I always kinda liked Deadspin, but there were a couple things that they didn't get quite right. Granted, they were far from the only ones...
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/do...RFoNP1JiAqwg_o
Printable View
I always kinda liked Deadspin, but there were a couple things that they didn't get quite right. Granted, they were far from the only ones...
https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/do...RFoNP1JiAqwg_o
How does that not make sense? You asked Go to answer your question, he did by using the same standard Justice Stewart did in regards to porn in the Jacobellis case. You obviously didn't/still don't get the reference.
Or perhaps you were simply being obtuse and trying to get an answer you wanted instead of the one given, yet you claim it was Go who was obtuse. In any case, Go gave you a perfectly valid response.
You miss my point. I am aware of the pornography argument, and how it might apply to the impeachment argument. But my earlier question was asking a poster here for HIS ideas on what is impeachable. An answer that says different people have different ideas doesn't answer the question.
Yeah, had they not done this, then this probably wouldn't be happening....
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...qSuKZEwnczEXBc
So let's throw out some hypotheticals. (1) the President directs that Congressionally authorized funds be held up, against clear policy goals, until a foreign government provides help for the President's re-election effort (where such help is contrary to federal election law). (2) the President lies about it, repeatedly. (3) the President oversees a cover-up of his actions by directing Executive branch employees to lie about it.
How's that for starters?