You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.
He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.
The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.
The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.
The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it.
It wasn’t an idea and no one “argued for this”. It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.
I won’t “argue with you” but Roth did argue the point under the theory of “non- redressability”. While some make think it’s purely speculative, I say no it’s not.
It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn’t own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.
Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.
Right, that is the point that the SoL was being used as an instrument to argue. It was not a suggestion that it was something they were considering doing, as the title suggests.
That was not a hypothetical. It was not even a suggestion. He said that many times in the affirmative.
You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.
He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.
The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.
The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.
It wasn’t an idea and no one “argued for this”. It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.
I won’t “argue with you” but Roth did argue the point under the theory of “non- redressability”. While some make think it’s purely speculative, I say no it’s not.
It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn’t own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.
Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.
It’s not his to destroy!
I’m done arguing.
Right, that is the point that the SoL was being used as an instrument to argue. It was not a suggestion that it was something they were considering doing, as the title suggests.