Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "GA Case"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][twitter]https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1696585039352385895?s=61&t=I7ZozTDGmPOsC7cmSRxwgA[/twitter][/quote] This would make me happy if I'm Meadows.[/quote] Why? Is it sufficient? I'm guessing it's not. IANAL, tho. [/quote] DP: The fact that the judge asked is what would make him hopeful, if not happy. But it seems Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510, 520 (1932), answers that pretty clearly. He has to be able to show that "his relation to the transaction growing out of which he has been indicted ... was confined to his acts as an officer.” The transaction for which he was indicted was not confined to his acts as an officer if all but one (whatever that might have been) were not under the color of that duty. In any case, as he conceded all of his activities were political, then by definition and by law, none of them were related to his federal office. Just my quick thoughts.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
