Sure enough, watching the post-debate spin, all the talk is about the candidates attacking each other.
I don't understand what is to be gained by this. Our candidates should talk about Trump, the issues, how much they love their mother - just don't attack each other. They ought not be providing clips for Trump's campaign ads in the general election.
The Republic is at stake! Stop shooting at each other. Stop it - just stop it.
I'm just a small town yeoman lawyer and it is clearly arrogant for me to question a GWU law professor but he lost me today.
I was able to listen to much of Prof. Turley's testimony on the road today - yeoman lawyers spend a lot of time on the road. As I understood Prof. Turley, his position had nothing to do with the essential facts but an argument that the House could not vote to impeach until all witnesses testify - especially those that Trump has prevented from testifying. Essentially, the argument was that the House ought not act until the courts act to force the testimony of recalcitrant witnesses.
I can see how a law professor would come to that conclusion. Law professors understand appellate court precedent. What a law professor might not get is that the courts move slowly - even when on a fast track. In my opinion what Prof. Turley doesn't get is that the judiciary is a co-equal --- and not superior --- branch of government. The "rule of law" does not mean the rule of the courts. It means that no one - no judge, no congress member, and no president - is above (or below) the law.
Prof. Turley also doesn't get that we have an emergency situation. The House - the country - does not have the time to wait on the courts. The election - in November - is in peril. There is no time to wait on the courts. Trump cannot be allowed to delay by the simple expedience of forbidding witnesses to testify until the district, circuit court of appeals, and SCOTUS rule in each case.
Then again, i'm just a small town yeoman lawyer and it is foolish for me to disagree with a GWU law professor.
I looked for an earlier post about this but did not find one.
Trump today pardoned three war criminals - pardons that were opposed by the Defense Department.
Link to NBC report: [link:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/trump-dismisses-murder-charge-against-green-beret-pardons-army-officer-n1079941|
Countries have an obligation under the laws of war to investigate and punish war crimes. Pardoning war criminals for no reason other than to pander to right-wing pundits violates the obligation of the United States to punish war crimes. Trump is now on record condoning war crimes. As a result, Trump is potentially personally responsible for war crimes committed by service members emboldened by Trump condoning war crimes in the past under rules of command responsibility.
I appreciate that this was lost in the flood of other news today but this is really dark news. An army in which discipline is not enforced is just a very well armed mob.
Its dark when I go to the office and dark when I leave. It's all just too depressing. The winter weather is bad enough. Do we have to also live in perpetual night?
I agreed with everything he said but at the end of each sentence I yelled at the TV - "but have you fired Nina Turner yet?" As long as he has Nina Turner working in his campaign, I cannot support Sen. Sanders in the primary. I'm wrong and I know I'm wrong but I can't get past this.
Mind you, I will swallow my bile and vote for him if he wins the nomination but I'll need an antacid.
Herself and I just returned from Little Rock for the Moms Demand Action Rally.
It was 95 degrees, blazing sun and high humidity.
I was expecting a couple of local Democratic politicians and they were great. There was a high school student who was simply amazing.
When I thought things were winding down, the Arkansas head of Moms introduced Beto - who had not been announced as a speaker.
He really wowed the crowd. His proposal for a mandatory buy-back of assault weapons was particularly popular. If nothing else, he is an amazing speaker who has found his issue with gun violence.
I'm still not convinced he's the right guy but I am, in the words of the old gospel song, "Almost Persuaded."
There is a Moms Demand Action rally at 2:00 at the State Capitol.
We need a good turn-out. If you don't have Moms Demand Action t-shirt, put on your Razorback-red t-shirt and show up.
Let's go Arkies, don't just sit there complaining - do something.
OK, I can't stand it anymore and must say this somewhere.
Volvo is running an ad for their "fit for an aria" autos. There is a pretty soprano singing nicely.
The problem is that the aria is from Mozart's The Magic Flute. The character is the Queen of the Night - not a nice person. She is demanding her daughter commit murder or be disowned. So, do the folks at the Volvo ad agency not know the source of the aria or are they assuming the rest of us do not?
The Primaries forum has great potential as a place we can discuss the candidates. However, we need to remember that this is a family discussion. At the end of this discussion, we will need to be united against Trump who is an existential threat to the Republic.
Tell me why you support your favorite Democratic candidate. Tell me the policies differences that support your choice. Don't attack the other candidates. We're all family here.
We cannot afford to end the primary season with ill will between us.
I spent a lot of time on the road today listening to MSNBC. I heard a lot of discussion about how we've never had a "Wealth Tax" in the U.S. That statement is, of course, incorrect.
What wealth most of us have is tied up in our homes which are taxed albeit by local government. What is being proposed is that the wealth of the really wealthy is also taxed. Seems fair to me.
Profile InformationGender: Male
Home country: USA
Current location: Arkansas, USA
Member since: Mon May 15, 2017, 08:46 PM
Number of posts: 10,795
About TomSlickI'm a lawyer primarily representing clients who are being sued. I am a retired Army Judge Advocate. Nothing I post here, including any comments about legal topics, should be construed as legal advice or creating an attorney-client relationship.
- 2023 (6)
- 2022 (25)
- 2021 (17)
- 2020 (46)
- 2019 (14)
- 2018 (81)
- 2017 (17)