,
21 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
“No other state is going to be impacted by this declaration of emergency more than the state of California.”
Governor @GavinNewsom
And probably no other state has the political will or pocketbook to initiate this legal action.
@latimes
latimes.com/politics/la-po…
Governor @GavinNewsom
And probably no other state has the political will or pocketbook to initiate this legal action.
@latimes
latimes.com/politics/la-po…
Last week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra promised "to reject this foolish proposal in court the moment it touches the ground."
<< Trump predicted Friday that his action would draw legal challenges, saying “we will then be sued … we will possibly get another bad ruling,” but adding that he thinks he would win in the U.S. Supreme Court. >>
Trump has triggered a constitutional crisis, so yes he will be sued.
1- There is no emergency.
2- The Constitution authorizes the executive branch to spend money ONLY as appropriated by Congress. Congress has refused to appropriate this money.
1- There is no emergency.
2- The Constitution authorizes the executive branch to spend money ONLY as appropriated by Congress. Congress has refused to appropriate this money.
Clearly hell has frozen over, because I agree with @AnnCoulter
"the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years.”
"the goal of a national emergency is for Trump to scam the stupidest people in his base for 2 more years.”
"By giving Congress time to definitively establish its unwillingness to fund the border wall, Trump is both taking away any legitimate justification for emergency action and proving his intent to subvert the constitutional balance of powers." @LizaGoitein
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
That's from a January analysis in @TheAtlantic
Today, @LizaGoitein points out that Trump continues to provide fodder for his legal opposition ("plaintiffs' Exhibit A"):
Today, @LizaGoitein points out that Trump continues to provide fodder for his legal opposition ("plaintiffs' Exhibit A"):
@TheAtlantic @LizaGoitein By "mount[ing] a concerted challenge to the separation of powers," Trump has broken his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
@TheAtlantic @YAppelbaum on impeachment as a process of transparency
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
@TheAtlantic @YAppelbaum on impeachment as a process of transparency
theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
"Impeachment is a process, not an outcome, a rule-bound procedure for investigating a president, considering evidence, formulating charges, and deciding whether to continue on to trial."
The GOP forgot this when they sought to expel Clinton:
<<As a House Judiciary Committee staff report put it in 1974 [Watergate]: “The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.”>>
<<As a House Judiciary Committee staff report put it in 1974 [Watergate]: “The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.”>>
Trump proved again today that he cares nothing for constitutional government.
His behavior looks much more like a 5-year-old throwing a tantrum than a grown man acting as though he understands constitutional duties and oath of office of president.
His behavior looks much more like a 5-year-old throwing a tantrum than a grown man acting as though he understands constitutional duties and oath of office of president.
OMG. Describing this as “rambling” is a disservice to that word.
These words are not reality-based.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
These words are not reality-based.
theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
“It was chock full of false and misleading claims, many of which we’ve previously highlighted, either in our database of Trump claims or our list of Bottomless Pinocchios. Here’s a summary of 13 of most noteworthy claims, starting with immigration”
google.com/amp/s/www.wash…
google.com/amp/s/www.wash…
If Trump claims something it’s almost always a lie:
“big majority of the big drugs — the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry.”
Drug Enforcement Administration: most illicit drugs enter through legal ports of entry
“big majority of the big drugs — the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry.”
Drug Enforcement Administration: most illicit drugs enter through legal ports of entry
Trump: “The numbers that come out of Homeland Security [say we lose] billions and billions of dollars a month [on illegal immigration].
Trump’s (questionable) numbers came “from his TV set.”
Trump’s (questionable) numbers came “from his TV set.”
No Congress has not funded money for him to build his wall.
No, his NAFTA-2 agreement will not pay for a wall anymore than Mexico will as Trump repeatedy claimed in 2016. Repetition does not make it so.
And as is far too often the case, the lie is a glib, short, emotionally-charged sentence.
It takes paragraphs to explain who/where/why it was a lie.
It takes paragraphs to explain who/where/why it was a lie.
See
From @brianstelter - a timely reminder that Trump’s lies are a slap in the face to the professionals who compile statistics.
