Trump does that because it is how he has always operated. When he is done with a a memo or something on paper he rips it in half to signify he has "read" it and is done with it. It is an old person way of handling paper in a business, and is as stupid as it sounds.
It's not an old person habit, it's a corrupt person habit. Can't use a memo as evidence if it no longer exists.
Trump does that because it is how he has always operated. When he is done with a a memo or something on paper he rips it in half to signify he has "read" it and is done with it. It is an old person way of handling paper in a business, and is as stupid as it sounds.
It's not an old person habit, it's a corrupt person habit. Can't use a memo as evidence if it no longer exists.
Well, a stupid corrupt person habit.
Cause, like, even cross cut shredders are often put back together.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't mad Hunter Biden profited from his name. He's pissed because he thinks Biden profited more than Ivanka has.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't mad Hunter Biden profited from his name. He's pissed because he thinks Biden profited more than Ivanka has.
I don't think he cares either way; he just wanted info to discredit Biden because Biden was the obvious frontrunner at the time. That's it.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't mad Hunter Biden profited from his name. He's pissed because he thinks Biden profited more than Ivanka has.
I don't think he cares either way; he just wanted info to discredit Biden because Biden was the obvious frontrunner at the time. That's it.
We saw the same thing in 2016.
The smear was chosen because his kids are profiting like crazy. But yeah he doesn't actually give a shit.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
Oh yeah. I'd forgotten Ivanka was helping out around the office.
This administration gets up to so much that it's impossible to keep track of.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't mad Hunter Biden profited from his name. He's pissed because he thinks Biden profited more than Ivanka has.
I don't think he cares either way; he just wanted info to discredit Biden because Biden was the obvious frontrunner at the time. That's it.
We saw the same thing in 2016.
Also Biden was Obama's vp. And trump is obsessed with attacking anything from Obama's administration.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
On Saturday, the French government released a video from the G20 summit in Osaka that showed Ivanka awkwardly interjecting with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, British prime minister, Theresa May, Canadian PM, Justin Trudeau and IMF director Christine Lagarde, whose icy expression spoke volumes. During the summit, Ivanka was also included in photographs of a group of leaders.
A day later, Trump’s 37-year-old daughter became one of the few Americans to set foot inside North Korea as her father held nuclear talks with Kim in the demilitarised zone. The first daughter described the event as “surreal”.
Then, addressing US forces stationed in South Korea, Donald Trump invited Ivanka on stage and promised: “She’s going to steal the show.”
That's from the recent G20 summit this past summer as well as the trip to the Korean Peninsula. Trumps kids have been involved in every step of his administration despite the lack of experience and clear nepotism involved.
I doubt stuff like this will wind up in the articles of impeachment the House drafts, but as far as I'm concerned it should be.
Manhattan US attorney in the spotlight with another high profile investigation of Trump's inner circle
With the indictment Thursday of associates of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, New York federal prosecutors are yet again behind a criminal case that threatens Trump's inner circle.
That has raised fears in law-enforcement circles that the head of the office, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, could be in the crosshairs of the President. But Justice Department officials say privately that they believe the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for political blowback if Berman were removed may help secure his position.
In recent months, the name of a top Justice Department official -- Ed O'Callaghan, a former New York federal prosecutor -- has been discussed in Washington as a possible nominee to replace Berman, according to Justice Department officials.
But the case charged Thursday has put a chill on any efforts to advance O'Callaghan for the job, these people
Berman, who is overseeing the case, has led the office since January 2018, and his initial appointment was met with some public and private concerns among the office's prosecutors and others about his previous associations with Trump. Berman had held a position on Trump's transition team, he was a law partner of Giuliani and Trump had personally interviewed him for the US attorney post, all of which worried members of the office who prize its reputation for independence, according to people familiar with the matter.
That sounds like wanting to fire a guy for doing his job. A guy who should be considered very friendly to Trump.
Manhattan US attorney in the spotlight with another high profile investigation of Trump's inner circle
With the indictment Thursday of associates of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, New York federal prosecutors are yet again behind a criminal case that threatens Trump's inner circle.
That has raised fears in law-enforcement circles that the head of the office, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, could be in the crosshairs of the President. But Justice Department officials say privately that they believe the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for political blowback if Berman were removed may help secure his position.
In recent months, the name of a top Justice Department official -- Ed O'Callaghan, a former New York federal prosecutor -- has been discussed in Washington as a possible nominee to replace Berman, according to Justice Department officials.
But the case charged Thursday has put a chill on any efforts to advance O'Callaghan for the job, these people
Berman, who is overseeing the case, has led the office since January 2018, and his initial appointment was met with some public and private concerns among the office's prosecutors and others about his previous associations with Trump. Berman had held a position on Trump's transition team, he was a law partner of Giuliani and Trump had personally interviewed him for the US attorney post, all of which worried members of the office who prize its reputation for independence, according to people familiar with the matter.
That sounds like wanting to fire a guy for doing his job. A guy who should be considered very friendly to Trump.
That awkward moment when you fire someone who won’t play ball for someone you think is a stooge, and it turns out they take the job seriously.
Manhattan US attorney in the spotlight with another high profile investigation of Trump's inner circle
With the indictment Thursday of associates of President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, New York federal prosecutors are yet again behind a criminal case that threatens Trump's inner circle.
That has raised fears in law-enforcement circles that the head of the office, Manhattan US Attorney Geoffrey Berman, could be in the crosshairs of the President. But Justice Department officials say privately that they believe the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for political blowback if Berman were removed may help secure his position.
In recent months, the name of a top Justice Department official -- Ed O'Callaghan, a former New York federal prosecutor -- has been discussed in Washington as a possible nominee to replace Berman, according to Justice Department officials.
But the case charged Thursday has put a chill on any efforts to advance O'Callaghan for the job, these people
Berman, who is overseeing the case, has led the office since January 2018, and his initial appointment was met with some public and private concerns among the office's prosecutors and others about his previous associations with Trump. Berman had held a position on Trump's transition team, he was a law partner of Giuliani and Trump had personally interviewed him for the US attorney post, all of which worried members of the office who prize its reputation for independence, according to people familiar with the matter.
That sounds like wanting to fire a guy for doing his job. A guy who should be considered very friendly to Trump.
That awkward moment when you fire someone who won’t play ball for someone you think is a stooge, and it turns out they take the job seriously.
Considering the "meddlesome priest" way Trump shows his displeasure, it's only appropriate for this admin to have a Thomas Beckett.
More than a little gross he has Ivanka talk to world leaders she's not a fucking elected anything.
Neither is the Secretary of State.
+1
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Sec State is (ostensibly) confirmed by the Senate, and is a role that has working with world leaders as part of the duties list.
"President's daughter," not so much.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
You know how the 8 page letter to Pelosi saying the White House would not cooperate with the impeachment investigation sounded like it was partly written by Trump? It was partly written by Trump.
The letter was notable not for the conclusion it reached—few suspected that the administration was going to cooperate with House Democrats—but for the broadsides and rhetorical flourishes it featured. That’s because this letter wasn’t fully written by lawyers.
It was crafted, in large part, by President Donald Trump himself.
According to two people familiar with the process, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone had multiple meetings with President Trump in the days leading up to the issuance of the letter. During those meetings with Cipollone, the president would get especially animated when names such as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee leading the probe into the whistleblower complaint, came up.The sources said that Trump enthusiastically suggested adding various jabs at Democratic lawmakers and would request that their “unfair” treatment of him be incorporated into the letter.
The result was what Bob Bauer, who served as President Obama’s White House counsel, called a “remarkable” and “extraordinarily political document.”
Trump had also privately consulted on the letter with Rudy Giuliani, his notably pugnacious personal lawyer who is at the center of the Ukraine and Biden-related scandal engulfing the administration. Trump talked to Giuliani about how he and the White House should proceed in fighting back and challenging the legitimacy of the impeachment probe, one of the sources noted. Reached for comment on Thursday evening, the former New York mayor and Trump confidant repeatedly declined to confirm or deny this.
Everybody who works for Trump debases themselves for Trump.
Can't say I'm really surprised by most of the people working for Trump debasing themselves at this point. There's a certain sphere around him on the executive stuff at this point, where he can fire them at a whim or just blow them off. Throw in the fact that a big factor for his hiring process, is absolute loyalty and that most sane or honest people didn't want to work for him and you pretty much get a recipe where sycophants are the only people being hired.
I've said it before on this whole shit show and I'll say it again. Probably one of the biggest things we need to do, once Trump is fucking gone, is to figure out how much more of the fuck awful spoils system can we take out back and shoot. Then back that up with something, that a shitty republican majority in both the house and senate, can't easily circumvent to appease the next Trump. I don't want it just being a law that can be destroy with a simple majority, I want it to be something built into the US Constitution and worded as such, that the GOP can't just simply be like "lol nope," with zero or little consequence, but in a way where they will eat some serious consequences if they try such a play.
Amending the Constitution is, by design, extraordinarily difficult. I don't believe it's something we're going to have the ability to do any time soon, not least because the very people you'd would be trying to bind and limit will (continue to) do everything in their power to obstruct and prevent that.
The Washington Post are reporting that in his planned testimony to Congress, Sondland - the guy who sent that infamous text saying there was no quid pro quo - is planning to say that actually he can’t definitively say there was no quid pro quo, just that Trump said there wasn’t.
It also confirms that Sondland was instructed to say there was no quid pro quo directly by Trump himself, which is important from an obstruction of justice point of view.
This whole cant indict rule has no basis in the rule of law or the constitution. It is an in house DOJ rule thats being adhered to becauae the place is infested with sycophants who believe in executive theory.
In other words, “Yes, there was a quid pro quo. And yes, the President ordered it.”
Sondland is expected to say that for months before the Sept. 9 message, he worked at the direction of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to secure what he would call in another text message the “deliverable” sought by Trump: a public statement from Ukraine that it would investigate corruption, including mentioning Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, by name. In exchange for the statement, the president would grant Ukraine’s new president a coveted White House audience.
“It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one,” the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony said.
So he doesn't know what corruption is then.
Edit:
Sondland appears poised to say that he and other diplomats did not know that the request to mention Burisma was really an effort to impugn the reputations of Biden and his son Hunter, who had served as a Burisma board member. Sondland contends that he didn’t know about the Biden connection until a whistleblower complaint and transcript surfaced in late September.
To trust Sondland’s testimony, members of Congress will have to believe Sondland had not seen televised appearances by Giuliani over the spring and summer, or numerous newspaper and magazine articles questioning whether Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma could prove to be a drag on his father’s presidential campaign.
“If people find that incredulous, it strikes me that the incredulity is hindsight bias,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony. “The things that seem so clear to people now didn’t seem so clear in real time."
The three returned to Washington intent on pressing Trump to meet quickly with Zelensky. But instead of receiving a positive reception, the idea was met with a “buzz saw” in the Oval Office, the person said. Trump was disgruntled about Ukraine, blaming opponents in the country for attempting to undermine his 2016 victory.
“Trump was saying Ukraine ‘tried to do me in.’ ” The three surmised that Giuliani had filled Trump’s head with a number of baseless conspiracy theories, including that a hacked server belonging to the Democratic National Committee was spirited away to Ukraine. Perry, Sondland and Volker each took a turn trying to move Trump to no avail. The president ended the meeting saying: “If you want to do something you have to talk to Rudy.”
The "I am a moron who didn't know why the president was obsessed with that issue despite him saying exactly why" defense.
I'd like to get rid of the bit where sitting Presidents can't be indicted for crimes.
What part? At this point all we can do is add language stating that sitting Presidents definitely can be indicted for crimes regardless of what the people that they directly appointed say.
We could back it up with more language saying that that part of the Constitution applies even if the people appointed by the president say it doesn't. To really give it teeth, we could add more language stating that the part of the Constitution that states that the part of the Constitution that states that the President can be indicted for crimes applies even if the people appointed by the president say it doesn't. And then hope it doesn't come before the Supreme Court, because who knows what will happen then.
This whole cant indict rule has no basis in the rule of law or the constitution. It is an in house DOJ rule thats being adhered to becauae the place is infested with sycophants who believe in executive theory.
Disclaimer: Theory not valid for Democratic presidents.
This whole cant indict rule has no basis in the rule of law or the constitution. It is an in house DOJ rule thats being adhered to becauae the place is infested with sycophants who believe in executive theory.
Disclaimer: Theory not valid for Democratic presidents.
Yeah, quell surprise when they find some sort of "renegade" who has an "originalist" view on the matter the second it's relevant.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
In other words, “Yes, there was a quid pro quo. And yes, the President ordered it.”
Sondland is expected to say that for months before the Sept. 9 message, he worked at the direction of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, to secure what he would call in another text message the “deliverable” sought by Trump: a public statement from Ukraine that it would investigate corruption, including mentioning Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, by name. In exchange for the statement, the president would grant Ukraine’s new president a coveted White House audience.
“It was a quid pro quo, but not a corrupt one,” the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony said.
So he doesn't know what corruption is then.
Edit:
Sondland appears poised to say that he and other diplomats did not know that the request to mention Burisma was really an effort to impugn the reputations of Biden and his son Hunter, who had served as a Burisma board member. Sondland contends that he didn’t know about the Biden connection until a whistleblower complaint and transcript surfaced in late September.
To trust Sondland’s testimony, members of Congress will have to believe Sondland had not seen televised appearances by Giuliani over the spring and summer, or numerous newspaper and magazine articles questioning whether Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma could prove to be a drag on his father’s presidential campaign.
“If people find that incredulous, it strikes me that the incredulity is hindsight bias,” said the person familiar with Sondland’s testimony. “The things that seem so clear to people now didn’t seem so clear in real time."
The three returned to Washington intent on pressing Trump to meet quickly with Zelensky. But instead of receiving a positive reception, the idea was met with a “buzz saw” in the Oval Office, the person said. Trump was disgruntled about Ukraine, blaming opponents in the country for attempting to undermine his 2016 victory.
“Trump was saying Ukraine ‘tried to do me in.’ ” The three surmised that Giuliani had filled Trump’s head with a number of baseless conspiracy theories, including that a hacked server belonging to the Democratic National Committee was spirited away to Ukraine. Perry, Sondland and Volker each took a turn trying to move Trump to no avail. The president ended the meeting saying: “If you want to do something you have to talk to Rudy.”
The "I am a moron who didn't know why the president was obsessed with that issue despite him saying exactly why" defense.
Man, I didn't think there was a defense more disgusting than "just following orders," but Sondland might have found it with that. I suppose the silver lining is that it makes Trump look worse because true or not, his guy is claiming to be an idiot and he was the one that picked the guy. No good way to spin that. Either you can't find good subordinates because you're incapable of doing so or you intentionally seek out incompetent subordinates because they won't stop you from doing illegal shit. Sure one is worse than the other, but for a job like POTUS both are damning, one of the biggest requirements for POTUS IMO, is being able to find competent subordinates to get all the work done, since the reality is that there will be a metric fuck ton of shit outside of your expertise and knowledge levels.
The constitution doesn't actually lay out an independent DoJ beyond senate confirmation for its key positions. It's mostly been "tradition" to keep it walled off from White House interference. That's the issue. The same power that let Obama decline to enforce laws requiring the deportation of children is the same power that lets the President decline to have laws enforced on themself. So yes in all likelihood the President could be indicted by their own DoJ, but any even marginally corrupt President would direct them not to.
Not sure why states are dawdling around though. They should be able to charge sitting Presidents just fine if they lie within their juristiction.
Posts
The burn bag is part of any government office dealing with classified info.
Ahh did not know that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's not an old person habit, it's a corrupt person habit. Can't use a memo as evidence if it no longer exists.
Well, a stupid corrupt person habit.
Cause, like, even cross cut shredders are often put back together.
"Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader."
- Julia Davis is a WaPo reporter.
Yeah, Hunter Biden was the kid who benefited from his father's position, and deserves investigation.
Fuck these projectionists so hard. It'd be one thing if Trump didn't have three children banking of their father's position, but he does. The naked fucking arrogance to go after someone else's kid, when his kids are clearly doing so much more, is just astonishing.
This isn't some child or young teenager where that might be acceptable. These are fucking adults.
It just boggles my mind that the news kept trying to make the Hunter Biden thing something, when there's three right there, right now (and at least one in-law) doing it right in the fucking open. I'm not a huge fan of whataboutism, but if you're gonna fucking do it, fucking do it evenhandedly.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't think you even need to go that far down the family tree to find a trump that is personally benefiting from the presidency...
I can pretty much guarantee you he isn't mad Hunter Biden profited from his name. He's pissed because he thinks Biden profited more than Ivanka has.
Also the fact that she might actually know less about foreign affairs then her father.
I don't think he cares either way; he just wanted info to discredit Biden because Biden was the obvious frontrunner at the time. That's it.
We saw the same thing in 2016.
The smear was chosen because his kids are profiting like crazy. But yeah he doesn't actually give a shit.
Oh yeah. I'd forgotten Ivanka was helping out around the office.
This administration gets up to so much that it's impossible to keep track of.
Also Biden was Obama's vp. And trump is obsessed with attacking anything from Obama's administration.
He’s normalized his awfulness to a point he can’t understand others aren’t as shitty as his family
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/01/donald-trump-ivanka-g20-north-korea-nepotism
That's from the recent G20 summit this past summer as well as the trip to the Korean Peninsula. Trumps kids have been involved in every step of his administration despite the lack of experience and clear nepotism involved.
I doubt stuff like this will wind up in the articles of impeachment the House drafts, but as far as I'm concerned it should be.
That awkward moment when you fire someone who won’t play ball for someone you think is a stooge, and it turns out they take the job seriously.
Considering the "meddlesome priest" way Trump shows his displeasure, it's only appropriate for this admin to have a Thomas Beckett.
Neither is the Secretary of State.
"President's daughter," not so much.
You know, ostensibly.
Fixed.
Which is why I fear he was using the acting part so they would not be held by the oaths of office
But then again most people are not that strategic.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-favorite-impeachment-lawyer-is-trump-himself Everybody who works for Trump debases themselves for Trump.
I've said it before on this whole shit show and I'll say it again. Probably one of the biggest things we need to do, once Trump is fucking gone, is to figure out how much more of the fuck awful spoils system can we take out back and shoot. Then back that up with something, that a shitty republican majority in both the house and senate, can't easily circumvent to appease the next Trump. I don't want it just being a law that can be destroy with a simple majority, I want it to be something built into the US Constitution and worded as such, that the GOP can't just simply be like "lol nope," with zero or little consequence, but in a way where they will eat some serious consequences if they try such a play.
John covers diplomacy and national security for the Washington Post
Edit: The "I am a moron who didn't know why the president was obsessed with that issue despite him saying exactly why" defense.
What part? At this point all we can do is add language stating that sitting Presidents definitely can be indicted for crimes regardless of what the people that they directly appointed say.
We could back it up with more language saying that that part of the Constitution applies even if the people appointed by the president say it doesn't. To really give it teeth, we could add more language stating that the part of the Constitution that states that the part of the Constitution that states that the President can be indicted for crimes applies even if the people appointed by the president say it doesn't. And then hope it doesn't come before the Supreme Court, because who knows what will happen then.
Disclaimer: Theory not valid for Democratic presidents.
Yeah, quell surprise when they find some sort of "renegade" who has an "originalist" view on the matter the second it's relevant.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Man, I didn't think there was a defense more disgusting than "just following orders," but Sondland might have found it with that. I suppose the silver lining is that it makes Trump look worse because true or not, his guy is claiming to be an idiot and he was the one that picked the guy. No good way to spin that. Either you can't find good subordinates because you're incapable of doing so or you intentionally seek out incompetent subordinates because they won't stop you from doing illegal shit. Sure one is worse than the other, but for a job like POTUS both are damning, one of the biggest requirements for POTUS IMO, is being able to find competent subordinates to get all the work done, since the reality is that there will be a metric fuck ton of shit outside of your expertise and knowledge levels.
Not sure why states are dawdling around though. They should be able to charge sitting Presidents just fine if they lie within their juristiction.