5347

Ok, I can see that. Knee jerk reaction. Apologies.

5348

No need to apologize, I totally get it! I just wanted to clarify I wasn’t trying to punch at Tiffany, even if she was involved in my quip.

5349

Trump will appeal this to the Supreme Court. There was one dissenting judge on the three judge panel so in theory that judge’s argument will be their argument. However, that dissenting judge based her opinion on the lack of an impeachment inquiry at the time of the arguments but that is now moot.

In terms of the law, the Supreme Court should definitely uphold this opinion but I remain concerned about just how far the Roberts Court will go…

My opinion at this stage is that Trump will lose at the Supreme Court, but it’s not a given either way.

5350

That dissenting judge a DJT appointee of course.

5351

Of course.

5352

That will endear us to the rest of the Muslim world that hates Saudi Wahhabism. Great!

5353

No harm has ever come from stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia, so why not.

5354

Huh.

5355

Rome is burning and Fat Orange Nero is playing his Twitter Fiddle (Twittle?).

For nearly 50 years I’ve been proud to be an American, but this week, this is the absolute low point for me right here. Betraying allies, our President imploring foreign governments to help him win an election, government representatives too craven to do anything about any of it…this is not an America to be proud of right now.

5356

Get ready to party, DJT style.

5357

And there it is. Everyone’s worst fear realized. Nice job Trump.

5358

Meh, they’ll just go to Europe anyway.

5359

For a fucking hotel.

5360
5361

This part has really been burning me up lately. It’s not like he is destroying our interests and betraying allies for trillions or billions of dollars. He’s doing it for some measly millions profits from hotels. It’s insane. He’s delusional all the way around.

5362

This is absurd anyway, to argue that Congressional subpoenas of the President’s personal doings are only valid if there is a formal impeachment inquiry. The Constitution says no such thing.

5363

That judge is way out on a limb in other ways, too. She suggests that the judiciary has some oversight over what is or is not an impeachable offense. Her interpretation of the Constitution is definitely at odds with the standard Republican stance of not reading anything into the words.

She claimed that if it is issuing a subpoena as part of an investigation of presidential misconduct, Congress must first open a impeachment inquiry. She also suggested that the courts have the ability to decide what constitutes an impeachable offense.

“When Congress seeks information about the President’s wrongdoing, it does not matter whether the investigation also has a legislative purpose. Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress’s legislative power,” she said.

But Rao went even further. She hinted that courts could also say what constitutes an impeachable offense, which is defined broadly by the Constitution as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“As the Committee has not raised the impeachment power as a basis for this subpoena, questions regarding whether such a subpoena could issue under the impeachment power are outside the scope of this opinion, as are other questions regarding the justiciability of the impeachment power or the specific scope of impeachable offenses,” she wrote in a footnote.

5364

He’s not delusional (in this specific case), he just has wildly divergent priorities.

5365

One might say impeachment worthy priorities due to flouting of emoluments clause ethics.

5366

A flesh covered entity who clearly has every idea what he’s talking about.