Sunday, September 22, 2019

"Ambiguity in the law"

That "legal defense" (it isn't one, btw) that some reporters dutifully reported (good little stenographers that they are) is undermined by the letter referenced here.

As I understand the statute, it does not give DOJ or the DNI or anyone else in the hierarchy the authority to overrule a decision about a complaint being an "urgent concern."  That's the very point of such a statute:  to prevent the kind of corruption we are seeing here by making the process as automatic as possible, and as removed from political players as possible (appointees and elected officials, IOW).

There's no ambiguity here.  The statute says "shall" for what has to be turned over to Congress in a matter like this, and doesn't allow for some review process by political appointees to decide "shall not."

This is the constitutional crisis everyone has been looking for.  I knew when it came, no one would recognize it.  It's the made-up terror that every pundit wants to name but no one ever does because, you know, "ambiguities."

I'll retire to Bedlam....

1 comment:

  1. I think they're depending on the Republican program of corrupting the federal judiciary having a big enough effect that it will as blatantly break the law in allowing Trump to do it. That is if when a judge or "justice" does what the Republicans on the Supreme Court regularly do was thought possible so that a law making it illegal was ever adopted. The corruption of the Federalist-fascists is one of the least discussed but most important things about current American life. It is matched in history by the corruption of slave-owning Supreme Court "justices" making rulings that benefitted them, their families and their closest friends starting from the beginning under Marshall. Paul Finkleman wrote an excellent paper on that which is available online.