It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
Even testimony, or a deposition needs some corroboration with other evidence.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Um. It's not exactly election time. Except for Alabama.
What did Ailes have to do with it? O'reilly? Weinstein?
originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JinMI
I really don't know what your point is.
It's been made several times.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Maybe I don’t understand your questions,
Yeah. Probly so.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.[1]
In the unanimous opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.[1]
In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
4 out of 4.
Pretty good.