I read this Feb 2 note to compare to the Apr 16 note which has endless comments. My suggestion to Steve for this interview is that he needs to strive for two things, (1) let the interviewees explain their views clearly, and (2) try to address the topic with insight and critical thought.
Here I think he is on track to ask the interviewees what are the weakest part of their case. To me, the excessive use of legal tactics can be counterproductive —- certainly in the long run if this becomes a common “technique”.
I appreciated that interview and the well-informed context it provides. The one key question left unasked is why were some non-presidential offices specifically identified, but the presidency - the office of greatest potential impact - was relegated to a basket category of 'others'? This is especially odd if it's true that Jefferson Davis presented the biggest threat. Is there some contextual, hopefully originalist explanation? Thanks, as always, for any insights.
I read this Feb 2 note to compare to the Apr 16 note which has endless comments. My suggestion to Steve for this interview is that he needs to strive for two things, (1) let the interviewees explain their views clearly, and (2) try to address the topic with insight and critical thought.
Here I think he is on track to ask the interviewees what are the weakest part of their case. To me, the excessive use of legal tactics can be counterproductive —- certainly in the long run if this becomes a common “technique”.
I appreciated that interview and the well-informed context it provides. The one key question left unasked is why were some non-presidential offices specifically identified, but the presidency - the office of greatest potential impact - was relegated to a basket category of 'others'? This is especially odd if it's true that Jefferson Davis presented the biggest threat. Is there some contextual, hopefully originalist explanation? Thanks, as always, for any insights.