Timeline for How are Trump's actions against NFL protesters not a violation of Constitutional rights?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 21, 2018 at 16:36 | comment | added | jww | @Beanluc - Tom Metzger made a lot of statements to others, too. The difference seems to be Metzger promoted physical harm on opposition; while President promotes loss of employment to silence government's opposition. Not to mention President is attempting to force someone into squalor or poverty. (I realize I just moved the proverbial goal posts). | |
| Sep 21, 2018 at 10:47 | comment | added | Sneftel | "Making a statement is an act" is begging the question. | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 20:19 | comment | added | Beanluc | "These guys ought to be fired" is a statement. Making a statement is an act. "I order you to fire these guys" is also an act. Can you not see the difference between one "official act" and the other? | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 19:23 | comment | added | phoog | @DavidSchwartz I'm not convinced that an official statement is an official act. The definition at section 201, which admittedly does not apply here directly, suggests that an act must be more than a statement. | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 18:08 | comment | added | David Schwartz | @phoog Issuing an official statement is an official act and the Trump administration concedes that Trump's tweets are official statements. | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 16:45 | comment | added | phoog | Your analysis overlooks the acts that are actually forbidden by the statute. The intent to influence an employment decision is only relevant if either (a)(1) or (a)(2) is present. What "official act" did Trump "take or withhold" in an attempt to influence the NFL's hiring practices? I don't think saying "these guys ought to be fired" is an official act. | |
| Sep 20, 2018 at 12:50 | history | answered | Carduus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |