Reginald Oh

@ReginaldOhLaw

Professor of Law. Constitutional Law. Alum of Tweets are my own.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: rujan 2018.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @ReginaldOhLaw

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @ReginaldOhLaw

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    1. stu 2019.

    Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine, by itself, was illegal and an abuse of power. In fact, that act is very similar to what Nixon often did during his presidency, something that nearly got Nixon impeached, Thread

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    "The GOP Senate’s sham impeachment trial without witnesses, in conjunction with their vote to acquit, will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the Senate." Read the full LO statement on the partisan acquittal of Trump below.

    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Call To Action: Nationwide Reject the Cover Up Rallies Wed., Feb. 5 at 5:30 pm local time We’re taking to the streets to hold our senators accountable for covering up for this lawless president. Click on the link below for an event near you.

    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Primary season has only just begun. The may be over, but the rest of the country still needs to weigh in. Still undecided about who to vote for in the primary? Use this quiz to help you evaluate the candidates:

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    GOP senator excuse Trump's wrongdoing as merely "inappropriate." Not shaking Pelosi's hand at the SOTU was inappropriate. Threatening to cancel 400 mill in aid unless Ukraine announced a sham investigation of a political rival is a HIGH CRIME.

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    As the Senate prepares to undermine the constitution - everyone should know: Trump’s defense is literally a confession to his abuse of power. He is guilty. Forever. From - on the law that Trump broke by withholding aid:

    Poništi
  7. 4. velj

    If you think Trump's motives were mixed, that's an argument for more witnesses, especially those who could help discern Trump's state of mind. FYI, Trump's motives were not mixed. His only motive was corrupt-to solicit a bribe from Ukraine.

    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Avoid making unfounded statements claiming that the elections are or will be "rigged." It is disinformation aimed at depressing voter turnout. It's a form of voter suppression. It only promotes cynicism and disillusionment. It is anti-democracy.

    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    White supremacy is not a thing of the past. It's here. Now. And it's hiding in voter ID laws. "...voter suppression today is still preventing people considered marginalized — blacks, Latinos & others of color — from exercising the right to vote."

    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The Senate's acquittal will be a travesty of justice, especially given that Trump has all but confessed to serious wrongdoing, writes Law Professor . His defense, that he withheld aid temporarily b/c of corruption, is his open confession.

    Poništi
  11. 4. velj

    I hope this thread has given you food for reasoned, principled thought. Please do the right thing on Wednesday. This nation and the rule of law is counting on all of you. END

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 4. velj

    In other words, imagine any other president other than Trump engaging in the same misconduct, and what you think the likely outcome would and should be. It’s absolutely clear-anyone other than Trump probably would’ve resigned before the Senate trial even began.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 4. velj

    And finally, the fifth reason why you should vote to convict-because if it was President Obama being tried for these allegations based on the same evidence, all the GOP senators defending Trump would’ve been leading the charge to convict.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 4. velj

    When we understand that the "corruption" rationale cannot justify his actions, then, what's left? What other justification does he have for a temporary hold? None. All we're left with his is corrupt intent to solicit a bribe from Ukraine.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 4. velj

    A policy reason. Huh? Arguing that he had a policy reason for temporarily withholding aid is like arguing that he had a legitimate reason to shoot a guy on 5th Avenue because he hated the guy. That’s not a legitimate reason, that’s a confession.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 4. velj

    For a policy reason, the only recourse is to send Congress a special message explaining that he wants to rescind or cancel the aid. He needed to have a budgetary reason, not a policy reason, to justify a temporary hold. So, what reason did he come up with for a temporary hold?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 4. velj

    The Impoundment Control Act explicitly denies the president the legal authority to temporarily withhold aid for a *policy* reason. He can only put a temporary hold for a pure budgetary reason.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 4. velj

    Why? If a president wants to hold up aid because of a POLICY reason (a concern about corruption), the law required him to seek to *permanently* cancel the aid, not to put a temporary hold on it.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 4. velj

    Because his central defense, that he withheld aid out of concern with Ukraine corruption, actually is a confession, not a legitimate reason. It's a confession that he had no lawful reason for putting the aid on temporary hold or pause.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 4. velj

    Fourth, the evidence of corrupt intent is extremely strong. Moreover, there is no credible argument to suggest that Trump had even a mixed motive for withholding aid. His sole motive was to coerce Ukraine to announce an investigation of Biden. That’s it. How do we know this?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. 4. velj

    In other words, the jury may assume that the witness would have provided damaging testimony to the party. The same principle should apply in this context. We should infer that any witnesses and documents introduced at trial would’ve produced damaging evidence against Trump.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·