Professor Edward Foley appeared on WOSU to discuss a proposed constitutional amendment that would require Ohio’s presidential electoral votes go to the winner of the national popular vote.
“[The] fact that the president doesn’t want to turn them over is, by itself, legally irrelevant,” Shane said.
“We know beyond a shadow of a doubt in 1912 the only reason Woodrow Wilson won is because the Republican Party split,” Foley said.
“Expanding NATO encourages Russia to be defensive and to feel the need to protect itself,” Quigley writes. “In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded Finland out of fear that Nazi Germany might make a move into Finland. To date, NATO has expanded significantly into Eastern Europe, creating in the Kremlin the same jitters it felt in 1939.”
“In my view, it’s a great thing that state Supreme Courts have become more receptive to claims of extreme partisan gerrymandering,” Tokaji said.
“Data ethics is the new form of risk mitigation for the algorithmic economy,” Hirsch said.
“I am worried now, given the reaction to 2018, that you could get a dispute over a five-digit number,” Foley said.
“The report could still be damning or, at least, embarrassing, to the President, depending entirely on how Mueller prepared the report,” Dressler said. “It is still unclear whether Mueller chose to provide only details that exculpate, or did he also provide insight into his thoughts as to questionable behavior.”
“It would be kind of mass confusion as to which plans could possibly be covered by state law, and probably a new set of legal challenges,” Berman said. “It’s extremely difficult to do on the state level.”
“[It is] technically possible, but the legal and practical challenges in winning such an obstruction case would be great,” Simmons said. “A prosecutor would have to prove that the president believed there was a collusion case ‘contemplated’ against him even when he did not engage in collusion. That is theoretically possible, but hard to prove to a jury.”
“The implications for Trump are twofold: First, should Congress find that presidential corruption has so undermined the legitimacy of the incumbent as to warrant impeachment, the non-criminality of his corruption would not be a constitutional defense,” Shane writes. “Second, should Congress deem the president guilty of criminal obstruction of justice, it would likewise be irrelevant that the Department of Justice had decided not to bring charges.”
“Whether you can tell me the answer quickly has nothing to do with whether you, in fact, know the content,” Colker said. “And there are some people who, for whatever reason, are pretty quick at things. They don’t necessarily have more depth of knowledge, and depth of knowledge [is] what we should care about for admissions purposes.”