Your Twitter streams have gotten more back to normal, Donald — the expected spray of PR releases, blended with the occasional WTF moment. Let's review!
===
You (or your Social Media Minions) retweeted Alan Dershowitz on everyone's favorite topic:
► We should stop talking about obstruction of justice. No plausible case. We must distinguish crimes from pol sins [1]
That links to a Fox News article where he make such a comment. [2] Dershowitz's argument is that Trump could have simply pardoned Flynn, or simply ordered Comey, legally, to drop the Flynn investigation.
That's true, from a limited criminal justice perspective, Donald. What's interesting, though, is that you can do perfectly legal things and still be considered to be "obstructing justice." Further, if we want to start talking about the "I" word, the standards around "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not strictly over explicitly criminal activity.
Could you have pardoned Flynn? Sure. But then everyone would have been all over your case for pardoning the guy. Could you have flat-out ordered Comey to drop the investigation? Again, that would have set off a veritable shit-storm of controversy. But legally? That's a bit more complicated, but it's still possible, and yet could also still be considered part of a pattern of obstructing justice.
Heck, Donald, your firing of Comey was perfectly permissible from an administrative point of view (as Comey himself keeps pointing out). That doesn't mean it couldn't ethically be seen as obstructing justice.
===
► Congratulations to Jeb Hensarling & Republicans on successful House vote to repeal major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law. GROWTH! [3]
Because we want to party like it's 2008![4] What could possibly go wrong?
And, hey, why should all financial advisors be required to follow fiduciary rules? It's not like we're trusting them with our own money, right?
===
► An honor to join the @FaithandFreedom Coalition yesterday. In America, we don't worship government. We worship God. #FaithandFreedom . [5P]
(Complete with stirring video clip.)
I'm rarely a person to question someone's religious faith or fervor, Donald — but I have to confess that, if you can tell a good tree by its fruits, I really don't see a lot of sign of you "worshiping God," let alone putting that worship into real action. [9] Aside from going to fancy conservative Christian events.
But you did inspire a meme, Donald! Congrats!
===
It's Infrastructure Week! Um … yeah! Not that we saw all that much of it, but apparently you were a busy little beaver, building your new Infrastructure plan.
► A great honor to host and welcome leaders from around America to the @WhiteHouse Infrastructure Summit. #InfrastructureWeek . [6P]
Complete with stirring video of you talking to a bunch of people!
► It is time to rebuild OUR country, to bring back OUR jobs, to restore OUR dreams, & yes, to put #AmericaFirst! TY Ohio! #InfrastructureWeek . [7]
Complete with stirring video of you talking to a bunch of people!
► Time to start building in our country, with American workers & with American iron, aluminum & steel. It is time to put #AmericaFirst🇺🇸. [8P]
Complete with (long!) stirring video of you talking to a bunch of people.
So the here's the funny — you keep talking about a "massive investment" from the federal level, but everything that's being talked about seems to involve less federal money, and more "wealthy states and municipalities should figure out how to partner with private firms to get this done so that those private partners can make a profit, and if you can't make a profit with our project, too bad, so sad."
That's not called infrastructure investment. That's called telling the states they are on their own to chase folk who can make a nickel off their needs.
And, meanwhile, the infrastructure programs already in place are choking off projects, leaving local governments unable to proceed (and having thus wasted millions of dollars of their own). [10]
But, hey, it sure sounds good, Donald! Especially when set to stirring videos!
===
Your Social Media Minions also posted under your name about ..
… your weekly address
—-
[1] https://twitter.com/AlanDersh/status/873167629250375681
[2] http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/08/alan-dershowitz-president-trump-could-have-just-pardoned-michael-flynn
[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873183401620230144
[4] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/financial-choice-act-house/529851/?utm_source=atlgp
[5] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873245481488535554
[6] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873250570508922880
[7] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873311842956914688
[8] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/873353586025132038
[9] E.g., https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+2:14-20
[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/multiple-transit-projects-across-us-at-risk-as-white-house-infrastructure-plan-falters/2017/06/09/0becb67c-4c8b-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html
[P] So incredibly official a pronouncement that it needed to be cross-posted to the @POTUS account.
I've been puzzled by the phrase 'High Crimes and Misdemeanours' and wondered how to read it, particularly whether and how 'high' applied to misdemeanours. Could a President lose office for failing to pay a parking fine as easily as for treason?
I found this somewhat enlightening:
constitution.org
+Travis Bird Interesting. Though, like most legal interpretations, subject to … interpretation. 🙂
Caution: do not get your legal information from that site. Constitution dot org is a right-wing fringe site created by a non-lawyer. The link posted in the comments is not an accurate answer to what "High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The short answer is (as short as a lawyer can give 😉 ), it means whatever wrongs that Congress wants it to mean. Think of it as "big crimes and smaller crimes" or "big bad deeds and smaller bad deeds."
It has nothing to do with "high office" despite what that link says.
Amen