- Joined
- Jun 17, 2018
- Messages
- 3,148
- Reaction score
- 672
- Location
- NOW Beautiful Pasco County
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?
Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.
This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.
The law, verbatim, supports what the "trumpanzees" have said.
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?
Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.
This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.
Did the Clinton's try to hold back $250 million dollars from Russia unless they cooperated? Show me the proof of that. Show me the same verification of your lies about the Obama administration while you're at it. I'll wait, and don't send me anything from Faux News.
Did the Clinton's try to hold back $250 million dollars from Russia unless they cooperated? Show me the proof of that. Show me the same verification of your lies about the Obama administration while you're at it. I'll wait, and don't send me anything from Faux News.
Case and point...
The law isn't the law because... hannity told them so.
I find it hard to believe that you are unaware that:
1. The Steele report was commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
2. The Steele report solicited anti-Trump dirt from annonymous Russian sources.
3. The Steele report was used by the Obama Admin to obtain a warrant on an American citizen.
https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ272/PLAW-105publ272.pdf
The law makes no mention of complaints being void if discredited by future information. That's for Congress to decide. The law also makes no mention of the DNI having the power to disregard the IG's investigation. The law only says that if the IG finds the complaint credible and urgent, he must forward it to the DNI, who must forward it to Congress. If it's a bull**** claim, Congress will find out.
Yeah, I already did refute you. It doesn't matter the rank of the subject of the complaint.
Just saying Constitution and proclaiming victory is a dodge. If the IWPA was Unconstitutional it would not be law.
The President setting foreign policy is a red herring. The argument is about a whistleblower filing a complaint and the DNI breaking the law I've already cited to you MANY times.
The complaint itself MUST be given to the intelligence committee under the law, and the WH is refusing to comply with the law, what part of that are you not grasping?
Furthermore, the courts have ruled that executive privilege doesn't cover conduct the congress might deem impeachable.
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?
Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.
This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.
And meanwhile we violate what should be a sacred trust with another nation. Is this so important to you guys that you want that? Over what is obviously yet another bogus scandal?
If the DNI has no power in these matters, why is he in the loop at all?
And meanwhile we violate what should be a sacred trust with another nation. Is this so important to you guys that you want that? Over what is obviously yet another bogus scandal?
If the DNI has no power in these matters, why is he in the loop at all?
You obviously didn't read the entire article yourself.Not so quick....
See post 184.
What this means is that if there is information contained in a whistleblower complaint that might undermine national security, an administration may negotiate what it discloses to the congress in a good faith accommodation process, which the Trump WH hasn't even attempted to do.... even though President Clinton’s signing statement, later adopted by President Obama, reserved the right to withhold information from Congress “in exceptional circumstances,” he also said that he anticipated that in such circumstances the intelligence agencies will “contact the congressional committees promptly to begin the accommodation process that has traditionally been followed with respect to disclosure of sensitive information.” This process typically seeks to accommodate the interest in congressional oversight by providing Congress relevant information while protecting classified and privileged information. There’s no indication that the administration has made any efforts to seek an accommodation; and any process of accommodation in this case should recognize that, given the definition of an “urgent concern,” congressional oversight interests would seem to be very strong.
I didn't say the law was unconstitutional.
The law requires the DNI to act upon receipt of an urgent concern, within his authority, as determined by the IG.
You keep wanting to say the president is within the authority of the DNI. And he isn't. I don't know what else to tell you.
This isn't a separation of powers issue.Separation of powers IS constitutional. Read it and you'll see for yourself.
So when some future democrat president pressures a foreign government for information about an opponent, he just gets to do it if its a private conversation?
Do you hear what you are saying?
I'm not saying you don't believe trump is innocent, I'm positive you are.
But you're basically saying that once elected a president can do as he pleases without question or sanction.
And that's ridiculous. Presidents aren't kings.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.Not if it has no merit. And especially when it has no merit and would violate what should be sacred confidentiality between national leaders.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.
He's the director of the intelligence agencies.
Do you somehow think its his job to run interference for the president?
This argument is literally "Trump didn't do anything wrong ... BUT IF HE DID, SO WHAT?".News flash. President Trump pressured nobody. The Ukranians say so. But if he had, it does not break the law. Consider the pressure President Trump put on Mexico to get them to help with our illegal immigration crisis. Nothing illegal whatsoever about it and it would have been legal if conducted in private. Unless there is quid pro quo of some kind, our President can pressure anybody he wants. And certainly when the one who is allegedly pressured say the event never happened, and there is zero evidence of any quid pro quo, it is not an issue at all. Unless small minded, hateful people insist on it being an issue which seems to be the case here.
You obviously didn't read the entire article yourself.
What this means is that if there is information contained in a whistleblower complaint that might undermine national security, an administration may negotiate what it discloses to the congress in a good faith accommodation process, which the Trump WH hasn't even attempted to do.
Trump already flapped his big gums and revealed that he did request that Ukraine investigate Biden, and the courts WILL rule that the business of congress.
What will likely happen is a court will force the WH to file the IG complaint and (later) any phone transcript under seal, where the court will redact any information the WH can legitimately argue can jeopardize national security, and then the relevant parts of the transcript will be handed over to the congress.
While I sympathize with not enjoy having to repeat oneself, you never made an argument worth a flip.I've made my argument. I get tired of having to type it out again and again for those who don't bother to read the thread. Thanks and have a nice evening.
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?
Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.
This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.
This argument is literally "Trump didn't do anything wrong ... BUT IF HE DID, SO WHAT?".
News flash: it doesn't have to be illegal to be impeachable at all. Congress is the arbiter of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor in executive power.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?