"Professionalizing" ambassadors would mean they no longer work for the president - another chip away at our democracy in favor of the unelected administrative state. But from what I can see, Warren's actual plan is just generalities: medium.com/@teamwarren/re…
In the 19th century, ambassador was a hugely important position, requiring independent judgment to act on the ground (and gather intelligence) far from home. With modern communications, an ambassador's single most important qualification is the confidence of the president.
That's not to say that ignorant donors should be our representatives (there are less intrusive reforms one could pursue), but "professional" ambassadors who aren't on the same page as the POTUS would be worse than no ambassador at all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. How ignorant & wrong is @stuartpstevens? Let us count the ways. To begin with, it's the law that defines crimes. It doesn't matter what the jury thinks of the facts if the judge & prosecutor are wrong about the law.
2. If he read the indictment, "statement of facts," bill of particulars, decisions by Acting Justice Merchan, & jury instructions, as I have (guess what: those are all in the public record), @stuartpstevens would know that the legal theory was bonkers as well as undisclosed in the indictment nationalreview.com/2024/02/its-no…
@stuartpstevens 3. If we're playing this game, @stuartpstevens, how many of the Section 175.05 & 175.10 cases have you read? I've done a ton of research on this, written up @NRO. The central element of the crime was never supported by evidence or even allegations nationalreview.com/corner/new-yor…
Not having kids is like not serving in the military, not having been poor, not being a woman, not being religious, not having run a business, not being a doctor, lawyer, cop...you're always entitled to be heard. But you should consider that your analysis misses something others know from experience.
It's un-American to say anybody doesn't get to have an opinion on any issue because of their identity or experience. But a little humility is always in order on things other people have lived through & you haven't.
So, the modest version of Vance's point is correct; the more extreme framing of it is not. But then, every progressive who says "only women can have opinions on abortion" is making the more extreme argument.
The question isn't who's mad, George, it's who's wrong. You're wrong. The notion that the Appeal to Heaven flag is a symbol of insurrection against Washington (as opposed to a symbol of insurrection against George III) is a post hoc partisan-hack invention. To compare it to the swastika is shameful minimization of Nazism. See below:
Just consider some of the places this flag flew without controversy before May 22, 2024, when people like @gtconway3d became obligated to pretend, retroactively, that it had for years been EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE HOLOCAUST:
Thomas: So, this presidential immunity...where does it come from in the Constitution? There he goes again asking about that pesky Constitution.
Thomas asks how you tell what acts are covered; Roberts follows up asking directly about bribery for an official act. Sauer tries to separate the bribe from the official act.
Sauer: you review the indictment after removing the official acts. Roberts: how do you tell a bribe was in exchange for the official act, then?