It seems to me--and IANAL--that this means that the legal issues then concern the difference between official, authorized-by-the-Constitution (or reasonably inferred to be so authorized, ouch) actions, and actions not so authorized.
But "Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are r…
It seems to me--and IANAL--that this means that the legal issues then concern the difference between official, authorized-by-the-Constitution (or reasonably inferred to be so authorized, ouch) actions, and actions not so authorized.
But "Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual" bother me a LOT, because while I believe that a President is certainly authorized to consult with the Attorney General of the US, Acting or otherwise--I do NOT believe that such consultation can be characterized as in line with his official duties as President if that consultation is for the purpose and intent of subverting the Constitution. If he's asking the AG whether he can get away with messing with the electors in order to be declared winner of an election, it is NOT part of his official duties, it is NOT lawful, and the President who does so is acting solely in his own interest and should be tried and found guilty therefor.
But as I said: IANAL. I will read other comments with considerable interest.
It seems to me--and IANAL--that this means that the legal issues then concern the difference between official, authorized-by-the-Constitution (or reasonably inferred to be so authorized, ouch) actions, and actions not so authorized.
But "Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual" bother me a LOT, because while I believe that a President is certainly authorized to consult with the Attorney General of the US, Acting or otherwise--I do NOT believe that such consultation can be characterized as in line with his official duties as President if that consultation is for the purpose and intent of subverting the Constitution. If he's asking the AG whether he can get away with messing with the electors in order to be declared winner of an election, it is NOT part of his official duties, it is NOT lawful, and the President who does so is acting solely in his own interest and should be tried and found guilty therefor.
But as I said: IANAL. I will read other comments with considerable interest.