You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Hi! Raise your hand if you know I am a published constitutional law scholar and that my legal scholarship has been cited in federal court opinions. 90% of you don't know. Now let's talk some Con Law and how law professors are preying on people's ignorance re: Mueller / Trump.
The Constitution vests powers into three separate but co-equal branches of government – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The powers of the respective branches of government are enumerated in Articles I, II, and II in the Constitution itself.
Article 2 of the Constitution provides, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The power to prosecute is an executive power. That’s why the President appoints federal prosecutors in each district.
To understand the role of separated powers plays, think of it like this: Congress writes the laws that define crimes, which the President signs. The Executive branch enforces those laws. And the Judiciary interprets them.
If you’re pulled over with a brick of marijuana in your car, you’ll be prosecuted by DOJ (Executive) because transporting marijuana is a crime (the body of laws written by the Legislative branch). A judge will determine whether the law is constitutional (Article III).
“But it’s undemocratic that Trump can’t be indicted,” you might say. Trump is an elected official. Mueller was not elected. How would it be democratic for an unelected official to disrupt the ability of the highest elected official to govern?
The obstruction of justice paradox. The power to prosecute resides within the Presidency. How then could you obstruct your own investigation?
Imagine Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS. A US Attorney in Iowa, looking to make a name for herself, decides to indict Clinton for various crimes. Would that be democratic?
If President Clinton had fired the US Attorney, would that be obstruction? Why? The power gives President Clinton that power.
The democratic remedy against Trump is impeachment. Democratic officials (Article I) have the power to remove a democratically-elected official (Article II). The system is functioning exactly as it should be.
P.S. Morrison v. Olson was wrongly decided and anyone who can't give you that case holding by heart is UNQUALIFIED to even begin to have this discussion about Trump and Mueller.https://www.cernovich.com/mueller-report-obstruction-collusion-trump/ …
*That* should be on your wiki page but they refuse to allow it to be updated with neutral, factual info. :/
Unroll @threadreaderapp thank you
Hello you can read it here: Thread by @Cernovich: "Hi! Raise your hand if you know I am a published constitutional law scholar and that my legal scholarship has been cited […]" https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1133860665565646848.html …
Enjoy :) 
Thoroughly impressed. Well and concisely put. Superlatives abound. Well done Mike I sincerely wonder why you still slum it with “us” Twitter. My, if it counts at all, estimation of you abounds. Thanks man.
Holy shit Cernovich that was bloody brilliant. Moar please. I thought you were just a fashionable boomer memelord.
Far from boomer. Late genX, 1977. Us genX cringe to be called a boomer
Lol fair enough
Hello published constitutional law scholar. Hope you have a good day.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
