3 ms·
This is pure sophistry, and in addition it is factually incorrect. You should look carefully at the word 'authority' and diversify your information sources.
by the_optimist 4y ago
This is pure sophistry, and in addition it is factually incorrect. You should look carefully at the word 'authority' and diversify your information sources.
- CamperBob2 4y agoMy information source is the former NSA counsel, among many others. What's yours?
- the_optimist 4y agoVaried, mostly practitioners. High value on non-partisans, demonstrated by inclination to make and entertain counterargument, and an extensive history of demonstrated preference. By the way, I cannot help but notice that your “former NSA counsel” remains anonymous. Susan Hennessey, nor anyone affiliated with Lawfare or Brookings meet the minimum criteria.
- CamperBob2 4y agoThe NSA counsel being Glenn Gerstell: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/trumps-dubious-standing-order-to-declassify-documents/ https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/trumps-dubious-standing-or... https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18/politics/trump-claim-standing-order-declassify-nonsense-patently-false-former-officials/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18/politics/trump-claim-standing... Ultimately it'll probably come down to Trump thanking his lucky stars that he owns a big chunk of SCOTUS.
- the_optimist 4y agoGlenn seems fair, and he appears to answer a legitimate question reasonably. He's staying within his lane, which is narrow, and responding to a lead question. Both articles are tortured with journalistic misinterpretation. Frankly, you have to be able to contextualize with broader experience. Nothing to do with Trump or SCOTUS. I would bet if you asked Glenn 'Are claims necessarily retroactive or invalid from the get-go,' he would say, 'Absolutely no.' If you have a chance, ask him.