Dear Heather, never EVER apologize for going long. You could have written 20 more pages and every one of us would have devoured every word. Don't want to put any onus on you -- you need your down time and rest. But you don't owe us, your readers, any explanations or apologies for anything. We simply and truly owe thanks to you for all the ways you communicate to and with us.
Thanks. But I hate to go over 1300 words, and that one was 1400. Usually 1200 is about a reader's limit. I guess I have to remember that the Letter readers have more stomach for the written word but I do get comments telling me I need to do shorter synopses or-- not kidding-- bullet points. :) What put me over was the McGirt decision, but I couldn't bear to cut it. I did cut Michael Cohen's story, and Michael Flynn's. Maybe there'll be room for them tonight....
I think that you don't have the 'average' reader here. We are hungry for more information, and many of us have never had such a concise and non-hysterical point of view before. Please feel free to go twice as long as you do.
I find myself each morning going through many of the responses here as they shed more light on our situation.
I don’t care how long the letters are. Bullet points? Really? Uh no! Is that some business person that is trying to explain to you how to do things? You’re a professor and a noted author! Claim it! Do it your way! No apologies warranted! I’m here to learn. Love every minute of it!
I agree that the Letter readers, and even most of the Facebook readers, are high caliber readers, and we get the advantage of having an extraordinarily high caliber writer to read! Your readers are also clearly seeking what you write, not just stomaching it. As a writer of court reports that are persuasive essays to convince a judge to turn the recommendations into orders, I do advocate bullet points to make a list of factors be readable. A long dense paragraph is counterproductive. However, your Letter essays are most eminently readable. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Actually, even the dissenters agreed that Trump was subject to the law, so it was unanimous, 9-0, that "The president is not above the law."
Nice that NY will have the tax fraud indictment waiting for him qt 12:01pm on January 20, 2021. Maybe we can lead him and his spawn (co-conspirators) away from the inauguration in cuffs. Tax fraud in NY is 20 years. And nobody can pardon him, since it's state law.
If Trump is subject to the law, but Congress can’t issue subpoenas to Trump for the purpose of law enforcement, and the Attorney General is a craven lackey, then who can hold Trump accountable for breaking the law? Taken together, these findings are meaningless, they create a Catch 22.
I'm trying to read all I can find about Cyrus Vance Jr. and I had forgotten that the case against Ivanka and Don Jr. and their building in Soho was dropped. I came across some other questionable stories as well. can you explain what happened with those cases or point me in the direction for clarification please?
In the decision written by John Roberts it is clearly stated that the dissenters were in agreement with the majority on this specific point....therefore 9-0 that Trump isn't above the law. The dissent concerned other aspects of the decision.
Okay, I confess that 24 hours ago, I anxiously awaited the SCOTUS decision on trump’s financial records, was relieved (and pleasantly surprised by the Creek decision), and then had to start my work day, as I do again now. I only read the first page of Trump v. Vance. Could someone summarize the other aspects of Thomas and Alito’s dissent?
SDNY is only prosecuting him (as far as is known publicly) for paying off porn stars, which is a campaign finance violation. The tax fraud which NYT reported on goes back to the late 1990s. SDNY has only sought tax returns and financial data for 8 years, 2008 to 2016, I think. So no tax fraud (unless that is confidential).
I hear you but I feel more than confident that they will be prosecuting Trump et al for all criminality they turn up going back for years. Once they have the returns they can move on new crimes and there will be many. Cy Vance loathes Donald Trump for all kinds of reasons we will never know about.
There is more to it and it might have been that, based purely on points of law, he couldn't make a case. Or he put the case on hold until he could make it. There are many of those cases idling. We do not know yet.
I do appreciate the back and forth. We both want the same thing - Trump held accountable. Given the extensive reporting of the past few years, it’s clear that: Trump has stiffed partners, contractors, customers and suppliers, many times; Trump has committed bank fraud to the tune of $$ billions; Trump has used real estate transactions to launder money for various oligarchs; and Trump has committed tax fraud to the tune of at least a half billion $$ (we only know what’s been reported by NYT about the machinations around his father’s estate, there’s likely more). That Trump is in the White House instead of prison is an indictment of NY District Attorneys. If they had gone after white collar criminals the way they do poor criminals, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. Heather would be working on her class notes, instead of running this blog. And Trump would be wearing a different kind of orange. Forgive me if I have little faith in Vance or any of the NY DAs.
Trump’s been a criminal for 40 years, yet they’re just prosecuting him now? I’d love to believe he will pay for all his crimes, but I’m not optimistic. How soon before Barr fires Vance?
You've pointed to an extremely left leaning reference -- populated by some not so great writers -- so if I were inclined I would look a lot deeper and wider before taking what one less than credible site as my source. I've been in NYC a long time. I am skeptical of that sort of journalism because I have my own sources and I don't take anything on its face unless there is more to support it. That and I am a moderate: when I wrote extensively on Kamala Harris some folks who were selling her as not living up to her 'progressive' creds found out things were more complicated than what they were spreading as God's indisputable truth. I wager that is true here too.
1. Trump fired Bharara. Barr fired Berman. Both were considered threats to Trump. They could have fired Vance, and they didn’t.
2. Vance dropped a case against Ivanka and Jared, although there was considerable evidence of guilt. Jared's attorney then ran a fundraiser for Vance’s re-election.
3. Vance has been prosecutor for a dozen years, and never brought a case against Trump.
The evidence says Vance is no threat to Trump. It does not seem likely that Vance is about to announce multiple investigations/prosecutions of Trump. This one he is pursuing, for campaign finance violations, is likely to follow the precedent of John Edwards’ very similar case - charges dropped.
If the United States is in default of its treaty obligations to the Creeks in Eastern Oklahoma in terms of criminal prosecutions as SCOTUS has declared that the "Reservation" still exists! This large part of the state of OKLAHOMA is INDIAN LAND. Can this ruling be enlarged to include other elements of ownership? Should not the non-native residents, including much of Tulsa, be paying them rent? Could this not be used by the tribes to remove or reduce environmental threats imposed unilaterally by the non-native population? It is clear that this ruling will encourage the 5 other tribes in that part of the state to follow suit. The Court also said that it would hold Congress to its word. This could offer hope to many other tribes across the country who have been cheated out of their land by speculators, miners and others but Congress hasn't specifically legislated on the issue to "clean up the fine details" of these criminal acts. Could this be used by the Lakota Sioux for inbstance to recover the Black Hills and prevent further desecration by the likes of Humpty Dumpty and all the "king's" men?
"We will hold the government to their word" dixit John Roberts! The different Tribes now lack neither the professional legal expertise amongst their own nor the necessary ressources and i think they'll be launching legal "trial balloons" to test the limits to which they can push this and at what speed they might make it move. I think this will open just a little the door leading eventually to a beginning of restitution and recompense. They will push on that door with the force of their culture and the conviction that they are right.
What a news day! It would seem many are eager to avoid getting the Trump stink on them. Would a resignation be out of the question? How much can his fragile ego take? I sincerely hope that enough people have had their eyes opened to the fact that the senate (which could have ended this debacle after the impeachment but chose to look the other way because it furthered their agenda) needs to be shaken up and infused with fresh blood. Every. Single. Race. Counts. VOTE!
Yes! The last one (I think) where they are saying how 'they are all whispering, etc.' I flipped... even worried they'd have to take it down... I can't even imagine his reaction to that...
Thank you, Professor Richardson. This Letter, as well as prior Letters, are helpful when attempting to make sense of a very complicated political landscape.
Yeah. It took a long time for me to digest the legal decisions. I always worry I'll have emphasized the wrong thing, but this morning's news looks like I got it right. Interesting to me how we all seem to pull the same quotes from them.
I listened to a podcast last year that was about the Oklahoma murder case. At the time it was scheduled for the SCOTUS, though no-one had any idea of how it would pan out. Rather interesting story behind how the cut-and-dried murder case turned into a challenge for our government to 'do the right thing' and honour its treaties for a change.
I'm with you. It's a weird case to have so much hanging on it. A Seminole raped a four year old on Creek land, right? Someday a great book will be written on this case, but I wouldn't want to read the evidence to write it!
Thanks again. Can't shake the feeling that Trump's not only just trying to politicize the military before election but keeps putting toe in water to see if they'd side with him in some form of coup--each and every time he dips that toe they come back with a big NO.
It's a slow legal grind to protect the constitution but SCOTUS has just re-affirmed the primacy of the law within the bounds laid down by the Constitution and that they are the final, NEUTRAL arbiter beholden to none. It lays waste to GOP's strategy and plans to slant the Supreme Court in their direction with a succession of "favourable" nominations as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have declared their independence. Trump, like Congress and the Court are not above the law and the former can no longer pretend that he can "shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it". On the contrary, the Court just told Trump that he's most assuredly heading for exposure, prison and bankruptcy on the inauguration of a new President in January. Can he sit and wait for the bell to toll?
Imagine for a second that Trump shoots somebody. Who can hold him accountable? Not Congress, according to SCOTUS. Barr? Not going to happen. Trump can, indeed, get away with murder, as far as SCOTUS is concerned.
Okay for the shooting example I used. But how about if Trump, say, took illegal business loans and bribes from Russian oligarchs, or Saudi billionaires? Or if he withheld Congressionally approved foreign aid to the president of Ukraine, say, to get him to help his re-election campaign? Or if he accepted foreign bribes and emoluments through his hotels and resorts? Or if he accepted foreign campaign contributions? These are all federal crimes, no state is involved. If Congress can’t pursue subpoenas for law enforcement, does it fall to Barr and DOJ?
Of course where the only recourse is impeachment you come up against the McConnell problem. Where a crime punishable under state law is identified then the Court just accorded the state prosecutors a significant improvement in their weaponry.
Please do not apologize for the length of your reflection. It brings clarity to thoughts I have been having. I will say though I am beginning to have whiplash from watching all the unfolding events and dumpster fires he has set to distract us. I think perhaps 45 is finally harvesting the fruits of the seeds he has sewn. I do wonder if it won't be his handling of the Covid-19 crisis that will bring him down. Our Governor in NM reversed some of our phased opening and she promises more action if we don't do better.
It's very much a question of attitude towards the times, isn't it? I asked a friend of mine just yesterday if he doesn't feel anxious at times about what's happening and he said "No, I feel excited about the times we are living in, the changes we are facing and the opportunities arising, to change things for the better". We're living in Australia, not the US, but I hold on to this thought when I feel anxiety levels rise in me.
With more sympathetic, legal scrutiny on native lands, treaties, etc., I'm wondering if this will help pave the way for Hawaii to regain sovereignty. The Kingdom of Hawaii still exists behind a sort of legal firewall and with an official apology from the US in 1993 on their side, there may be hope as long as Hawaiians can agree on the definition of "Native Hawaiians." Interesting times ...
Even with all the news yesterday, I was hoping you were going to summarize/explain McGirt v. Oklahoma. While the other information was interesting to put it mildly, I was curious about that case. That said I hope Katyal and Geltzer are right; the Berman testimony while not surprising it put another nail in Barr's coffin, and kudos to General Milley and Secretary in their efforts to keep the military from being politicalized. It was a good day! It give me hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel:)
The SCOTUS ruling implies that, if Congress cannot subpoena the president for the purposes of law enforcement, then Congressional oversight is a myth. Is this true even during impeachment? If the House had subpoenaed Trump for documents and/or witnesses, is SCOTUS saying he could just ignore them? If so, a lawless president like Trump can indeed get away with murder.
Just for “Hamilton” fans, straight from Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Vance:
“Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. Pp. 3–22.
(a) In 1807, John Marshall, presiding as Circuit Justice for Virginia over the treason trial of Aaron Burr, granted Burr’s motion for a sub- poena duces tecum directed at President Jefferson.”
Dear Heather, never EVER apologize for going long. You could have written 20 more pages and every one of us would have devoured every word. Don't want to put any onus on you -- you need your down time and rest. But you don't owe us, your readers, any explanations or apologies for anything. We simply and truly owe thanks to you for all the ways you communicate to and with us.
Thanks. But I hate to go over 1300 words, and that one was 1400. Usually 1200 is about a reader's limit. I guess I have to remember that the Letter readers have more stomach for the written word but I do get comments telling me I need to do shorter synopses or-- not kidding-- bullet points. :) What put me over was the McGirt decision, but I couldn't bear to cut it. I did cut Michael Cohen's story, and Michael Flynn's. Maybe there'll be room for them tonight....
I think that you don't have the 'average' reader here. We are hungry for more information, and many of us have never had such a concise and non-hysterical point of view before. Please feel free to go twice as long as you do.
I find myself each morning going through many of the responses here as they shed more light on our situation.
Just one person's opinion here, but you should feel free to make your emails as long as they need to be to keep us informed.
And please no bullet points. The writing is great and easy to comprehend.
People who want bullet points have become immune to digesting expository writing by too many years of PowerPoint presentations.
Please no bullet points!
I don’t care how long the letters are. Bullet points? Really? Uh no! Is that some business person that is trying to explain to you how to do things? You’re a professor and a noted author! Claim it! Do it your way! No apologies warranted! I’m here to learn. Love every minute of it!
Please, don’t dumb down your letters. Your writing is so good.
I agree that the Letter readers, and even most of the Facebook readers, are high caliber readers, and we get the advantage of having an extraordinarily high caliber writer to read! Your readers are also clearly seeking what you write, not just stomaching it. As a writer of court reports that are persuasive essays to convince a judge to turn the recommendations into orders, I do advocate bullet points to make a list of factors be readable. A long dense paragraph is counterproductive. However, your Letter essays are most eminently readable. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Please cover status of Cohen, Flynn, Stone, and Manafort.
So true!!!!
Bullet points? I had no idea Trump was a subscriber.
Actually, even the dissenters agreed that Trump was subject to the law, so it was unanimous, 9-0, that "The president is not above the law."
Nice that NY will have the tax fraud indictment waiting for him qt 12:01pm on January 20, 2021. Maybe we can lead him and his spawn (co-conspirators) away from the inauguration in cuffs. Tax fraud in NY is 20 years. And nobody can pardon him, since it's state law.
If Trump is subject to the law, but Congress can’t issue subpoenas to Trump for the purpose of law enforcement, and the Attorney General is a craven lackey, then who can hold Trump accountable for breaking the law? Taken together, these findings are meaningless, they create a Catch 22.
The State of New York will hold Trump accountable for breaking the law.
People need to vote wisely in the future because obviously our votes can have drastic consequences.
I'm trying to read all I can find about Cyrus Vance Jr. and I had forgotten that the case against Ivanka and Don Jr. and their building in Soho was dropped. I came across some other questionable stories as well. can you explain what happened with those cases or point me in the direction for clarification please?
Thanks
Can you explain how the dissenters agreed that trump was subject to the law, but nevertheless dissented?
In the decision written by John Roberts it is clearly stated that the dissenters were in agreement with the majority on this specific point....therefore 9-0 that Trump isn't above the law. The dissent concerned other aspects of the decision.
Okay, I confess that 24 hours ago, I anxiously awaited the SCOTUS decision on trump’s financial records, was relieved (and pleasantly surprised by the Creek decision), and then had to start my work day, as I do again now. I only read the first page of Trump v. Vance. Could someone summarize the other aspects of Thomas and Alito’s dissent?
This event would generate the crowd size he so desperately years for at last.
SDNY is only prosecuting him (as far as is known publicly) for paying off porn stars, which is a campaign finance violation. The tax fraud which NYT reported on goes back to the late 1990s. SDNY has only sought tax returns and financial data for 8 years, 2008 to 2016, I think. So no tax fraud (unless that is confidential).
I hear you but I feel more than confident that they will be prosecuting Trump et al for all criminality they turn up going back for years. Once they have the returns they can move on new crimes and there will be many. Cy Vance loathes Donald Trump for all kinds of reasons we will never know about.
Yes, I agree. However I am still trying to figure out why Vance dropped the case against Ivanka and Don Jr... I've read about his 'reason' but I think there have been a couple other questionable incidents?https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump-jr-avoided-a-criminal-indictment
There is more to it and it might have been that, based purely on points of law, he couldn't make a case. Or he put the case on hold until he could make it. There are many of those cases idling. We do not know yet.
I do appreciate the back and forth. We both want the same thing - Trump held accountable. Given the extensive reporting of the past few years, it’s clear that: Trump has stiffed partners, contractors, customers and suppliers, many times; Trump has committed bank fraud to the tune of $$ billions; Trump has used real estate transactions to launder money for various oligarchs; and Trump has committed tax fraud to the tune of at least a half billion $$ (we only know what’s been reported by NYT about the machinations around his father’s estate, there’s likely more). That Trump is in the White House instead of prison is an indictment of NY District Attorneys. If they had gone after white collar criminals the way they do poor criminals, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. Heather would be working on her class notes, instead of running this blog. And Trump would be wearing a different kind of orange. Forgive me if I have little faith in Vance or any of the NY DAs.
Trump’s been a criminal for 40 years, yet they’re just prosecuting him now? I’d love to believe he will pay for all his crimes, but I’m not optimistic. How soon before Barr fires Vance?
You've pointed to an extremely left leaning reference -- populated by some not so great writers -- so if I were inclined I would look a lot deeper and wider before taking what one less than credible site as my source. I've been in NYC a long time. I am skeptical of that sort of journalism because I have my own sources and I don't take anything on its face unless there is more to support it. That and I am a moderate: when I wrote extensively on Kamala Harris some folks who were selling her as not living up to her 'progressive' creds found out things were more complicated than what they were spreading as God's indisputable truth. I wager that is true here too.
Consider:
1. Trump fired Bharara. Barr fired Berman. Both were considered threats to Trump. They could have fired Vance, and they didn’t.
2. Vance dropped a case against Ivanka and Jared, although there was considerable evidence of guilt. Jared's attorney then ran a fundraiser for Vance’s re-election.
3. Vance has been prosecutor for a dozen years, and never brought a case against Trump.
The evidence says Vance is no threat to Trump. It does not seem likely that Vance is about to announce multiple investigations/prosecutions of Trump. This one he is pursuing, for campaign finance violations, is likely to follow the precedent of John Edwards’ very similar case - charges dropped.
Time will tell.
If he could he already would have. And we have no idea what Vance has had idling for years.
Maybe Vance is a Trump ally? https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/04/29/the-people-vs-cy-vance
If the United States is in default of its treaty obligations to the Creeks in Eastern Oklahoma in terms of criminal prosecutions as SCOTUS has declared that the "Reservation" still exists! This large part of the state of OKLAHOMA is INDIAN LAND. Can this ruling be enlarged to include other elements of ownership? Should not the non-native residents, including much of Tulsa, be paying them rent? Could this not be used by the tribes to remove or reduce environmental threats imposed unilaterally by the non-native population? It is clear that this ruling will encourage the 5 other tribes in that part of the state to follow suit. The Court also said that it would hold Congress to its word. This could offer hope to many other tribes across the country who have been cheated out of their land by speculators, miners and others but Congress hasn't specifically legislated on the issue to "clean up the fine details" of these criminal acts. Could this be used by the Lakota Sioux for inbstance to recover the Black Hills and prevent further desecration by the likes of Humpty Dumpty and all the "king's" men?
I think all this is unclear. The case only covered criminal prosecutions, but it sure seems to set an interesting precedent, no?
"We will hold the government to their word" dixit John Roberts! The different Tribes now lack neither the professional legal expertise amongst their own nor the necessary ressources and i think they'll be launching legal "trial balloons" to test the limits to which they can push this and at what speed they might make it move. I think this will open just a little the door leading eventually to a beginning of restitution and recompense. They will push on that door with the force of their culture and the conviction that they are right.
What a news day! It would seem many are eager to avoid getting the Trump stink on them. Would a resignation be out of the question? How much can his fragile ego take? I sincerely hope that enough people have had their eyes opened to the fact that the senate (which could have ended this debacle after the impeachment but chose to look the other way because it furthered their agenda) needs to be shaken up and infused with fresh blood. Every. Single. Race. Counts. VOTE!
I have thought all along he would resign. It fits a narcissist's MO.
Does he know that’s an option? He might not! Let’s help him with an exit strategy!
Yes, but now with the SCOTUS decision and the Southern District of NY waiting in the wings, he may think twice about resigning.
I have never had such a fondness for vultures before...
See: The Lincoln Project
Yes! The last one (I think) where they are saying how 'they are all whispering, etc.' I flipped... even worried they'd have to take it down... I can't even imagine his reaction to that...
Thank you, Professor Richardson. This Letter, as well as prior Letters, are helpful when attempting to make sense of a very complicated political landscape.
Yeah. It took a long time for me to digest the legal decisions. I always worry I'll have emphasized the wrong thing, but this morning's news looks like I got it right. Interesting to me how we all seem to pull the same quotes from them.
I listened to a podcast last year that was about the Oklahoma murder case. At the time it was scheduled for the SCOTUS, though no-one had any idea of how it would pan out. Rather interesting story behind how the cut-and-dried murder case turned into a challenge for our government to 'do the right thing' and honour its treaties for a change.
I'm with you. It's a weird case to have so much hanging on it. A Seminole raped a four year old on Creek land, right? Someday a great book will be written on this case, but I wouldn't want to read the evidence to write it!
Thanks again. Can't shake the feeling that Trump's not only just trying to politicize the military before election but keeps putting toe in water to see if they'd side with him in some form of coup--each and every time he dips that toe they come back with a big NO.
Yeah. It was a big deal that they have come out vocally against him.
It's a slow legal grind to protect the constitution but SCOTUS has just re-affirmed the primacy of the law within the bounds laid down by the Constitution and that they are the final, NEUTRAL arbiter beholden to none. It lays waste to GOP's strategy and plans to slant the Supreme Court in their direction with a succession of "favourable" nominations as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have declared their independence. Trump, like Congress and the Court are not above the law and the former can no longer pretend that he can "shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it". On the contrary, the Court just told Trump that he's most assuredly heading for exposure, prison and bankruptcy on the inauguration of a new President in January. Can he sit and wait for the bell to toll?
Maybe all those one-issue voters will get the message the president—any president—cannot guarantee to overturn anything.
Imagine for a second that Trump shoots somebody. Who can hold him accountable? Not Congress, according to SCOTUS. Barr? Not going to happen. Trump can, indeed, get away with murder, as far as SCOTUS is concerned.
The state in which it occurred would have jurisdiction.
Okay for the shooting example I used. But how about if Trump, say, took illegal business loans and bribes from Russian oligarchs, or Saudi billionaires? Or if he withheld Congressionally approved foreign aid to the president of Ukraine, say, to get him to help his re-election campaign? Or if he accepted foreign bribes and emoluments through his hotels and resorts? Or if he accepted foreign campaign contributions? These are all federal crimes, no state is involved. If Congress can’t pursue subpoenas for law enforcement, does it fall to Barr and DOJ?
Of course where the only recourse is impeachment you come up against the McConnell problem. Where a crime punishable under state law is identified then the Court just accorded the state prosecutors a significant improvement in their weaponry.
Please do not apologize for the length of your reflection. It brings clarity to thoughts I have been having. I will say though I am beginning to have whiplash from watching all the unfolding events and dumpster fires he has set to distract us. I think perhaps 45 is finally harvesting the fruits of the seeds he has sewn. I do wonder if it won't be his handling of the Covid-19 crisis that will bring him down. Our Governor in NM reversed some of our phased opening and she promises more action if we don't do better.
For me the Letters help to ground me, when so much is swirling. I don't think of it as whiplash so much as a rock on which to stand.
It's very much a question of attitude towards the times, isn't it? I asked a friend of mine just yesterday if he doesn't feel anxious at times about what's happening and he said "No, I feel excited about the times we are living in, the changes we are facing and the opportunities arising, to change things for the better". We're living in Australia, not the US, but I hold on to this thought when I feel anxiety levels rise in me.
#whiplash! Ha, I’ve been saying that since November of ‘16! It is precisely what’s been going on for all of us... and my neck is killing me!
With more sympathetic, legal scrutiny on native lands, treaties, etc., I'm wondering if this will help pave the way for Hawaii to regain sovereignty. The Kingdom of Hawaii still exists behind a sort of legal firewall and with an official apology from the US in 1993 on their side, there may be hope as long as Hawaiians can agree on the definition of "Native Hawaiians." Interesting times ...
Interesting. My guess is that this will fall under Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, so no, but I think a lot will be on the table now that wasn't before.
Even with all the news yesterday, I was hoping you were going to summarize/explain McGirt v. Oklahoma. While the other information was interesting to put it mildly, I was curious about that case. That said I hope Katyal and Geltzer are right; the Berman testimony while not surprising it put another nail in Barr's coffin, and kudos to General Milley and Secretary in their efforts to keep the military from being politicalized. It was a good day! It give me hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel:)
How many decades has Dumpty been in office! It’s Exhausting! Maybe we could get a slow Friday or a calm weekend. Thank you for the insight!
Exhausting is accurate.This administration has been like the 7th circle of hell. "Oh, you think that's immoral and heartless? Hold my Diet Coke!"
On Tuesday I was convinced it was actually Friday. Sigh.
Mafia dons wish they had attorneys as dedicated to their criminal endeavors as Barr is to Trump's.
Barr is consiglieri.
Yep. They don't call him "Don the Con" for nothing.
The SCOTUS ruling implies that, if Congress cannot subpoena the president for the purposes of law enforcement, then Congressional oversight is a myth. Is this true even during impeachment? If the House had subpoenaed Trump for documents and/or witnesses, is SCOTUS saying he could just ignore them? If so, a lawless president like Trump can indeed get away with murder.
Just for “Hamilton” fans, straight from Chief Justice Roberts in Trump v. Vance:
“Held: Article II and the Supremacy Clause do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting President. Pp. 3–22.
(a) In 1807, John Marshall, presiding as Circuit Justice for Virginia over the treason trial of Aaron Burr, granted Burr’s motion for a sub- poena duces tecum directed at President Jefferson.”
Re. the Creeks. Good for them! E. Oklahoma is the most ecologically sound part of the state.
Wow! So much to digest I feel like I've eaten too much at the buffet! Was not too long at all, thank you for the fabulous summary