Where were you when I was arguing with Nunn for months about this? LOTS of people accept the OLC memo, including literally everyone who matters in DOJ.
It’s not law. Statutes and court decisions are law. Memos are memos.
My main man Preet accepts the OLC opinion. And its kind of important that the FREAKING DOJ accepts it since they are, you know, the ones doing the federal prosecuting!!!
1 Like
BoredSocial got banned?
The strict constructionist br0s on SCOTUS could just use the literal words of the Constitution which they would almost certainly do if Trump was doing this shit as a Democrat.
AFAIK, Preet never argued the opinion was correct, only that Mueller had to follow it. Here’s what a real judge had to say:
“This Court cannot endorse such a categorical and
limitless assertion of presidential immunity from judicial
process as being countenanced by the nation’s constitutional
plan, especially in the light of the fundamental concerns
over excessive arrogation of power that animated the
Constitution’s delicate structure and its calibrated balance
of authority among the three branches of the national
government, as well as between the federal and state
authorities. Hence, the expansive notion of constitutional
immunity invoked here to shield the President from judicial
process would constitute an overreach of executive power.”
The 75 page opinion is here: Federal District Court Dismisses Trump Lawsuit Over Tax Returns, Trump Appeals | Lawfare
1 Like
Preet is centrist garbage and can be safely ignored
OK, but you see how the Department of Justice accepting that the President has absolute criminal immunity from Federal Law is immensely problematic? If they accept that, it doesn’t even get to a court because they’ll never bring a criminal case upon which a court will rule!
5 Likes
I don’t see any issue here, cause impeachment! Yes, intense sarcasm intended.
Something I found pretty interesting and has stayed with me. Chris Hayes interviewed his wife for his podcast a few months ago. She clerked for Stevens and then worked in the Office of Legal Counsel for Obama.
Responding to a question about presidential authority, she said something to the effect that the OLC has shelves of books/memos/opinions/etc supporting unfettered presidential authority to do X, Y, or Z.
There are similar, less developed materials in Congress emphasizing Congressional prerogatives.
The reason the executive and congress usually reach an accommodation, and always have, regarding things like responding to subpoenas based on Congress’ “oversight function” or the president’s “executive privilege” when conducting foreign policy is that they are playing an elaborate game of chicken about their legitimate authority.
The game rarely comes to a head, because one or both sides back down. They don’t want to have the courts decide the issue and circumscribe their authority. They need the ability to run their bluffs. It’s only in rare cases, like US v. Nixon, that courts are forced to decide. Well, in US. v. Nixon the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that tapes made literally in the oval office regarding consultation with executive advisers were not privileged, due to the potential implication of criminal conduct.
In Jones v. Clinton the Supreme Court said a sitting president could be compelled to sit for a civil deposition.
Despite this precedent, there’s been a big move in conservative legal circles over the last 30 years arguing for executive supremacy on most things, with impeachment as the only legitimate remedy. [With the convenient unspoken corollary that impeachment is near impossible for “normal” disputes given the modern, completely unforeseen, form of party based government.] What Trump and his OLC have been doing, even before the Ukraine thing, is basically forcing impeachment (with Nancy not calling their bet with a winning hand), because Trump is incapable of following the law, and to the extent he would do so would further expose his lies and crimes.
The point, however, is that depending on the team (congress or president), there are co-existing but significantly inconsistent views of congress and the presidency that are held by sophisticated parties. (See, eg, hullabaloo re executive orders).
Edit: this is one reason I want multiple articles of impeachment, because some of the Republicans in the Senate are jealous of their power and could likely be convinced to support impeachment on the basis of overstepping executive authority. Again, maybe not enough to get to 2/3, but enough to substantially imperil any chance at reelection.) This is why Trump should be kissing ass to senate republicans, but he’s doing the opposite, and some will want revenge. Also, sure they take a hit in 2020, but they will have to some time and President Pence has to look really, really good to them right now.
2 Likes
That’s well said, and also its apparent from quotes like the ones excerpted from the Federalist Papers upthread that the Framers also had absolutely no idea how to guarantee limited executive powers in the face of a sufficiently large political cabal, and they left it largely unsaid that the ultimate recourse would be in the hands of the people themselves.
That’s the dark humor about our outrage over the rapid obliteration of political ‘norms’, Hamilton and Madison had all the experience in the world about this.
1 Like
Yes, in no small part because they were aware of the massive train of abuses of Trumpian English, French and other kings going back to Rome. (And the ones that weren’t Trumpain were often controlled by their advisers or in the thrall of foreign states who literally gave them tons of money and stuff.) They had more fear of an unfettered executive than we can imagine.
I found a picture of Major league umpire Rob Drake:
3 Likes
It has nothing to do with sensibilities. I thought the original post was funny, which was why I responded POTY. You just don’t tweet something like that at the twitter account of the president of the united states.
1 Like
They don’t even know what a SCIF is. They probably hear SCIF and think it has something to do with Schiff.
Nobody is going to do shit to them.
Except bring them some food.
One of them will probably be on Cuomo tonight, just watch.
This is going to play REALLY fucking well on Fox News. It’ll play poorly on CNN/MSNBC by drawing more attention to the hearings and making what went on get more attention. But Fox News is going to turn these guys into heroic patriots.
Haha… Sadly they’re far more likely to wuss out entirely than to impeach him for a long list of offenses
They are, and nothing will be done about it. Like the Dems couldn’t even manage to take away their cell phones inside the SCIF. What the fuck is the security process here? Is the guard just napping outside the door or what?
What are the consequences if they throw him a bone?
Take the vote, fuck it. Put every Republican on record on whether it’s okay to storm a SCIF when you’re not supposed to be in there, take electronics in and live tweet or stream audio/video.
2 Likes
I did?
1 Like
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngrierWHStaff/status/1187045758274551808
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngrierWHStaff/status/1187045760673681408
https://mobile.twitter.com/AngrierWHStaff/status/1187049782478626816
CLAP CLAP GOOD JOB…GOOD EFFORT!
1 Like
All these beltway types freaking out about each day’s events seem to be missing the critical detail that the GOP has unlocked the cheat code: nobody’s going to do anything.
2 Likes