>>12072651 /LB

>Hey, lawfag here. And as I spend 90% of my time on state lawfaggy business, I'm not as informed on the boards or "news" as I should be.. I'm a tiny confused on what your asking. But, you're right, shall = must. If states fail to respond as required, the EO shouldn't lose effectiveness. It wouldn't become moot or suddenly unenforceable because states succeed in dragging their feet. In fact, a lot of law directly addresses purposeful delaying of action in legal settings or proceedings, and provides penalties for such if it continues. Think contempt of court. BUT, I need to research this. I'm not fresh on EO law or really on much of your question. I'm just a baby esq. I'll look more into it if you'd like.

Thank you BabyEsq LawFag! My concern is, in this case, the EO being the Law, and our DNI, and and the Intel Community and Directors responsible for Evidence collection, and presentation of that Evidence to the "Court" who in this case would be the DNI, and POTUS et-all. On the other side of this, we have the defendants, or criminals, who engaged in Foreign Interference, whether they are domestic or foreign, CONUS, or OCONUS located (venue?), hanging out there, and now on a "clock" of sorts. Our Clock (the good guys) was set by the wording of the EO, by the use of the word "shall". What has occurred is obviously a HUGE crime, ranging from Insurrection to Treason, by all involved in this Interference, no matter how slight their involvement. The EO simply covers the freezing or "Blocking" of Assets, however as mentioned earlier, it would be a huge and very useful tool to cripple their infrastructure and introduce chaos into their process, while the Criminal Prosecutors complete gathering Evidence for actual Indictments and Criminal Proceedings. I'd love to hear more from a Law (Juris) perspective. I've worked in LE many years ago, however only had Peace Officers Training and In-Service.

Thanks in advance.