Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[Belz...]

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.

I have got to learn to do that. He manages to get away with even the most blatant lie.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

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

An act that every president has rejected. Can't have the authority if you don't accept the act that grants it.

And that STILL wouldn't cover a blatant act against the Geneva Convention, which nuking Paris under those circumstances would be, and therefore the JC would be legally required to refuse to carry out.

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

You electected a moron.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

That is a legal order though, it violates no law. So your premise that they need to not do it is flawed at the start. Their legal obligation is to obey these legal orders.

 

[BobTheCoward]

An act that every president has rejected. Can't have the authority if you don't accept the act that grants it.

And that STILL wouldn't cover a blatant act against the Geneva Convention, which nuking Paris under those circumstances would be, and therefore the JC would be legally required to refuse to carry out.

Those GC provisions are unconstitutional, therefore they are void.


And they reject it under the premise that they are not limited by a need to report or 90 days. Their argument is they are unlimited.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

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

Here's VP Dick Cheney:

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

Cheney is correct to a degree on form, but not in execution.

 

[The_Animus]

Agreed. Have you heard the "strike" rumor about congressional Democrats? They may do what happened right after Walker took over in WI and go on the lam so that there can't be a quorum to conduct business.

This tactic failed in Wisconsin. The attack line was that they were playing political games, running and hiding in another state, instead of doing their job. They didn't accomplish anything and I think hurt themselves slightly with independents. I don't see why the result would be any different at the national level.

 

[Belz...]

Those GC provisions are unconstitutional, therefore they are void.

Says who? You?

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

NATO Article 4 would make your hypothetical illegal in that case.

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.

There are rules circumscribing that potential attack, both international and in our local codes.

Third, The GC can only bind the president if it doesn't infringe on constitutionally defined powers.

This simply isn't true. It's perfectly possible for the United States to start a war that is legal pursuant to our governmental structure but a violation of the GC or NATO or another international treaty.

It would still be illegal under those treaties. Whether that meets your preferred definition of "illegal" is an open question. Whether it could be enforced is another matter, but it would be a violation of a treaty obligation we voluntarily assented to.

My argument is that the provisions you say apply do infringe on those powers.

That's how treaties work. Signing NAFTA limits the president and Congress's power over trade and even interstate commerce. If a treaty didn't obligate anyone to anything, it would be a useless piece of paper.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here it is. A Pokemon player, not a blogger

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...onvicted-playing-pokemon-go-church/101541958/

ETA: I guess he is considered a blogger.

Okay, but it still won't make any sense...

http://gizmodo.com/russian-blogger-sentenced-to-3-5-years-in-prison-for-pl-1795116915

Oh, this was in Russia. I thought this was in the US. Sorry, I missed that.

 

[varwoche]

Looking into my crystal ball, Comey is testifying again for the senate committee, and the spirits tell me...

Senator: Did you tell President Trump that he wasn't under investigation?
Comey: No

Damn, if only there was still a million dollar challenge, I'd be rich.

 

[Bob001]

Cheney is correct to a degree on form, but not in execution.

On what basis do you claim to know more than the vice president, the secretary of defense, and numerous public policy experts, some of whom are actively trying to change the current policy?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I'm not concerned. Why? Because Trump isn't going to be a dictator. Dictators don't tend to last long when they get most of the population HATING them. Dictators are feared yes but there's a difference between "I don't like him but i'm afraid of being disappeared" and "**** that ******* for taking my wife on our wedding night!".

 

[varwoche]

Regardless how scathing, and regardless that Rosenstein might be sincere, it appears he was used in a kabuki show.

Proven out by a whole new rational being put forward. The ineptitude on display from this mega doofus is staggering.

 

[ponderingturtle]

An act that every president has rejected. Can't have the authority if you don't accept the act that grants it.

The point is not that any president has ever done it, it is that the president has the power to launch a unilateral nuclear first strike at any time he sees fit. There is a suggested law to make only retaliatory use of nuclear weapons entirely in the presidents control, and the preemptive use of them requiring other peoples agreement. But as it stands now that is entirely with in the powers of the presidency.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

I'm afraid we'll be flogging that horse for a while. Press briefing going on right now they are tripling down on the hypocritical Democrats who wanted Comey fired and insisting this wasn't about the investigation.

Honestly, how stupid are people that they buy this crap? It's insane.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I have got to learn to do that. He manages to get away with even the most blatant lie.

You need power and wealth then tell lies that pander to the fears and desires of the ignorant. Admit nothing if you are called out on lies, no matter how obviously you have been exposed, covering the situation up with more if fibs as needed. In doing this, work with a polarising narrative that paints your critics as enemies of an ideology held by your followers, who will dig in harder when your critics bay loudest.

 

[dudalb]

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

True, but you would have to prove that was why Trump did it.
I think it is why he did it, but I would hate to have to actually prove that in a court of law.

 

[varwoche]

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

Did you notice that at one point he does a lot of that weird sniffing/snorting? It's a tell, of what I'm not sure.

 

[acbytesla]

And every president since signed have said it is unconstitutional.

And yet President after President has still waged limited warfare without Congress.