Jason T

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@AbeL450000 @middle_class_us There is always subsistence farming.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@Kindred_Creator @RockChartrand Huh? Every type of society except anarchy creates a government. Some of them do too...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@RowanGehman4PA @electionsjoe How is the arbiter of national security a national security threat?

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@mitchjackson How dare the USPS fight fraud...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@SpicyyNews @atrupar Nothing says honesty and completeness like chopping off half of what was being said...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@KurtCouchman @Rani_Rant_Fest @JakeSherman So, they won't just pass it again. Did you mean they will override his veto? Those are two completely different things.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@KurtCouchman @Rani_Rant_Fest @JakeSherman And he can veto and send back...again

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@aclong111 I would personally love to trust doctors anywhere near I used to 20 years ago.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr You think I'm arguing from ideology, I'm not. I'm arguing from a pure layman legal standpoint (I have studied quite a bit of law, but am not a lawyer). Thank you for engaging with me.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr I do think her DA should get the subpoena, yes. As I said, elections have consequences, and if that is what is voted in, so be it.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@EIfargane @joshgerstein Nothing, will be appealed...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr If it was an improper use, yes, I agree...but that bar is extremely high. This should be dealt with in Congress, not on the bench.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr False equivalent. Much of that would be stopped by courts.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr I don't see a problem. The president saying "I think there is a problem there" doesn't keep the DOJ from saying "there might be a problem there". In a unitary executive, POTUS has direct control of where the DOJ looks, as he should. Elections have consequences...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr Trump can want whatever he wants. The persons with the motion to quash have the requirement to show that it is one of the extreme cases that there is no legitimate reason for the subpeona but it only exists because of the president's words...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@MSarelson It is almost like Congress needs to address this.

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@gkfahnbulleh @RCMDGO @DutchRojas Why not?

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@RepCasar Why is the federal government in health care anyways...? I don't remember seeing that in the enumerated powers...

[Jason T @Jason0848_2]

@OrinKerr That case would work and would still make it extremely hard to quash the subpeona if a statement was made like "we are getting this subpoena because he is an opponent" or if the government wasn't acting appropriately. Can you argue either of those happened?