192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 10:38 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
More moral madness. Trump violated constiution the separation of power

That is incorrect. He has complied with and enforced all orders that the courts have issued.


MontereyJack wrote:
plus bribery

There is no evidence that he has accepted any bribes.


MontereyJack wrote:
and witness tampering.

If so, that's perfectly OK for him to do.

The Democrats established with Bill Clinton that there is nothing wrong with presidents tampering with witnesses.


MontereyJack wrote:
Hardly a fair trial when mitch McConnell goes on determined to make sure his party votes may before the trial even starts.

Well it is true that when the Senate dismisses charges because they are baseless, that's not a trial. But it's perfectly fair for them to dismiss baseless charges.


MontereyJack wrote:
Total sham absolutely total. We knew it would be and it was.

No sham. The Senate is supposed to dismiss baseless charges.


MontereyJack wrote:
Vote the whole corrupt venal gop crew out in nov.6

Ever since the Democrats maliciously disenfranchised Michigan in the 2008 primary, I've voted for the Republican candidate in every single race in general elections.

I even track down which judges are supported by Republicans (information which is not on the ballot itself) and vote for them too.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 10:58 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
More moral madness. Trump violated constiution the separation of power plus bribery and witness tampering. Hardly a fair trial when mitch McConnell goes on determined to make sure his party votes may before the trial even starts. Total sham absolutely total. We knew it would be and it was. Vote the whole corrupt venal gop crew out in nov.6

You state that Trump:

1. violated the Constitutional separation of powers
2. committed bribery
3. committed witness tampering

I dare you to give me one (and only one) example of how he did any of these things. And don't just paste in someone else's article. That's too easy. Tell me in your own words. I will ignore completely any links or articles pasted in. If you can't make the effort to write an answer, then you lose.
blatham
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:04 am
Quote:
$650 a night at Mar-a-Lago, $17,000 a month at Bedminster: What Trump’s company charged taxpayers for Secret Service lodging

...Trump’s company says it charges only minimal fees. But Secret Service records do not show that.
WP

Huge surprise.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  4  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:06 am
@Brandon9000,
He ignored all constitutional congressional oversight by ignoring all subpoenas. He didn't go by a case by case basis and state some are an executive privilege, but he actually said the House had no right to conduct an impeachment inquiry, no basis to do it. (words that effect) It was not his role as President to make that decision.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:11 am
@revelette3,
Mr. Trump has obeyed and enforced every order that the courts have issued. If he ignored something, it is only because there was no reason for him to take notice of it.
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:13 am
Voices From the Right - Michael Gerson
Quote:
What did Trump accomplish in his 26 minutes or so at the podium?

First, the president again displayed a remarkable ability to corrupt, distort and discredit every institution he touches. The prayer breakfast was intended to foster personal connections across party differences. Trump turned it into a performative platform to express his rage and pride — the negation of a Christian ethic. Democrats have every right and reason to avoid this politicized event next year. And religious people of every background should no longer give credence to this parody of a prayer meeting...
revelette3
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:16 am
@blatham,
Personally, I hope he goes right on being himself. It will bring back down his popular numbers and help the democrats who at this point, need it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:16 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
He ignored all constitutional congressional oversight by ignoring all subpoenas. He didn't go by a case by case basis and state some are an executive privilege, but he actually said the House had no right to conduct an impeachment inquiry, no basis to do it. (words that effect) It was not his role as President to make that decision.

Expressing his opinion that the House had no basis to conduct an impeachment inquiry is not impeachable. He may state any opinion he likes. It's protected by the 1st Amendment.

Your concern seems to be that he did not comply with subpoenas to furnish witnesses or documents. In fact, the executive branch is under no legal requirement whatever to do that. The executive branch is an independent and equal branch of government. A president may always refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas and it has often been done by past presidents. It's called the separation of powers. If the president were to comply, he would be creating the precedent that that the executive branch is subordinate to the legislative branch, which would restrict all future presidents. These things are not illegal.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:20 am
@Brandon9000,
Well, he would be required to provide whatever witnesses the Supreme Court ordered him to produce.

But since he did in fact comply with all court rulings, there is no problem with his behavior that I can see.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:22 am
@oralloy,
The constitution gives the House the power to do both oversights and to decide to conduct impeachment inquiries. There are actually three branches of government and the House and Senate are part of it. Not just the court and the President. Trump denied the House of their constitutional duties. The fact that the democrats in the House actually had to go to court to try and enforce the President to do what he should do was part and partial of his whole shameful actions through the whole impeachment process. Unfortunately, Trump knew the final court was packed in his favor so he did what he knew he had a more than likely good chance of getting away with.
revelette3
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:26 am
@Brandon9000,
He has that right if it is done on a case by case basis, but to uniformly decide from the outset to deny all witnesses and documents because they don't think the House had the right was not part of the executive privilege, nor separation of powers. Freedom of speech is a red herring on your part. Luckily some witnesses did honor the subpoenas and testify to many wrongdoings by the President at great risk to themselves and their careers. They are heroes.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:35 am
@revelette3,
Fox News guests spread 'disinformation' – says leaked internal memo
Quote:
Among those named in document are frequent guests Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova

Fox News has a credibility problem. Most critics of the cable news network will be well aware of that, but in this case the admission is coming from Fox News itself.

An internal research briefing obtained by the Daily Beast names four regular contributors to the network for peddling “disinformation”, particularly when it comes to the Ukraine scandal which lead to Donald Trump’s impeachment.

Among those named in the lengthy document titled Ukraine, Disinformation, & the Trump Administration, put together by Fox News senior political affairs specialist Bryan S Murphy, are frequent guests Rudy Giuliani, John Solomon, Victoria Toensing and Joe diGenova.

Solomon, a disgraced former writer for the Hill and a regular guest of Sean Hannity’s, comes under particular scrutiny. “John Solomon played an indispensable role in the collection and domestic publication of elements of this disinformation campaign,” the document explains.

Much of Solomon’s “reporting” on Ukraine formed the basis of Giuliani and other Trump officials’ efforts to smear and oust the former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, a figure seen as standing in the way of the president and former Ukraine officials’ shadowy machinations in the country.

Among the allegations against Solomon noted are “non-disclosure of conflicts, use of unreliable sources, publishing false and misleading stories, misrepresentation of sources, and opaque coordination with involved parties”.

Elsewhere in the file obtained by the Beast are details of Giuliani and his back-channel dealings to investigate former vice-president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as his connections to now indicted figures Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Giuliani has a “high susceptibility to disinformation”, Murphy writes.

The credibility of Toensing and diGenova, a married couple of hyperpartisan Trump loyalists who were secretly working for the indicted Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash during the period of their regular appearances on Fox News, is also called into question as they did not disclose that relationship.

“Notable are the roles of Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing in spreading disinformation and their parroting of beneficial narratives while employed by Firtash,” it explains.

Hannity, the popular primetime host and Trump confidant, is also criticized for laundering the reputations and trumpeting the trustworthiness of the guests in question.

According to Media Matters, the four individuals have made 348 appearances on Fox News weekday programs since 2018. About 203 of them were on Hannity’s program alone.
Brandon9000
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:37 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
He has that right if it is done on a case by case basis, but to uniformly decide from the outset to deny all witnesses and documents because they don't think the House had the right was not part of the executive privilege, nor separation of powers. Freedom of speech is a red herring on your part. Luckily some witnesses did honor the subpoenas and testify to many wrongdoings by the President at great risk to themselves and their careers. They are heroes.

Wrong. The executive branch is a separate and equal branch of government and is under no obligation to do Congress's bidding. If he did honor the subpoenas, it would set a bad precedent. Many presidents have refused to honor Congressional subpoenas on the grounds of the separation of powers. He cannot be impeached for employing powers that the Constitution grants him.
revelette3
 
  2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 11:48 am
@Brandon9000,
There have only been three Presidents impeached. What past president denied impeachment subpoenas from the House? If it is true any president can make a similar across the board claim, no president in the future will ever comply with congressional impeachment subpoenas again. The constitution does not grant him the power to deny all subpoenas just because he wants to.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:03 pm
@revelette3,
The President is required to comply with court rulings. If Congress believes that they have a legitimate case, they can go to the courts and see if the judges agree with them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:04 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
He has that right if it is done on a case by case basis, but to uniformly decide from the outset to deny all witnesses and documents because they don't think the House had the right was not part of the executive privilege, nor separation of powers.

If so, then it should be easy enough to convince the courts to rule in your favor.


revelette3 wrote:
Freedom of speech is a red herring on your part.

Again, if so, then it should be easy enough to convince the courts to rule in your favor.


revelette3 wrote:
Luckily some witnesses did honor the subpoenas and testify to many wrongdoings by the President at great risk to themselves and their careers. They are heroes.

I saw nothing wrong with what the President was accused of doing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:05 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
The constitution gives the House the power to do both oversights and to decide to conduct impeachment inquiries. There are actually three branches of government and the House and Senate are part of it. Not just the court and the President.

The courts are where we turn to in order to resolve disputes about Constitutional issues.


revelette3 wrote:
Trump denied the House of their constitutional duties.

The House's constitutional duties are whatever the courts say they are. Trump did not defy any court orders.


revelette3 wrote:
The fact that the democrats in the House actually had to go to court to try and enforce the President to do what he should do was part and partial of his whole shameful actions through the whole impeachment process.

There is nothing shameful about disagreeing with progressives about the extent of their authority and leaving it to the courts to decide.


revelette3 wrote:
Unfortunately, Trump knew the final court was packed in his favor so he did what he knew he had a more than likely good chance of getting away with.

Conservative justices tend to uphold the Constitution. If their votes are in his favor that means the Constitution is on his side.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:10 pm
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:
There have only been three Presidents impeached. What past president denied impeachment subpoenas from the House? If it is true any president can make a similar across the board claim, no president in the future will ever comply with congressional impeachment subpoenas again. The constitution does not grant him the power to deny all subpoenas just because he wants to.

You're not listening. The executive is a separate and equal branch of government and is under no obligation to do the bidding of the legislative branch anymore than he can command them to take up some legislation. He can only ask. This has always been true and has been widely discussed. I'm not responsible if you weren't paying attention in high school Civics. Clinton, for example, asserted executive privilege 14 times.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:12 pm
Re: the Way Forward bill. I usually do not post long screeds but this one is worth reading. A good number in the House back this bill. As I said before the MSM will not discuss it or even let Americans know about this ruinous crap.

Quote:
Crime and violence are the clearest possible signs that a society isn’t functioning as it should. If they increase to a certain point, societies don’t function at all, and we should be worried about that always. We ought to be doing all that we can to build a place, a country where people who follow the law are rewarded; those who flout it are punished, and above all, children can live in peace and safety.

They used to be obvious. It’s not obvious anymore. At this moment, there’s a bill pending in the Congress called the New Way Forward Act. It’s received almost no publicity, and that’s unfortunate, as well as revealing. The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats, including Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It is roughly 4,400 words long. That means, it’s almost exactly as long as the U.S. Constitution. Like the Constitution, it is designed to create a whole new country.

The bill would entirely remake immigration system with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move to the United States and settle here permanently with immunity. They may think we’re exaggerating for effect, but we’re not exaggerating, not even a little bit. The New Way Forward Act is the single most radical piece of legislation we have ever seen proposed in this country — ever. It makes the Green New Deal like the status quo. The document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says this, and we’re quoting it verbatim, “Convictions should not lead to deportation.”

Now, keep in mind, we’re not talking about convictions for double parking or even for DUI. The bill targets felony convictions, serious crimes that could send you to prison for years, and should. A press release from Congressman Jesus Garcia of Illinois is explicit about this. Garcia brags that the bill will break the “prison to deportation pipeline.” Something most of us are for. So how does the bill do that? Well, under current U.S. law, legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit “aggravated felony” or a crime of moral turpitude that is a vile, depraved act like molesting children.

Under the New Way Forward Act, crimes of moral turpitude are eliminated entirely as justification for deportation and the category of aggravated felony gets eliminated, too.


So what does that mean? Consider this. Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes, robbery to fraud to child sexual abuse, must be deported regardless of the sentences they receive. Other crimes, less severe ones like racketeering require deportation if the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence.

Under this bill, they will no longer be any crime that automatically requires deportation. None. And one crime, falsifying a passport would be made immune from deportation, no matter what, because apparently, 9/11 never even happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents. By the way, if you just renewed your driver’s license to comply with the Real ID Act, you must feel like an idiot. Because immigrants are getting a pass, you’re not.

Under the proposed legislation for crimes that would still allow deportation, the required prison sentence would rise from one year to five years. We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to Federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that’s just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse, even manslaughter, and get sentences with fewer than five years. Lots of them actually.

If the New Way Forward Act passes, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in this country, and of course, they will be eligible for citizenship day one, too, of course. But even that is understanding the law’s effect. Even a five-year prison sentence wouldn’t necessarily be enough to trigger deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges allowing them to nullify a deportation order.

The only requirement for that is, “The immigration judge find such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuant of humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” Talk about open-ended. In other words, anti-American immigration judges, and there are a lot of those in this country would have a blank check to open the borders. You would not be voting on this. It would happen anyway.

Is this shocking you yet? Because we’re just getting started. We read this proposed legislation. Here’s another point.

Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation, because why wouldn’t it? This bill would eliminate that statute. Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad or “any crimes involving moral turpitude are ineligible to immigrate here.” The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute. So a Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, can freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he can come here illegally, and it still wouldn’t be a crime because — and you are waiting for this part — the bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America even by those we’ve previously deported.

In other words, you break our law, we send you out, you come back, you break it again, you can stay.


According to a document promoting this bill. Criminalizing illegal entry into America is “white supremacist.” That’s a quote, white supremacist. Now, by this point, you’re beginning to wonder, are we making this up? We’re not making it up. In fact, we’re barely halfway through the bill. The legislation doesn’t just make it harder to deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn’t just make it easier for criminals to move here illegally, though it does both, the bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration.

To detain illegal immigrants, I.C.E. would have to prove in court that they are dangerous or a flight risk. But of course, I.C.E. wouldn’t be allowed to use a detainee’s prior criminal behavior as proof of danger. That’s banned. I.C.E. would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgendered. If they’re under 21 or if they can’t speak English, an interpreter isn’t immediately available, they get a pass.

In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien in this country than it is to arrest you. They’re the protected class here. You’re just some loser who’s paying for it all.

But believe it or not, we save the nuttiest part of this legislation for last, and here’s what it is. What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this: using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America. That’s right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your country, but it invents a brand new right, “the right to come home.”

It orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law. It’s retroactive in other words. D.H.S. must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens back into the United States. I am not making this up.

So who would be eligible for these flights? Tens of thousands of people we kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes: Sexual abuse, robbery, assault, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking. From 2002 to 2018, four hundred and eighty thousand people were deported for illegal entry or re-entry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy each of them a plane ticket to come home.

Those tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals free healthcare, too, which they plan to do and have said so. The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about this country. Under this legislation, the criminals are now the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It’s racist, just like the country you live in, just like you are.

Now, the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest stop for the world’s predators and parasites. That’s the point of this. And we’re not overstating it, go read it. This is a big deal. This is not a small thing. It’s not renaming a Post Office. It’s hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less try to pass them into law. And yet remarkably, that’s happening.

And even more remarkably, the press has ignored it. This isn’t happening in secret. It is happening in the House of Representatives. Scores of Democrats have backed this bill. But the legislation has not been mentioned in “The New York Times.” It has not been mentioned on CNN, a news or even in self-described conservative outlets like “National Review.” No mention.

Consider if this were working the other way. If a lone — I don’t know Republican state legislator from Minot, North Dakota had proposed to build this extreme that would remake America completely, the President himself would be expected to answer for it. CNN would demand that he disavow it even if you’ve never heard of it before. But when one-fifth of the entire Democratic Caucus backs a bill demanding that you import illegal alien felons and then pay for it, it’s a non-event in the American media. They don’t think you should know about it. And that’s dangerous, if we’re being honest.

Whether the press cares or not, these are the stakes of the 2020 election, and you have a right to know what they are. A growing wing of the Democratic Party views America itself as essentially a legitimate, a rogue state in which everything must be destroyed and remade — our laws, our institutions, our customs, our freedoms, our history, our values.

And of course, what’s the point of all of this? An entirely new country in which resistance is crushed, and they’re in charge forever.

I linked to the bill itself in an earlier post. What Carlson says is true. How many here would back this?
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/07/carlson-warns-of-radical-new-way-forward-act-protecting-criminals-from-deportation-makes-the-green-new-deal-look-like-the-status-quo/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Fri 7 Feb, 2020 12:17 pm
Here is a link to the bill, read it for yourselves.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr5383
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.04 seconds on 11/29/2024 at 09:42:51