ST Alpha - "Huh. I was wrong on this one. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 158

In response to "Mazars appears to be 7-2 that the House CAN issue subpoenas but these may be too broad and Courts below need to narrow them -- nm" by JackDawson

Huh. I was wrong on this one. -- nm

Posted by Marquis de Krusty (aka Krustylu) Jul 9 '20, 07:23

(No message)

Responses:

Based on the summary link I posted yesterday, it seemed easy for this one to go either way per conflicting precedence - ty97 Jul 9, 07:24 9
- With my basic understanding of things I thought Vance had a very strong case while the House had a weak one. -- nm - Marquis de Krusty Jul 9, 07:25 8
  - The Vance case definitely was stronger based on my layman read. -- nm* - ty97 Jul 9, 07:25 7
    - That was the expectation after the argument but if you think about it it was the opposite, right? - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:26 6
      - Hmmm, interesting. - ty97 Jul 9, 07:28
      - It also means that the next President can be harassed by a state prosecutor in Mississippi trying to win re-election, right? -- nm - spamlet Jul 9, 07:28 4
        
        Thanks for tipping our hand, dude. -- nm - GOP Jul 9, 07:34
        
        on the other hand, the SCOTUS said unanimously in Clinton v. Jones that a president can be forced to sit for a civil deposition in a civil lawsuit whi - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:30
        
        Yup. -- nm - JackDawson Jul 9, 07:29
        
        Yeah, this was my immediate thought. Will become a new thing for local DAs of one party to harass the President perhaps -- nm - ty97 Jul 9, 07:29

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.