They could have replaced the whole brief with "Please take your time to rule, then we will appeal, and if we're lucky it'll be awhile before we get the the supreme court and by that time our client will either be dead or ruling by decree."
NY will do Trump, but I would love to see Kavanaugh’s. I’m not sure we want to financially vet Judges, but this could tell us if we should be thinking about it. Or, do we already do it? I do not know.
I worked in a place where the janitor was obviously a Democrat. There were two TP holders in each stall, one with the roll hanging over, and one with the roll hanging under.
Claiming the "Imperial Presidency" defense is a loser strategy from the get-go. Torturing word semantics to explain yourself didn't work with Mom in the old days and it won't work with the Judge now. It's just a WH delay action. They're taking a lot of heat right now. Their bullshit is wearing thin.
The Maestra has a firm, unmistakable beat and impressive command of the score. The drummer seems a mite restrained but the other musicians are appropriately inspired by their conductor.
Exactly. What are the underlying case law (and Common Law) precedents that underpin this "opinion" about Presidents and indictments--which is not a Rule, Statute, or backed up by any other basis in codified law?
My central question for the Rt. Hon. FDF &/or any other legal eagles--is there a matrix/hierarchy/convention for what previous case law takes precedence in a brief/hearing? Nixon vs United States is settled case law when it comes to Executive Privilege. Seems to me that the arguments made in this brief want to ignore the fundamental ruling in that case.
But a plumber is more than a butt cracked problem solver.
They could have replaced the whole brief with "Please take your time to rule, then we will appeal, and if we're lucky it'll be awhile before we get the the supreme court and by that time our client will either be dead or ruling by decree."
#METOO
Ivana Veekoff
I like your conjecture. But who in that circle would ever take a bribe? This just gets curiouser and curiouser.
NY will do Trump, but I would love to see Kavanaugh’s. I’m not sure we want to financially vet Judges, but this could tell us if we should be thinking about it. Or, do we already do it? I do not know.
I worked in a place where the janitor was obviously a Democrat. There were two TP holders in each stall, one with the roll hanging over, and one with the roll hanging under.
Yes.... now that you put it that way.... *sigh*
Watergate, Whitewater, and Wussians. I love it.
Claiming the "Imperial Presidency" defense is a loser strategy from the get-go. Torturing word semantics to explain yourself didn't work with Mom in the old days and it won't work with the Judge now. It's just a WH delay action. They're taking a lot of heat right now. Their bullshit is wearing thin.
"We cannot fathom a circumstance in which The King could offend The Crown [the law]" Henry II...and then he had that troublesome priest whacked..
You're at least as good as Orly Taitz! Do you do teeth?
The Maestra has a firm, unmistakable beat and impressive command of the score. The drummer seems a mite restrained but the other musicians are appropriately inspired by their conductor.
Query: Where are the brass located?
As long as we're grading on the British dentistry curve. ;)
Exactly. What are the underlying case law (and Common Law) precedents that underpin this "opinion" about Presidents and indictments--which is not a Rule, Statute, or backed up by any other basis in codified law?
My central question for the Rt. Hon. FDF &/or any other legal eagles--is there a matrix/hierarchy/convention for what previous case law takes precedence in a brief/hearing? Nixon vs United States is settled case law when it comes to Executive Privilege. Seems to me that the arguments made in this brief want to ignore the fundamental ruling in that case.
hahaha! very clever! might have to steal that.