constitutional crisis ?

[pornochic]

It seems like both 1st and 2nd amendments to the Constitution are being threatened.

 

[SpeareChucker]

verbatim is one word.

I'm sorry,

~~ but ~~

The Bird is the Word...

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, yes, one branch is, so far. One clear example is Mnuchin ignoring the subpoena for Trump's tax returns in clear violation of the law and going unpunished by neither congress nor the DOJ.

His only argument is that the committee doesn't have a valid reason, but there's exactly zero in the law that says they need any reason, valid or not, and the law gives him no choice, it's a "shall provide" statute.

If he goes unpunished for violating a law the constitution gives congress the power to enact, it's a crisis in setting the precedent that administrations can blatantly and unarguably violate the constitution.
Though IMO it's not an actual constitutional crises until SCOTUS rules that the administration can ignore the law.

The same with Trump's claim of executive privilege for information that pertains to him prior to him taking over the Executive Branch.

Removing from congress their constitutional power and giving it to the executive branch would certainly be a constitutional crises.

But it's up to congress whether they allow that to happen. The Senate, of course, started down the path of giving up power when they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett for US Court of Appeals in 2017. A judge Trump has his eye on for the Supreme Court. A judge who says religion should take precedence over the constitution.

Yes it is....so if they really think that's a "crisis" impeach him.

And my god if the left worried about their own pile of cash 1/100th as much as they worry about how much other people have they might not be so fucking poor and desperate to send the government to go rob other people, shut their businesses down and prevent them from making a living for themselves for their own good.

 

[SpeareChucker]

They're all hat.




Too cowardly to impeach, but brave enough for big talk and trying to sow dissension.

They never consider the reaping part of the cycle. It can be grim...

 

[Rightguide]

Well, yes, one branch is, so far. One clear example is Mnuchin ignoring the subpoena for Trump's tax returns in clear violation of the law and going unpunished by neither congress nor the DOJ.

His only argument is that the committee doesn't have a valid reason, but there's exactly zero in the law that says they need any reason, valid or not, and the law gives him no choice, it's a "shall provide" statute.

If he goes unpunished for violating a law the constitution gives congress the power to enact, it's a crisis in setting the precedent that administrations can blatantly and unarguably violate the constitution.
Though IMO it's not an actual constitutional crises until SCOTUS rules that the administration can ignore the law.

The same with Trump's claim of executive privilege for information that pertains to him prior to him taking over the Executive Branch.

Removing from congress their constitutional power and giving it to the executive branch would certainly be a constitutional crises.

But it's up to congress whether they allow that to happen. The Senate, of course, started down the path of giving up power when they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett for US Court of Appeals in 2017. A judge Trump has his eye on for the Supreme Court. A judge who says religion should take precedence over the constitution.

Most of that is bullshit. There is a such thing as separation of powers. There is we call abuse of powers. The Democrat Congress is abusing its power.

See here: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=90773893&postcount=186

 

[about_average]

I have no doubt that it will go to the floor and be passed. Barr will most likely respond with a law suit of his own re. violation of 5th amendment rights.

Exactly how are his 5th amendment rights being violated?

Legally obstruction is not in play, politically the democrats seem to think it is. The fact is that they can't indict him, all they can do is impeach. And without unassailable evidence that is a step that would come with great political consequences to themselves.

It most certainly is. Impeachment is a legal process.

I would think that politically the last thing a democrat congress would want to do is to hold Barr in contempt. Neither Barr, nor Wray, nor Trump are going anywhere and they aren't intimidated. Royally pissing off the AG just doesn't smack me as a wise move.

Wray is on his way to being booted. He contradicted Trump and Barr.

The President has shut it all of with executive privilege. If Congress tries to take it to court they'll get their asses handed to them, the judge will read them the political question doctrine and throw it out. The law is clear. They have no legal right to any of the Mueller Report, redacted or not, let alone all of the witness interviews of White House employees, 302s, etc., it's all protected. So, is this a crisis, I think it's more of a constitutional exercise.

You should read some history books. SCOTUS has already ruled that "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" doesn't exist. Other federal judges have ruled the same, most recently in regards to Obama and Fast and Furious.

The approval rating of congress is at a 17% level

That was the rating in 2018, it's now at 20%, but both numbers are absolutely meaningless when the question asked was "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Congress is handling its job?"
If 70% of respondents say congress isn't doing enough to rein in Trump and 10% say they should forget about the Mueller report, that gives them a 20% approval rating.
The same if the numbers are reversed.

It was the same with the idiotic "Is the country headed in the wrong direction?" survey.

Mnuchin is in the same position as Barr. The tax code prohibits him from releasing the tax information, even to Congress, unless there is a lawful reason.

There is a lawful reason. It's called US Code Title 23, section 6103

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress
(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

Nothing about "lawful reason".

For all other committees it says

Any resolution described in this paragraph shall specify the purpose for which the return or return information is to be furnished and that such information cannot reasonably be obtained from any other source.

Nothing about what the purpose has to be, only that they have to provide one.

 

[phrodeau]

The Legislative Branch prepares a bill, but it doesn't become law until the Executive Branch acknowledges it, with a signature by the President.

What Trump is doing by breaking laws is devaluing his own office.


https://i.imgflip.com/310lzt.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[about_average]

Documents? Like say, the Epoch Times or the Washington Examiner?

He's been claiming for 2 years to have access to all of Mueller's documents.

Little lesson in the law for those Snowflakes here so eager to push the Don Trump Jr. bullshit:

Joe diGenova: Don Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting -- What happens when fake news collides with zero intent

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/joe...ting-when-fake-news-collides-with-zero-intent

No bullshit at all.
Trump Jr, and the rest who attended, fully intended and wanted to work with a foreign government to get information to affect the US election.
They just lucked out by being a complete idiot in not suspecting that it was illegal, which let the dodge a bullet.

Do yourself a favor and think before you post. Andrew McCabe testified under oath the FISA Warrants to surveil Carter Page could not have been obtained without the Steele Dossier. Keep in mind, Steele himself testified under oath he could not verify the contents of the dossier. Comey swore to the FISC the contents of the Dossier was "verified," He then turned around and told the President it was "salacious but unverified.".

You're going to trot that out again? Really?
Are you actually so ignorant of the fact he was talking about the Moscow hotel sex suff.
LMAO The word salacious even refers to sexual matters. So

Do yourself a favor and think before you post.

And my god if the left worried about their own pile of cash 1/100th as much as they worry about how much other people have they might not be so fucking poor and desperate to send the government to go rob other people, shut their businesses down and prevent them from making a living for themselves for their own good.

Money talks. Knowing his finances will show if he has conflicts of interest, like making national security decisions, or any other decisions that impact the US, based on his financial relationships.
He already weighs in on completely local matters because of their impacts on friends of his. Is it far fetched to believe he could make a decision detrimental to the US in order to save himself $100m?

And, for me, it has exactly zero to do with right or left. Every presidential candidate and political appointee should be required to release all of their financial information.

Most of that is bullshit.

Quote the parts that are bullshit.
Other than the parts regarding my opinion on "constitutional crisis" everything else in it is a documented fact.

 

[Rightguide]

You should read some history books. SCOTUS has already ruled that "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" doesn't exist. Other federal judges have ruled the same, most recently in regards to Obama and Fast and Furious.

I quoted the SCOTUS on the subject. What have you cited?

The subpoena power of the Congress must be “demonstrably critical to the fulfillment of the committee’s functions.”

In See Bergman v. Senate Special Comm. on Aging, 389 F. Supp. 1127
(S.D.N.Y. 1975)
The court held that a subpoena calling for "'any' and 'all' financial records from 1969 to date [which] might include records relating to plaintiffs' purely personal financial affair its, "a general inquiry designed to ascertain plaintiffs' personal wealth ... is not pertinent to the investigation .... "

In Watkins v United States, the Court stated that where the information requested from a subpoenaed witness is "unrelated to any legislative purpose," the individual's constitutional right to privacy outweighs the committee's interests in the information.

And in regard to limitations on the Congressional subpoena power in Tobin v. United States,21 the Court found the House Judiciary Committee's general authority to investigate interstate compacts did not authorize the
Committee to issue a "deep and penetrating" subpoena.

Like in those cases and in the present the courts will act to limit Nadler's insane requests to "legitimate legislative purpose" and reject his discovery of criminal or immoral activity in Trump's past to use against him in the present.

 

[Rightguide]

Exactly how are his 5th amendment rights being violated?

It most certainly is. Impeachment is a legal process.

Wrong. Impeachment is a political process. Congress cannot as a body charge anyone criminally. They can only make a referral to the DOJ for consideration of prosecution.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

And "according to law" means possible prosecution by either state and/or federal authorities, not the Congress.

 

[Rightguide]

No bullshit at all.
Trump Jr, and the rest who attended, fully intended and wanted to work with a foreign government to get information to affect the US election.
They just lucked out by being a complete idiot in not suspecting that it was illegal, which let the dodge a bullet.

Mueller didn't think so. Maybe you should write him a letter and point out his missed opportunity for prosecution of Don Jr.

 

[Rightguide]

Exactly how are his 5th amendment rights being violated?

It most certainly is. Impeachment is a legal process.

Wray is on his way to being booted. He contradicted Trump and Barr.

I hope so he tried to conceal evidence in the case of Kavalec's notes on Steele.

 

[Rightguide]

You're going to trot that out again? Really?
Are you actually so ignorant of the fact he was talking about the Moscow hotel sex suff.
LMAO The word salacious even refers to sexual matters. So

No clown. He signed a FISA Application that submitted the Dossier as "verified" evidence. He later showed the same Dossier to the President and told him it was salacious but "unverified." So, who did he lie to?

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly how are his 5th amendment rights being violated?

All depends on what constitutional scholar you quote. Turley agrees with you.

It most certainly is. Impeachment is a legal process.

Wray is on his way to being booted. He contradicted Trump and Barr.

I've stated that before, special circumstances, not yet tested by SCOTUS

You should read some history books. SCOTUS has already ruled that "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" doesn't exist. Other federal judges have ruled the same, most recently in regards to Obama and Fast and Furious.

Than how do you explain an overall rating of 15% in 2016?
14% in 2014

That was the rating in 2018, it's now at 20%, but both numbers are absolutely meaningless when the question asked was "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Congress is handling its job?"
If 70% of respondents say congress isn't doing enough to rein in Trump and 10% say they should forget about the Mueller report, that gives them a 20% approval rating.
The same if the numbers are reversed.

It was the same with the idiotic "Is the country headed in the wrong direction?" survey.

There is a lawful reason. It's called US Code Title 23, section 6103
Nothing about "lawful reason".

For all other committees it saysNothing about what the purpose has to be, only that they have to provide one.

I'm not convinced with reigning in Trump has much to do with ratings.

 

[about_average]

I quoted the SCOTUS on the subject.

Senate Special Comm. on Aging isn't one of the committees listed in the law that "shall" be given tax documents.

Wrong. Impeachment is a political process

So the chief justice of the supreme court presides over a political trial?

Mueller didn't think so. Maybe you should write him a letter and point out his missed opportunity for prosecution of Don Jr.

What part of ignorance of the law is a valid defense do you not understand?
In any case, I was talking about attitude, not legality. At least 3 people hired by Donald (Only-The-Best) Trump have the attitude that it was perfectly fine to work with a foreign government to defeat your opponent. In fact, it was so fine that they lied about it.

I hope so he tried to conceal evidence in the case of Kavalec's notes on Steele.

That's not what Trump is pissed at him about.

No clown. He signed a FISA Application that submitted the Dossier as "verified" evidence. He later showed the same Dossier to the President and told him it was salacious but "unverified." So, who did he lie to?

This is a sex board, one would think you would know what the word "salacious" means.
But keep going Bozo, it's funny watching you keep quoting three of Comey's words out of context.

I'm not convinced with reigning in Trump has much to do with ratings.

Who knows? Not my point.

 

[cleaver]

No clown. He signed a FISA Application that submitted the Dossier as "verified" evidence. He later showed the same Dossier to the President and told him it was salacious but "unverified." So, who did he lie to?

you are wrong in this.
you have been shown this.
you do not show the patience
to read, much less understand
the documents you cite as substantiation.

please do the work
before you go off on faulted tangents.

there is enough confusion being levied
in this discussion on fact alone.

 

[heathergives]

I'm sorry,

~~ but ~~

The Bird is the Word...

That made me smile, and I don't care who you are.

 

[butters]

He's been claiming for 2 years to have access to all of Mueller's documents.

No bullshit at all.
Trump Jr, and the rest who attended, fully intended and wanted to work with a foreign government to get information to affect the US election.
They just lucked out by being a complete idiot in not suspecting that it was illegal, which let the dodge a bullet.


You're going to trot that out again? Really?
Are you actually so ignorant of the fact he was talking about the Moscow hotel sex suff.
LMAO The word salacious even refers to sexual matters. So

Money talks. Knowing his finances will show if he has conflicts of interest, like making national security decisions, or any other decisions that impact the US, based on his financial relationships.
He already weighs in on completely local matters because of their impacts on friends of his. Is it far fetched to believe he could make a decision detrimental to the US in order to save himself $100m?

And, for me, it has exactly zero to do with right or left. Every presidential candidate and political appointee should be required to release all of their financial information.

Quote the parts that are bullshit.
Other than the parts regarding my opinion on "constitutional crisis" everything else in it is a documented fact.

that red stuff? hundred percent agree. surely a nation should know clear and upfront that the person they may elect to be their leader isn't a liability

 

[BotanyBoy]

Money talks. Knowing his finances will show if he has conflicts of interest, like making national security decisions, or any other decisions that impact the US, based on his financial relationships.
He already weighs in on completely local matters because of their impacts on friends of his. Is it far fetched to believe he could make a decision detrimental to the US in order to save himself $100m?

No, but that could be said of really any politician.

Even the local ones who are involved with WAY less money than the federal level congress critters.

Shit with regard to California the locals are WAY worse than the federal corruption critters.

And, for me, it has exactly zero to do with right or left. Every presidential candidate and political appointee should be required to release all of their financial information.

There is absolutely a legitimate argument for that.

Reality is though there is no rule and (D)'s just want to DOX Trump which is why all they are going to do is stamp their feet and be really mad every time he tells them to kick rocks.

 

[Rightguide]

Just released DOJ documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal it was Andrew Weismann who Mueller charged with hiring the attorney's on the Mueller team. Now we know why we got nothing but Hillary supporters, donors, and Democrat anti-Trump lawyers.

 

[bellisarius]

It seems strange to me that the folks that are so worried about Trump, who is already wealthy, making money from the office seem to have no concern about the legislators that enter office impoverished but leave with 7 to 8 digit net worth's. They don't seem to understand that those who make the laws have considerably more power to manipulate markets than the president.

Wake up people.

 

[Luk]

It seems strange to me that the folks that are so worried about Trump, who is already wealthy, making money from the office seem to have no concern about the legislators that enter office impoverished but leave with 7 to 8 digit net worth's. They don't seem to understand that those who make the laws have considerably more power to manipulate markets than the president.

Wake up people.

Tell that to the soybean farmers, Ishtard.

 

[KeithD]

"Trump, who is already wealthy"

Wake up and smell the rot. Trump owes far more than he holds in owned portions of assets. He's not wealthy. That's what this whole "won't show his tax returns" is about. Wake up and smell the rot. You Trumpettes have got to be the stupidest group of yahoos on the earth.

 

[Luk]

"Trump, who is already wealthy"

Wake up and smell the rot. Trump owes far more than he holds in owned portions of assets. He's not wealthy. That's what this whole "won't show his tax returns" is about. Wake up and smell the rot. You Trumpettes have got to be the stupidest group of yahoos on the earth.

Ishtard is one of 45's proudest supporters.

 

[cleaver]

this can degenerate into just another
love trump/hate trump thread...
regurgitating drivel from any other thread
and any culled media bites
we choose.

nonetheless, each day the crisis/non-crisis simmers,

when an executive branch exercises all of its powers to block...
and a congress - a split congress - exercises its powers
up to the brink of impeachment
in attempt to effect what it considers to be oversight
we are indeed in a crisis of sorts.

my opinion is negligible, really.
i do see that there are power players at work
and that the subterfuge is unlike any we have ever seen.