Thanks to sleazy articles like this one, with a deeply dishonest misrepresentation of a conversation. Narratives do not create reality. The whole issue is to be decided by the courts.
Trump is not a lawyer and the constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Supreme court.
Trump is NOT acting in bad faith, while this writer most definitely does.
You are alleging that Trump's reply is consistent with his Oath of Office, and that if a lawyer that he hires will tell him this, and if the Supreme Court will confirm it, then that will make it so. You are alleging that a U.S. President can legally do anything unless and until the Supreme Court will tell him that what he did was illegal. If that is so, and we have a 6-to-3 Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court (which was a 5-to-4 majority in that Court's notorious 12 December 2000 Bush-v-Gore decision), then Trump is effectively a dictator now, and you think that this is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
No I am not alleging that. You are projecting that. The essence of British common law is precedence, constantly pushing the boundaries and the interpretations of the law. The role of the Supreme court is to be the ultimate arbiter.
Trump is acting within the limits of the law as it is interpreted and understood today.
You also do not seem to understand the concept of good vs bad faith in acting in accordance with the law, or in this case, even in just arguing about it. :)
Projecting BS into my comment is arguing in bad faith.
This country is in deep crap.
Thanks to sleazy articles like this one, with a deeply dishonest misrepresentation of a conversation. Narratives do not create reality. The whole issue is to be decided by the courts.
Trump is not a lawyer and the constitutionality is yet to be determined by the Supreme court.
Trump is NOT acting in bad faith, while this writer most definitely does.
You are alleging that Trump's reply is consistent with his Oath of Office, and that if a lawyer that he hires will tell him this, and if the Supreme Court will confirm it, then that will make it so. You are alleging that a U.S. President can legally do anything unless and until the Supreme Court will tell him that what he did was illegal. If that is so, and we have a 6-to-3 Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court (which was a 5-to-4 majority in that Court's notorious 12 December 2000 Bush-v-Gore decision), then Trump is effectively a dictator now, and you think that this is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
No I am not alleging that. You are projecting that. The essence of British common law is precedence, constantly pushing the boundaries and the interpretations of the law. The role of the Supreme court is to be the ultimate arbiter.
Trump is acting within the limits of the law as it is interpreted and understood today.
You also do not seem to understand the concept of good vs bad faith in acting in accordance with the law, or in this case, even in just arguing about it. :)
Projecting BS into my comment is arguing in bad faith.