Listening to Chuck Grassley congratulate himself for the way he and the Republicans treated Merrick Garland while Garland has to sit patiently and listen makes me want to throw things across the room.
I am old enough to remember when @ChuckGrassley held up Merrick Garland's nomination to the DC Circuit for more than a year—in 1995, that is.
A reminder to Republican senators that Garland is (a) smarter than you are and (b) has sat on hundreds of oral arguments interacting with oral advocates who are better than you. He will be low key & polite. He always is. But you're not gonna trip him. You're not that formidable.
Today on @inlieuoffunshow, I am bringing a mystery guest so mysterious that nobody—including me or the guest—knows who the mystery guest is!
5:00 pm Eastern time
On Crowdcast: crowdcast.io/e/in-lieu-of-f…
On YouTube:
On Facebook or right here on Twitter.
Here is how the mystery guest will be selected.
I will ask questions. The audience will vote on the answers. The mystery guest will comply with the audience votes.
Here's the first question.
Today's mystery guest is:
The mystery guest is someone who has appeared on @inlieuoffunshow before. True or false?
I don't want to link to the tweets in which certain people who should know better are impugning the work this week of @evelyndouek on @lawfareblog. I do want to share a few facts about the matter receiving criticism.
Evelyn received the Facebook Oversight Board's decisions this week on an embargoed basis the evening before they were made public. She did so with the knowledge and approval of her editors at @lawfareblog, myself included.
No conditions as to her writing or the substance of what she might say were placed on her receipt of the material by the Oversight Board or Facebook. And Evelyn has no financial relationship of any kind with either the Oversight Board or with Facebook--and never has had one.
Actually, no. It doesn’t turn on what the word “president” means at all. The command of this passage is that the president SHALL be removed on impeachment and conviction. It says nothing whatsoever about whether a former president, having already left office, is subject to...
...Senate trial, having been impeached while still in office. It actually says nothing either about whether a non-official is subject to impeachment at all. All it says is that if impeached and convicted a president SHALL be removed.
Where does the Constitution answer the question of who is subject to impeachment? It actually doesn’t. We infer that only officials are, though there may be some room to debate that around the edges. But the Constitution says only three things—none of them direct—about what...