Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: Comey and Mueller [View all]H2O Man
(73,536 posts)39. I am going to
speculate that your focus was on the word "facially." If that wasn't it, I apologize.
The word has a specific meaning in its legal sense. It goes a bit beyond the obvious "on the face of it," though that actually applies. A facial challenge to a statute, or proposed law, is a process of constitutional law, that claims the statute or proposed law always violates the US Constitution (rather than has the potential to violate it in specific circumstances).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I have absolutely no doubt that Comey would have done the exact same thing had Clinton
StevieM
Jun 2017
#20
"The generals" are an interesting proposition. McMasters has apparently been sucked in ...
Hekate
Jun 2017
#29