6 Likes
Beschizza approaches the man, examines him, then turns to the coven.
BESCHIZZA
This man has already been modified. Nothing further can be done.
8 Likes
I didn’t even notice it when I posted it, but now that you’ve brought it back up…I see an angry baby in Doocy’s chin wattle:
3 Likes
Sorry, that was my summary of the DOJ’s opinion.
It is notable that the DOJ opinion makes only one mention of any occasions where presidential privilege has been invoked and rejected.
That’s Miers which they say was wrongly decided - always the useful get-out for any ruling you don’t like. The decision was stayed pending appeal and then it was agreed that the relevant people would be allowed to testify.
It’s almost as if they’d like to give the impression it’s never happened…
They do mention that for civil lawsuits there is only qualified immunity for Presidential advisers but United States v. Nixon doesn’t get a mention at all.
Presumably on the grounds that it doesn’t strictly speaking deal with the ability of Congress to compel testimony from Presidential aides.
For myself, my very limited understanding of previous precedent leads me to the view that so long as Congress is simply fishing for information, executive privilege probably does apply.
If and when anyone actually commences a criminal investigation, there would only be limited privilege, subject to being overridden where necessary and compatible with national security (bearing in mind the possibility of appropriate safeguards and restrictions regarding access to information).
In impeachment proceedings, the same would presumably apply although in Clinton’s case, the investigation had already been done by the Special Prosecutor.
In this case, the Special Prosecutor essentially said “I’m not touching this one but someone should”.
So far there’s a lot of waffle but no one is actually taking the step to instigate a criminal investigation into whether the President attempted to obstruct justice or to impeach him.
ETA: Except of course, I’m wrong. I’d completely forgotten about this:
2 Likes
4 Likes
No need full sentence. No need Google. URL go direct. Really.
“As long as we are directly electing the president,” he wrote for Medium, “let’s finally abolish the Electoral College and use the popular vote, so that moving a few thousand square miles of territory around won’t make the difference between outcomes.”
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
