This breakdown of the Cook case is brillaint - the detail about Sauer expecting someone facing criminal liability to defend herself on Trump's platform is just wild. What strikes me is how Clement won by refusing to debate weather social media counts as notice, instead hammering that demanding resignation = prejudging. Dunno if I've seen a clearer example of how logging off actually makes you sharper.
Am I recalling right that in some earlier cases, the President's words on social media were argued to be rhetoric and not actionable or proof of his reason for doing something? If that is the case then how is anyone supposed to know what it "real" and needs response and what is just #$%^ posting.
I wish I could say that this will be the limit to their insane arguments, but they just seem to get more and more insane. It's the Court's fault for finding ways to never say no.
Sauer learned from the immunity case that he mistakenly asked for too little (criminal prosecution only after impeachment). So he is trying not to make the same mistake with Cook, expecting a similarly compliant court.
Does Sauer believe this bullshit or is he just playing along with the malignant infection occupying the Oval Office so he doesn't get "Truthed" himself?
Brilliant Liz.
This breakdown of the Cook case is brillaint - the detail about Sauer expecting someone facing criminal liability to defend herself on Trump's platform is just wild. What strikes me is how Clement won by refusing to debate weather social media counts as notice, instead hammering that demanding resignation = prejudging. Dunno if I've seen a clearer example of how logging off actually makes you sharper.
Sauer is why people hate lawyers.
Am I recalling right that in some earlier cases, the President's words on social media were argued to be rhetoric and not actionable or proof of his reason for doing something? If that is the case then how is anyone supposed to know what it "real" and needs response and what is just #$%^ posting.
I wish I could say that this will be the limit to their insane arguments, but they just seem to get more and more insane. It's the Court's fault for finding ways to never say no.
Liz, you are a friggin' treasure. I always look forward to your analysis. Thank you!
Sauer learned from the immunity case that he mistakenly asked for too little (criminal prosecution only after impeachment). So he is trying not to make the same mistake with Cook, expecting a similarly compliant court.
Does Sauer believe this bullshit or is he just playing along with the malignant infection occupying the Oval Office so he doesn't get "Truthed" himself?
It’s hard to make a person understand, when his paycheck depends on him not ‘understanding’.
That there explains much about the individuals actively assisting the destruction of the US Constitution while wearing US flag lapel pins.