he’s dead, with others, and obama fired
the general (in 30 secnds) who had active defense up and ready to go.
General Ham, wasn’t it?
But refusing to protecti our citizens and embassies is “diplomacy?”, not impeachable treason?
Lurking Lawyer here.
There are three separate PDJT tax cases on their way two SCOTUS. in my opinion he will win both,
The first is the effort by NY state DA to get PDJT federal returns as
part of a ‘criminal investigation’ into the Stormy Danials payment.
Remember Cohen pled guilty to this non-crime. The issue raised is
whether a sitting president can be criminally investigated at all except
via A2§4 impeachment. Although the Constitution is silent on the
question, the implicit answer is no for two separate reasons:
1. A1§6.1 immunizes Congressmen and Senators while sitting in the
Capital in session, but not otherwise. POTUS is ‘in session’
continuously, so the purpose of A1§6.1 applies.
2. A2§4 expressly says POTUS can only be criminally charged and
convicted AFTER removal from office after impeachment and conviction. NY
state politically motivated over reach.
Second case is House Ways and means trying to use the new NY state
law about handing over state tax returns upon request. PDJT lawsuit was
rejected by federal DC court on grounds lacked jurisdiction. Will be
refiled in New York. Reason PDJT will eventually prevail is the NY law
is an expressly prohibited by A1§9.3 Bill of Attainder. These were, post
civil war, broadened by SCOTUS to anything reasonably construable as
‘punitive’ including state laws.The §9.3 was extended to state
legislation by 14A. In its most recent ruling, Nixon v Admin 433US425
(1977) SCUTUS held NOT punitive if ‘can reasonably be said to further
some nonpunative legislative purpose’. There isn’t one.
Third case is ways and Means trying to get last 6 years of PDJT
federal returns under 26USC§6103(f) ,IRS shall furnish upon [legitimate]
request’. This language was added in 1977 in response to Nixon and
Agnew, in addition to a requirement that all P and VP returns undergo a
special annual audit. It also must be read in light of a long series of
SCOTUS opinions that legislative demands (subpoenas) MUST be pursuant to
some legitimate legislative purpose. PDJT has two lines of argument,
each individually determinative:
1. If the legislative purpose is to oversee the IRS special POTUS audit,
then they should not have asked for the 4 years prior to his
2. If the legislative purpose was to examine real estate developer
returns, then they should have asked for other big developers also.
Since neither of those are true, the request is illegitimate. SCOTUS
Watkins v US (1957) “ Congress has no general authority to expose the
private affairs of individuals without justification…it must be related
to and in furtherance of a legitimate legislative task.