• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Trump Fires Comey....

Worm said:
....
It doesn't belong in that letter, it's nothing to do with the action he's taking. I have to assume that a very highly paid communications professional was involved in drafting this letter, and they let that in? I guess Trump insisted on it, which is just stupid.
Click to expand...
You got that part right.
 
When the institutions that are supposed to keep presidential authority in check fail, as they will have if Congress fails to act against the president, what other checks and balances are left? Is it the coup d'état that some right winger on this forum talked about as a safety so we wouldn't worry about Trump?
 
uke2se said:
When the institutions that are supposed to keep presidential authority in check fail, as they will have if Congress fails to act against the president, what other checks and balances are left? Is it the coup d'état that some right winger on this forum talked about as a safety so we wouldn't worry about Trump?
Click to expand...

If the branches reach terms they agree on, that is the checks working. Going against what you want is not a failure of checks and balances.
 
The Don said:
Unfortunately, the GOP-controlled House and Senate will not want to cause waves w.r.t. the Trump administration and so Trump will be free to install his own creature as FBI director and then he'll have the choice of letting the FBI investigation wither and die or indeed direct it to exonerate him completely and instead blame Obama.
Click to expand...

Nixon didn't get away with it and he's waaay smarter than Trump. There are more than enough Republicans up for re-election in 2018 that this won't happen.

Not that Trump won't try to appoint Giuliani or Christie to head the FBI. My guess is he's looking for just that much of an ass kisser. At most Trump will get his personal leaker to tell him where the Russia investigation is going.

But we still have a balance of powers here despite Trump imagining himself dictator.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I'll grant that "hero" is a bit too strong a word.

But they sure are quick now to defend someone they were certainly demonizing a very short time ago.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. One can say Comey should have been fired and Trump is trying to quash the Russia investigation without talking out of two sides of one's mouth.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If the branches reach terms they agree on, that is the checks working. Going against what you want is not a failure of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

This is yet another situation where your complete dedication to avoiding empirical reality will lead you to nonsense.

The principle of checks and balances in this country, if you read the Federalist Papers, was largely based on the idea of competing ambition. You could rely on Congress to hold the President in check because both groups would act to maximize their own power and influence.

This was a principle underlying the structure, but it was not black letter law. There is no requirement of Congress to act to maximize its own influence with regard to presidential ambition.

So, in fact, our system can easily break down if that principle is undermined and Congress behaves as a lackey for a president. We saw this happen during the Bush years when even Democrats like Hillary Clinton rolled over and gave the executive massive power over war making.

It is fully possible for Congress to arrive at terms based on their technical abilities under the law that destroys the very principles that checks and balances was based upon.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nixon didn't get away with it and he's waaay smarter than Trump.
Click to expand...

Nixon didn't have the House and Senate though. Any kind of investigation needs some GOP representatives to go with the other side

Skeptic Ginger said:
There are more than enough Republicans up for re-election in 2018 that this won't happen.
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it...
 
TraneWreck said:
It is fully possible for Congress to arrive at terms based on their technical abilities under the law that destroys the very principles that checks and balances was based upon.
Click to expand...

The Constitution has no principles beyond the rules themselves. Any desire of the founders is rendered meaningless at the point of ratification.
 
It's my understanding that the FBI is the investigative wing of the Justice Department. The FBI looks into matters and makes a recommendation to JD about prosecution. However, the JD can prosecute with or without the FBI's recommendation.

If trump is saying this about how Comey publicly handled the Clinton investigation why did trump praise Comey's action at the time?

If trump is saying it's because Comey didn't recommend prosecution of Clinton well the JD could have moved forward anyway.

If trump is saying it's because Comey botched the Clinton investigation how do they know this? Does trump and the JD have evidence damning Clinton? If so why have they not acted? Where did this evidence come from?

None of this makes much sense if one accepts the white house premise that this was about the Clinton investigation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom