Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[acbytesla]

I think the real danger is not the official investigation, but what the media is going to bring out.

Maybe, maybe not. There is very little real investigative journalism done these days.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You know, this little act of not knowing even the most fundamental thing about any topic is getting old and silly.

Stop it.

Him and Bob001...

 

[dudalb]

A. Trump absolutely had the power to fire Comey for any reason he saw fit. The expression is "he serves at the President's Pleasure".
B. The decision to fire Comey was incredibly stupid and wrong,though legal.

 

[dudalb]

Maybe, maybe not. There is very little real investigative journalism done these days.

You have not read the NYT or the WAPO lately, I see........

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Obviously, a treaty cannot circumscribe the constitution. No treaty can change the president's term from 4 years to 3.

The constitution defines the president as commander in chief. It also defines what powers of the military congress can regulate. I think we can agree that a treaty cannot regulate the president on war more than passed legislation can.

As to UN treaties and NATO treaties on who we can attack, I think it is clear that those provisions are void IF we recognize that the CinC power includes the ability to launch attacks in the name of national emergency. I would say that power to launch attacks, while I don't agree with the common interpretation, is recognized as legitimate. If that is the power of the president, and congress cannot regulate (as every president has rejected the war powers resolution) then a treaty cannot.

Nuclear weapons are funded, so it isn't a "power of the purse" issue.

That leaves the geneva conventions, similar agreements, and the ability of congress to regulate tactical and strategic decisions.

I have seen the full range of views on this from
-congress has the power, if it chooses, to direct the most tactical level decision (this law directs platoon A to take hill Wolf 359).
-Congress has no power to even direct strategic decision (what funded weapons to use when).

When we think of if laws can restrict the president as CinC, my bet is the court would say these laws are nonjusticiable and leave it as an impeachment issue.

Well, the president can be impeached for anything. However much risk he wants to tolerate, Bombs Away.

But then we are back to the Joint Chiefs, and they would be confined by those agreements, if we recognize a power to regulate strategic decisions is held by congress.

Only Congress can declare war.

Absent a declaration of war, any order to nuke Paris would be prima facie illegal regardless of other GC stipulations. And yes, the GC DOES bind the President as a signed and ratified treaty.

 

[varwoche]

A. Trump absolutely had the power to fire Comey for any reason he saw fit. The expression is "he serves at the President's Pleasure".
B. The decision to fire Comey was incredibly stupid and wrong,though legal.

I don't mean to flog a dead horse but no, not if that reason is to obstruct justice.

 

[Giordano]

I think the real danger is not the official investigation, but what the media is going to bring out.

I think you absolutely correct. In fact by firing Corney Trump has both alienated/angered additional individuals in the FBI and the DOJ (who are now more likely to cooperate with reporters and leak information) and convinced reporters that here is a potential gold mine of a story worth even more expanded investigatory efforts.

 

[Biscuit]

Acting FBI director contradicts white house press secretary.

link

 

[WilliamSeger]

the whole narrative is false and you know it.

Do you honestly believe Trump is in cohoots with Russia? Flynn (fired by Trump) investigation and indeed every liberal media outlet is just dying to undermine Trump's presidency, it's as simple as that. But go ahead, keep lapping it up.

Nope, and in fact I learned a lot last night that I didn't know before (and it's also a good example of why Rachel Maddow is now the #1 cable political show).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The rumors are that he STILL wants Flynn back, and the White House Counsel is STILL trying to convince him that he needs to stay away from the guy.

He doesn't believe that Flynn has done anything wrong. Ties to Russia? Not a problem. Unregistered foreign agent? Still not a problem.

Trump is so oblivious he just had a news interview where he made it worse for himself.

In answer to Rosenstein's denials he recommended Comey be fired, Trump said he was going to fire Comey before the Rosenstein letter. Lies to cover up lies, the man just can't help himself.

Then when asked about the three times Comey said Trump wasn't under investigation, he made up a dinner and two phone calls. I say made up because we've heard Comey and others in the FBI say over and over, it wouldn't have happened and we know Trump lies all the time, so I'm going with the preponderance of evidence.

But in his stupidity while making the encounters up, Trump said he asked Comey on one of those occasions. Trump likes to elaborate about these stories no doubt because he thinks the details make the story more credible. So he added that Comey was telling Trump he wanted to stay on as FBI director.

Let's parse that: Comey tells Trump he'd like to stay on. Trump asks if he is under investigation.

Today's news is going to be all about Trump unduly coercing Comey not to investigate him if Comey wants to keep his job. And Trump had no apparent clue making up one lie only made his situation worse.

 

[Belz...]

I just read that a man was arrested and convicted for playing Pokeman Go in a Russian Church.

They're not men, Tesla. They're monsters.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I think you absolutely correct. In fact by firing Corney Trump has both alienated/angered additional individuals in the FBI and the DOJ (who are now more likely to cooperate with reporters and leak information) and convinced reporters that here is a potential gold mine of a story worth even more expanded investigatory efforts.

The only problem with that is that w/o the actual evidence (which is classified) there isn't much to report.

We've seen examples right in this thread of people who won't accept anything less than seeing the actual smoking gun before they'll admit it fired a shot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, no Republican would ever drag out an investigation, right? #Benghazi

Maybe what they mean is it's time to end the House and Senate investigations and begin investigation #3. Times a wastin'. We got yo get that count up.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Only Congress can declare war.

Absent a declaration of war, any order to nuke Paris would be prima facie illegal regardless of other GC stipulations. And yes, the GC DOES bind the President as a signed and ratified treaty.

First, I did bring up the AUMF. As broadly interpreted as that has been to include ISIS, ISIS fighters are located in Paris. There is the war authorization.

Second, absent the AUMF, there seems to be broad consensus that the president has the power to launch some sort of attack without congressional authorization.

Third, The GC can only bind the president if it doesn't infringe on constitutionally defined powers. My argument is that the provisions you say apply do infringe on those powers.

 

[varwoche]

Regarding Trump's letter where he writes that Comey told him he wasn't under investigation...

Lester Holt: Why did you put that in there?

Trump: Because he told me that.

Holt: He told you you weren't under investigation?

Trump: Yeah and I've heard that from others.
​

How very typical.

 

[acbytesla]

You have not read the NYT or the WAPO lately, I see........

I didn't say there isn't any. Just not as much. Bezos is making so much at Amazon, he's willing to throw money at WaPo. They are definitely an an exception.

 

[acbytesla]

Only Congress can declare war.

Absent a declaration of war, any order to nuke Paris would be prima facie illegal regardless of other GC stipulations. And yes, the GC DOES bind the President as a signed and ratified treaty.

Ever hear of the War Powers Act? The President can wage war for 90 days without Congress.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it though ?

The way things are going, it no doubt will be. But only time will tell. You are much more pessimistic over there in Wales than I am over here on the Left Coast. But I also must say that I've been through these things before. This snowball is not going to stop rolling down the hill.

Except for Fox, the news media is on the side of selling scandal rather than on the side of providing information. This is scandal, they will harp and harp as long as the story is juicy. That tends to nudge the public.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ever hear of the War Powers Act? The President can wage war for 90 days without Congress.

And every president since signed have said it is unconstitutional.

 

[Bob001]

Even if the President were to find someone who would confirm the order, there is still the joint chiefs, who may not and in some circumstnaces are legally required to refuse to.

Him and Bob001..]

Try reading the links I provided, and many others, before you rely on a mistaken Wiki snippet.

Here's VP Dick Cheney:

In 2008, then–Vice President Dick Cheney said something pretty chilling about nuclear weapons during a Fox News appearance. According to Cheney, the president is always accompanied by a military aide carrying a briefcase, called the "nuclear football," which allows the president to launch nuclear weapons. The president can launch at whomever, whenever:

"He could launch a kind of devastating attack the world's never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in."

But if you sleep better imagining that President Trump has a boss, more power to you.