Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: This week on The Imperial Presidency: break the law for me and I'll pardon you

  1. #1

    Default This week on The Imperial Presidency: break the law for me and I'll pardon you

    Don't forget to remind yourself, while reading this article, that you aren't reading about some shithole banana republic led by a deranged megalomaniac and his comically corrupt cronies.

    ‘Take the land’: President Trump wants a border wall. He wants it black. And he wants it by Election Day.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...e70_story.html

    President Trump is so eager to complete hundreds of miles of border fence ahead of the 2020 presidential election that he has directed aides to fast-track billions of dollars’ worth of construction contracts, aggressively seize private land and disregard environmental rules, according to current and former officials involved with the project.

    He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said.

    Trump has repeatedly promised to complete 500 miles of fencing by the time voters go to the polls in November 2020, stirring chants of “Finish the Wall!” at his political rallies as he pushes for tighter border controls. But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has completed just about 60 miles of “replacement” barrier during the first 2½ years of Trump’s presidency, all of it in areas that previously had border infrastructure.

    [‘He always brings them up’: Trump tries to steer border wall deal to North Dakota firm]

    The president has told senior aides that a failure to deliver on the signature promise of his 2016 campaign would be a letdown to his supporters and an embarrassing defeat. With the election 14 months away and hundreds of miles of fencing plans still in blueprint form, Trump has held regular White House meetings for progress updates and to hasten the pace, according to several people involved in the discussions.

    When aides have suggested that some orders are illegal or unworkable, Trump has suggested he would pardon the officials if they would just go ahead, aides said. He has waved off worries about contracting procedures and the use of eminent domain, saying “take the land,” according to officials who attended the meetings.

    “Don’t worry, I’ll pardon you,” he has told officials in meetings about the wall.

    “He said people expected him to build a wall, and it had to be done by the election,” one former official said.

    Asked for comment, a White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Trump is joking when he makes such statements about pardons.

    Deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said Tuesday that the president is protecting the country with the addition of new border barriers.

    “Donald Trump promised to secure our border with sane, rational immigration policies to make American communities safer, and that’s happening everywhere the wall is being built,” Gidley said. He called internal criticisms of the president “just more fabrications by people who hate the fact the status quo, that has crippled this country for decades, is finally changing as President Trump is moving quicker than anyone in history to build the wall, secure the border and enact the very immigration policies the American people voted for.”

    “President Trump is fighting aggressively for the American people where other leaders in the past have rolled over, sold out, and done absolutely nothing,” he said.

    Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper is expected to approve a White House request to divert $3.6 billion in Pentagon funds to the barrier project in coming weeks, money that Trump sought after lawmakers refused to allocate $5 billion. The funds will be pulled from Defense Department projects in 26 states, according to administration officials who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the matter.

    [Trump administration will divert disaster relief funds to U.S.-Mexico border]

    Trump’s determination to build the barriers as quickly as possible has not diminished his interest in the aesthetic aspects of the project, particularly the requirement that the looming steel barriers be painted black and topped with sharpened tips.

    In a meeting at the White House on May 23, Trump ordered the Army Corps and the Department of Homeland Security to paint the structure black, according to internal communications reviewed by The Washington Post.

    Administration officials have stopped trying to talk him out of the demands, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is preparing to instruct contractors to apply black paint or coating to all new barrier fencing, the communications show.

    Trump conceded last year in an immigration meeting with lawmakers that a wall or barrier is not the most effective mechanism to curb illegal immigration, recognizing it would accomplish less than a major expansion of U.S. enforcement powers and deportation authority. But he told lawmakers that his supporters want a wall and that he has to deliver it.

    [This photo shows why a border wall won’t stop the immigration surge]

    Trump talked about the loud cheers the wall brought at rallies, according to one person with direct knowledge of the meeting.

    Former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly would often tell administration officials to disregard the president’s demands if Kelly did not think they were feasible or legally sound, according to current and former aides.

    During a conference call last week, officials at U.S. Customs and Border Protection told Army Corps engineers that the hundreds of miles of fencing must be completed before the next presidential election, according to administration officials with knowledge of the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal communications.

    “Border Patrol insists on compressed acquisition timelines, and we consent. Their goal is to get contracts awarded, not for us to get a quality contract with a thoroughly vetted contractor,” said one senior official who is concerned the agency has been hurried to hand out contracts as quickly as possible.

    Military officials expect more contract protests because the arrangements have been rushed, the official added. The Army Corps already has had to take corrective actions for two procurement contracts, after companies protested.

    The companies building the fencing and access roads have been taking heavy earth-moving equipment into environmentally sensitive border areas adjacent to U.S. national parks and wildlife preserves, but the administration has waived procedural safeguards and impact studies, citing national security concerns.

    “They don’t care how much money is spent, whether landowners’ rights are violated, whether the environment is damaged, the law, the regs or even prudent business practices,” the senior official said.

    CBP has suggested no longer writing risk-assessment memos “related to the fact that we don’t have real estate rights and how this will impact construction,” the official said.

    While Trump has insisted that the barriers be painted, the cost of painting them will reduce the length of the fence the government will be able to build. According to the internal analysis, painting or coating 175 miles of barriers “will add between $70 million and $133 million in cost,” trimming the amount of fencing the Army Corps will be able to install by four to seven miles.

    In June, teams of U.S. soldiers painted a one-mile section of fence in Calexico, Calif., at a cost of $1 million. The coating, known as “matte black” or “flat black,” absorbs heat, making the fence hot to the touch, more slippery and therefore tougher to climb, according to border agents.

    At Trump’s behest, the Army Corps also is preparing to instruct contractors to remove from the upper part of the fence the smooth metal plates that are used to thwart climbers. The president considered that design feature unsightly, according to officials familiar with his directives.

    Instead, contractors have been asked to cut the tips of the steel bollards to a sharpened point. Trump had told aides this spring he thought the barrier should be spiked to instill a fear of injury.

    The change in the bollard design is likely to reduce the overall length of the barrier by two to three miles, according to the administration’s cost assessments.

    CBP has used a pointed design in the past, according to agency officials, either by installing a pyramid-shaped cap or making what the agency refers to as a “miter cut” in the metal.

    Trump remains keen to tout incremental progress toward his wall-building commitments, and in recent weeks, top Homeland Security officials have taken to Twitter to promote the advances.


    People walk on the Tijuana, Mexico, side of the border near the primary fence that separates the United States and Mexico in the San Diego Sector on Aug. 22. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)
    In recent days, DHS leaders including acting CBP chief Mark Morgan and the top official at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Ken Cuccinelli, have tweeted photos of border fence construction, echoing promises that 450 miles of new barrier will be completed by next year. Another senior administration official credited both men with injecting urgency, saying that “things are starting to crank away,” even though Cuccinelli’s agency is not involved in the project.

    Dan Scavino Jr., the White House social media director, has asked for video footage and photos of equipment digging up the desert and planting the barriers so that administration officials can tweet about it, aides said.

    Administration officials involved in the project also defended the president’s use of eminent domain laws to speed the process.

    “There is no more constitutionally permissible public purpose for eminent domain than national defense,” said a current administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record about the contracting process.

    “Our intention is to negotiate with every property owner, and every property owner will receive fair market value for the land,” the official said. “But the land that is needed is not replaceable land. This is not like building a hospital or even a school. There is no alternative land to the border.”

    CBP and Pentagon officials insist they remain on track to complete about 450 miles of fencing by the election. Of that, about 110 miles will be added to areas where there is currently no barrier. The height of the structure will vary between 18 and 30 feet, high enough to inflict severe injury or death from a fall.

    The Border Patrol’s strategic planning and analysis office has not made a final decision on the black paint or other White House design requests .

    “Ultimately, we’ll do our assessment and determine what is the best for us operationally,” said Brian Martin, the office’s chief, adding that the agency is waiting to get border agents’ feedback on whether the coating would be beneficial.

    Martin also said CBP would continue to install anti-climb panels on portions of the barrier already under contract, calling the design “very vital to overall effectiveness.” But he and other CBP officials said that some new portions of barriers will have the panels and that others will not, a determination that he said will be guided by necessity, not aesthetics.

    Watch kids play together on a Teeter-totter from both sides of the border

    Architect and University of California, Berkeley professor Ronal Rael designed seesaws with the ability to hook onto fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Ronald Rael/Facebook)

    Trump has recently urged the Army Corps to award a contract to a company he favors, North Dakota-based Fisher Industries, though the firm has not been selected. Fisher has been aggressively pushed by Trump ally Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who briefly held up the confirmation of a Trump budget office nominee last month in an attempt to put pressure on the Army Corps.

    Cramer demanded to see the contracts awarded to Fisher’s competitors, lashing out at the “arrogance” of the Army Corps in emails to military officials after he was told the bidding process involved proprietary information that could not be shared. The CEO of Fisher Industries is a major backer of Cramer and has donated to his campaigns.

    [These photos show private border barriers being built on private land]

    Cramer visited the El Paso area Tuesday to tour border facilities and view a span of privately funded border fencing Fisher built as a showcase for what it claims are superior construction techniques. Cramer posted videos of his tour to social media. He undertook the tour “to see the crisis at our border firsthand.”

    The senator had asked Lt. Gen. Todd Semonite, the commander of the Army Corps, to meet him at the site, but Semonite is traveling in Brazil, where the Trump administration has offered to help fight wildfires in the Amazon.

    In an email to The Post, Cramer said he met with CEO Tommy Fisher on Tuesday at a span of fencing the company built on private land; he said Army Corps officials joined them at the site.

    “The agents on the ground said the walls have been very helpful in slowing illegal crossings,” Cramer wrote. “I’m not a wall-building expert, but at the pace of the last few years, it’s hard to see how 450 miles gets built with the same process. . . . I wish DHS would engage a whole bunch of builders and innovators rather than rely on the same decades old bureaucracy.”

    Cramer said he shared the president’s “frustration” with the pace of progress.

    Several administration officials who confirmed the White House’s urgency said they expect to be able to deliver on Trump’s demands because the actual construction of the barriers is typically the last step in the process.

    “There is a long lead time to acquiring land, getting permits and identifying funding,” the official said. “I think you will see a dramatic increase in wall construction next year because all of the work over the past two years has primed the pump.”
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  2. #2
    you aren't reading about some shithole banana republic led by a deranged megalomaniac and his comically corrupt cronies.
    *stares directly at the camera*
    I'll lend you my essence for your rusted throne, and you could bring back the light to the last home of civilisation without which I'm gone
    So take this godsoul to bring forth a new dawn, I'll forgive the death you've earned, the cities you've burned, the lessons we've learned
    For all that remains, just sacrifice me. I'll hide away in a castle on the sea.

  3. #3
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #4
    He was joking. More Fake News. The Press is the Enemy of the People. (Even Fox News is failing now.) Don't believe what you're reading or hearing. There's a vast conspiracy, orchestrated by the Deep State (and angry Democrats).

    Trump can say and do whatever he wants because he's the president, and his cabinet agrees with the Unitary Executive Theory, including AG Barr. So what's the problem?

  5. #5
    Every week, forever, on The Imperial Presidency/The Republic is Bananas:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...4aa_story.html
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  6. #6
    Every week, forever, on The Imperial Presidency/The Republic is Bananas:

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Every week, forever, on The Imperial Presidency/The Republic is Bananas:


    The immunity to prosecution claim is, I believe, correct. Prosecuting a sitting President falls to Congress via the impeachment process. The idea that it can't even be investigated is blatantly absurd though, even if investigation may be a rather difficult process. It also can't POSSIBLY apply to his business holdings. While serving as President he and his business holdings are "supposed" to have nothing to do with each other. I've said before that in reality that's not practically achievable with his position in that business but his positional immunity certainly can't extend to an organization he's supposedly not involved with while in said immunity-granting position. Since the "wall" between the two is not as practical as it might otherwise be, forms of executive privilege may reasonably extend to select portions of records held by the company though.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Every week, forever, on The Imperial Presidency/The Republic is Bananas:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...4aa_story.html
    Washington Post??? Shit dude do you have any standards?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ne/2483340001/

    "austere religious scholar"

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Washington Post??? Shit dude do you have any standards?

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ne/2483340001/

    "austere religious scholar"
    You and I both know you're full of shit, and, considering the things you regularly drag in here from various heaps of refuse you frequent, I recommend you shut up about standards—in which respect WaPo is miles ahead of your preferred sources of alt-right fearporn—and instead consider the dangers of a President that believes he can't be investigated for murder.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You and I both know you're full of shit, and, considering the things you regularly drag in here from various heaps of refuse you frequent, I recommend you shut up about standards—in which respect WaPo is miles ahead of your preferred sources of alt-right fearporn—and instead consider the dangers of a President that believes he can't be investigated for murder.
    I should have added that while a sitting President does not have immunity from investigation, s/he does get shielded by various kinds of executive privilege as well as federal supremacy. That's hard for state authorities to maneuver around. And of course any investigation by federal authorities under the Executive Branch (basically all of them) is actually at the President's discretion.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #11
    Isn't Executive Privilege more like attorney-client privilege -- and it can't be used to cover up a crime, or a High Crime and Misdemeanor?

    I'm trying to understand how the State Dept and DoJ can tell their people to ignore congressional subpoenas for impeachment inquiries/investigations....and claim Executive Privilege.


  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Isn't Executive Privilege more like attorney-client privilege -- and it can't be used to cover up a crime, or a High Crime and Misdemeanor?

    I'm trying to understand how the State Dept and DoJ can tell their people to ignore congressional subpoenas for impeachment inquiries/investigations....and claim Executive Privilege.

    It depends. "Executive Privilege" is a general term for a collection of privileges and rights which arise from several different areas of law and the Constitution and apply to different things with varying levels of strength. And generally, "executive privilege" is claimed more often than it is ultimately exercised. It can be considered as a starting position for one side in negotiations as to under exactly what conditions and terms testimony will eventually be provided. The courts have made it clear that they would far prefer the two branches work such things out themselves without dragging the courts into it, when at all possible.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  13. #13
    But the courts are being dragged into now (McGahn and Kupperman). Isn't the Nixon precedent that congressional subpoenas can't be ignored, and they have to at least show up to testify before they can claim Executive Privilege (or plead the 5th)?

  14. #14
    To the best of my knowledge, the position being advanced in defense of Congress not being able to compel those two figures to testify is on grounds which the courts have never considered directly before. It is different from the Nixon precedents you're thinking of (which were about compelling the White House to hand over taped recordings of conversations).

    One possible source of confusion is that the closest precedents here arise from another, completely different and much later case where Nixon was a party, one from 1982 where he was being sued in civil court for actions he ordered as President. The claim being made then (and here) is that the President has an "absolute immunity" from being compelled to provide testimony about their actions as POTUS. In 1982, SCOTUS ruled the President did have an absolute immunity against being compelled to provide testimony in civil court about their actions as President. The question of whether the same immunity applies to testifying before Congress has not been addressed (one could argue either way, particularly wrt impeachment proceedings). A related ruling to that one addressed the topic of whether that absolute immunity applied to the President's closest/senior advisors. SCOTUS ruled against that claim then.

    Again, whether that applies to testimony before Congress has not been addressed but if stare decisis were being followed it is rather unlikely to go the White House's way here wrt the advisors. It is, however, entirely possible that the courts will just punt it as nonjusticiable and say "this is really something Congress and the White House should be working out themselves via the negotiation and accommodation process, not a matter for the courts at this time." Dragging the courts into it is also in all likelihood a delaying tactic. The cases can easily take longer to work their way through the court system than Pelosi et al are willing to let the impeachment proceedings themselves take to finish. In which case the cases will get kicked because there is no longer an active question (and hence justiciable controversy) before the court and those plaintiffs will have managed to skin out of testifying.

    Someone does not have to show up to claim Executive Privilege. In fact, EP is usually claimed on their behalf by the White House. You do have to show up to plead the 5th, but that's a very different matter legally speaking.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 11-02-2019 at 07:27 AM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  15. #15
    I didn't see the usual suspects complaining about an imperial presidency when Obama de-facto legalized millions of illegal immigrants because their childhood-arrival status made them sympathetic stories.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should stop dumbly imploring our executive leadership to "do something" and implore legislators to "do something and compromise if you have to get something done".

  16. #16
    I'm not sure how you managed to equate the president ordering the confiscation of land to fulfill a stupid campaign promise and promising pardons for committing crimes, or saying that he can't be investigated even if he murders someone... with granting citizenship to people who were brought to the US as children and then led productive lives in the country. What exactly was taken from you against your will by Obama's amnesty for Dreamers? Did Obama tell his subordinates he'd pardon them for following illegal orders?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I didn't see the usual suspects complaining about an imperial presidency when Obama de-facto legalized millions of illegal immigrants because their childhood-arrival status made them sympathetic stories.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should stop dumbly imploring our executive leadership to "do something" and implore legislators to "do something and compromise if you have to get something done".
    "I know the president is breaking the law with this policy, but have you stopped to the think that the previous democratic president also implemented a policy?"
    I'll lend you my essence for your rusted throne, and you could bring back the light to the last home of civilisation without which I'm gone
    So take this godsoul to bring forth a new dawn, I'll forgive the death you've earned, the cities you've burned, the lessons we've learned
    For all that remains, just sacrifice me. I'll hide away in a castle on the sea.

  18. #18
    Home crap that is an uncanny impersonation of the WSJ editorial board
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I didn't see the usual suspects complaining about an imperial presidency when Obama de-facto legalized millions of illegal immigrants because their childhood-arrival status made them sympathetic stories.

    Maybe, just maybe, we should stop dumbly imploring our executive leadership to "do something" and implore legislators to "do something and compromise if you have to get something done".

    Nope, you were the only person on here who complained. I and Hazir pointed out that if you were griping about the Imperial Presidency, you really ought to have started earlier, since it's been a thing since before your grandpa was a gleam in his parents eye. You pooh-poohed that idea. Now suddenly you're advancing the exact same logic. Am-scray.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Nope, you were the only person on here who complained. I and Hazir pointed out that if you were griping about the Imperial Presidency, you really ought to have started earlier, since it's been a thing since before your grandpa was a gleam in his parents eye. You pooh-poohed that idea. Now suddenly you're advancing the exact same logic. Am-scray.


    I believe I agreed it's been an evolution that has a long history, but my objection was the media's applause/lack of objection to this.

    I find mass confiscation of land for a border wall without true legislative backing to be as problematic as mass legalization of illegal immigrants without true legislative backing.

    Now amscray.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    ...In 1982, SCOTUS ruled the President did have an absolute immunity against being compelled to provide testimony in civil court about their actions as President. The question of whether the same immunity applies to testifying before Congress has not been addressed (one could argue either way, particularly wrt impeachment proceedings). A related ruling to that one addressed the topic of whether that absolute immunity applied to the President's closest/senior advisors. SCOTUS ruled against that claim then.
    Key words being civil court and actions as President? I think the confusion is because Trump had legal problems during the campaign (before being president)...but his legal team treats everything as absolute immunity or EP, including impeachment.

    ...Dragging the courts into it is also in all likelihood a delaying tactic. The cases can easily take longer to work their way through the court system than Pelosi et al are willing to let the impeachment proceedings themselves take to finish. In which case the cases will get kicked because there is no longer an active question (and hence justiciable controversy) before the court and those plaintiffs will have managed to skin out of testifying.
    I was wondering about that. It makes sense for Kupperman to ask the courts for guidance (no one wants to be forced into that pickle). I'm not sure why the judge gave a December court date, unless it's a huge punt like you said.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Key words being civil court and actions as President?
    Wrt a claim of that particular kind of immunity, yes. That does not address immunity or privilege arising elsewhere, though.

    I think the confusion is because Trump had legal problems during the campaign (before being president)...but his legal team treats everything as absolute immunity or EP, including impeachment.
    Well, they're going to make a bunch of claims both true and untrue. Inventing crap out of thin air is practically a signature of the Trump Presidency.


    I was wondering about that. It makes sense for Kupperman to ask the courts for guidance (no one wants to be forced into that pickle). I'm not sure why the judge gave a December court date, unless it's a huge punt like you said.
    Could be. Could also just be when there was room on the docket after providing adequate time for parties to prepare their case. One reason dodges like that work for plaintiffs is how judges here are always swamped with work and how much preparation legal arguments and deliberation require
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Well, they're going to make a bunch of claims both true and untrue. Inventing crap out of thin air is practically a signature of the Trump Presidency.
    Should we be concerned that "crap" has been normalized and adopted by some in the legal field? Seriously, wtf is happening when Trump's lawyers tell a judge (in a tax case) that he could literally shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not be indicted?

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Should we be concerned that "crap" has been normalized and adopted by some in the legal field? Seriously, wtf is happening when Trump's lawyers tell a judge (in a tax case) that he could literally shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not be indicted?

    Yes and no. It's specious and wastes time and that is a cause for concern because it is one (albeit just one of many) reasons behind the already-mentioned backlog of work swamping the judicial bench. Beyond that it's not terribly relevant nor a cause for concern. It's not the lawyers' job to thresh the wheat from the chaff, it's their job to advocate for their client. Doing that well may in fact require throwing up a bunch of crap. Throwing out the crap is the job of the judge (aided somewhat by opposing counsel)
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  25. #25
    I'm concerned that lawyers are "advocating" for their client with specious arguments that turn into political "narratives", which turns everything upside down: Witch hunt, Hoax, Fake News, Deep State, Impeachment Sham, etc.

    Trump is also restructuring the judiciary with 'conservatives' who seem to believe in presidential supremacy, while dismantling the institutional trust that's crucial for our republic. In the big picture, this is scary stuff for laypeople (like me), but it's good to know people like you (who are well versed on the law) aren't so worried. I'll hang onto that while holding my breath.

  26. #26
    Trying to win a trial by first winning a campaign on public opinion is nothing new either, it certainly predates the US legal system. As for the rest, thank you for reminding me why it's a total waste of my time to explain things to you. You just conflate anything specific I address with whatever other issues are on your mind.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Trying to win a trial by first winning a campaign on public opinion is nothing new either, it certainly predates the US legal system. As for the rest, thank you for reminding me why it's a total waste of my time to explain things to you. You just conflate anything specific I address with whatever other issues are on your mind.
    Once you've answered a question, I move onto another question or concern. Sorry if my conversational style perturbs you, or you're frustrated by my layperson mentality, because I do appreciate your knowledge of law and the ability to break things down into specific pieces (like precedent).

    Since so many traditions and norms have been broken, and Trump's administration challenges congressional oversight at every turn....it's hard to rely on any political history OR legal precedent for context. We're in new territory now. So I'll still have lots of questions about the Executive branch under Trump (ie The Imperial Presidency) and how we can maintain the balance of powers moving forward.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Once you've answered a question, I move onto another question or concern.
    You did nothing of the sort. I answered your question and you responded by presenting another issue entirely and getting sarcastic because that new issue concerned you and the one I had addressed didn't concern me outside the one specific problem I outlined.

    Trump is also restructuring the judiciary with 'conservatives' who seem to believe in presidential supremacy, while dismantling the institutional trust that's crucial for our republic. In the big picture, this is scary stuff for laypeople (like me), but it's good to know people like you (who are well versed on the law) aren't so worried. I'll hang onto that while holding my breath.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  29. #29
    Give me a break, Fuzzy. This whole forum is like a Venn diagram with overlapping content, but The Imperial Presidency thread is a good place to ask my questions about *Executive powers* in the Trump administration, especially since the Impeachment process has highlighted how our legal concepts are mixed with political interpretations. See Attorney General Barr's lecture to The Federalist Society:

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/a...morial-lecture

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •