Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[TraneWreck]

Gosh, would someone please look up that term? "Just asking questions" was a rhetorical device to present plausible deniability for one's accusatory questions e.g. "Did president Bush order the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11? We don't know. We're just asking questions!" when we know it wasn't a question at all.

Asking a question for the question's sake, although annoying, isn't JAQing off at all.

Right, but that's not what Bob was doing. He was using the guise of a question to advance his goofy position.

 

[Belz...]

Right, but that's not what Bob was doing. He was using the guise of a question to advance his goofy position.

I'll let him disagree with that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Right, but that's not what Bob was doing. He was using the guise of a question to advance his goofy position.

Be serious, I know my position does not get advanced here.

 

[TraneWreck]

Inside that power and inside those limitations is firing the FBI director without cause. I understand being angry that it is exercising that power for personal gain, but how does that extend to the sense that this is violating limitations?

See, this is why I posed that question at the beginning.

No one, literally no one, is arguing that Trump violated his express powers by firing Comey.

 

[TraneWreck]

Be serious, I know my position does not get advanced here.

Which is why you've adopted this tactic. Others are welcome to play the game.

 

[BobTheCoward]

See, this is why I posed that question at the beginning.

No one, literally no one, is arguing that Trump violated his express powers by firing Comey.

ACBY said the following

We elect a president not a king. The position is not intended to be all powerful. There are limitations.

My question is about the squaring of that express power with ACBY's sentiment that it is "not intended to be all powerful." There is a feeling that even though it is an express power, that it is a step to "all powerful"?

 

[TraneWreck]

ACBY said the following



My question is about the squaring of that express power with ACBY's sentiment that it is "not intended to be all powerful." There is a feeling that even though it is an express power, that it is a step to "all powerful"?

And, again, do you recognize the possibility that a step to "all powerful" could be legal? Just the possibility, just hypothetically.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And, again, do you recognize the possibility that a step to "all powerful" could be legal? Just the possibility, just hypothetically.

I don't have an opinion on that, yet. I would like to hear what others think.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

All by people who do not have the authority to countermand it. They would have to illegally violate their oaths of service and lie to do so.

And in the nuclear command system they are all screened very very thoroughly so that they will not do that.

Not necessarily so. First off, members of the cabinet are not screened by the military. Secondly, all members of the military are legally bound by the UCMJ to refuse illegal orders. If Trump just up and ordered a launch for no reason, the Joint Chiefs would be legally required to refuse that order. The silo and ship crewmen who actually carry out that order are the most likely to blindly carry it out because they have the least information. They have to trust Command Authority the most.

There is a proposed law giving the need for someone else to support the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike but as it stands you are basing your position on "these people would go against everything they are screened and trained to do, to violate the law, to stop the president from exorcising his legal authority".

This actually came up during the Nixon administration and there actually were measures taken ad hoc to do just that. See the link I gave above.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not necessarily so. First off, members of the cabinet are not screened by the military. Secondly, all members of the military are legally bound by the UCMJ to refuse illegal orders. If Trump just up and ordered a launch for no reason, the Joint Chiefs would be legally required to refuse that order. The silo and ship crewmen who actually carry out that order are the most likely to blindly carry it out because they have the least information. They have to trust Command Authority the most.



This actually came up during the Nixon administration and there actually were measures taken ad hoc to do just that. See the link I gave above.

The issue on the Nixon case was if he was drunk. You can't have a lawful order under drug impairment.

If Trump up and ordered the nuking of Paris, the joint chiefs are legally required to follow that order. There is nothing illegal about that order.

 

[Belz...]

The issue on the Nixon case was if he was drunk. You can't have a lawful order under drug impairment.

If Trump up and ordered the nuking of Paris, the joint chiefs are legally required to follow that order. There is nothing illegal about that order.

One would think that nuking an ally without a declaration of war would be illegal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

One would think that nuking an ally without a declaration of war would be illegal.

AUMF.
Terrorists in Paris represent a national security threat.
Consistent with presidential power to initiate conflict against threats as needed and consistent with previous strikes authorized by presidents without congress.

 

[Belz...]

AUMF.

What?

Terrorists in Paris represent a national security threat.

Not enough to justify killing millions of civilians.

 

[Ambrosia]

Acting FBI director to continue FBI Russia probe

The FBI investigation into alleged links between Russia and the Donald Trump election team will carry on unimpeded by the sacking of its head, James Comey, his successor has said.

[...]

Mr McCabe also vowed not to update the White House on the status of the investigation and to notify the Senate panel of any attempt to interfere with the inquiry.

[link]

What are the odds that the FBI under McCabe will move faster on the Russia investigation now? (before he gets fired as well)

 

[TraneWreck]

Not enough to justify killing millions of civilians.

Yeah, and pretty sure Article 4 of NATO covers that:

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What?



Not enough to justify killing millions of civilians.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force has pretty much covered any group people have thought of in the last 15 years.


Where does the justification of killing millions of civilians enters into if it is a lawful order or not?

 

[Upchurch]

• Trump flat out lied about his relationship with Putin
• Trump flat out lied about his role in GOP platform concerning Ukraine
• Manafort flat out lied about his/Trump role in GOP platform
• Manafort flat out lied about his deep Russian relationships
• Flynn flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump lied by omission about Flynn's contacts
• Sessions flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Carter Page flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Various campaign officials lied about Page's relationship with the campaign
• Roger Stone flat out lied about his Russian contacts
• Trump is pretending that Manafort was minimally involved in the campaign
• Trump remains evasive about Flynn to this day
• Trump Jr acknowledged significant Russian money coming into the business, but Trump now denies
• Trump openly encouraged Russia to hack Clinton

s/Trump/Hillary/g and we'd have had at least two Senate investigations by now.

 

[Belz...]

The Authorization for Use of Military Force has pretty much covered any group people have thought of in the last 15 years.


Where does the justification of killing millions of civilians enters into if it is a lawful order or not?

Well, it's like self-defense: if you kill the guy trying to murder you, that's fine. If in so doing you slaughter the entire population of a small town, it's not. Of COURSE the effects of your actions enter into it!

Can the US launch a nuclear strike legally at a city to kill a small group within? I don't think so.

 

[Ambrosia]

I believe our little friend is saying: "Why would I do that [i.e. leave the US]? I love it here [in the US]. Most [people in the US] agree with me."

He's wrong, of course, but it looks like what he was trying to say.

That's exactly how I read his post, and I am greatly looking forward to seeing how he justifies his position and backs up his claims with some evidence. Eternal optimist that I am.

 

[Biscuit]

Trump trying his hardest to distract from russian probe with senseless commission to investigate voter fraud.

Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach will lead the commission, which will look at allegations of improper voting and fraudulent voter registration in states and across the nation, one official said

link