Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Belz...]

The power of the Senate is independent from the presidency.

Theoretically. However since Senators, Presidents and Representatives are all picked from the same pool of political parties, there's quite a bit of overlap.

 

[dudalb]

The GOP has turned on Mueller with a vengeance.

 

[theprestige]

I'd like to see a specific example--You know the criteria necessary to declare such an order are in dispute, and until I see a specific example I'm not convinced they are comparable. Additionally:

1) It looks to me like the Trump wall is more of a vanity project than actual border security. There are other proposals for border security, why not compromise on one of those?

and

2) I'm not as concerned with the specific act in question as I am with the undermining of separation of powers and Constitutional checks and balances that result.

As Ziggurat pointed out, this authority was granted to the President by Congress. They can revoke it at any time. I'm not seeing any great risk to the separation of powers, neither by this arrangement, nor by its application.

Were you similarly concerned about the undermining of federal checks and balances, when President Obama used the War Powers Resolution to ignore Congress and deploy troops in Syria?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Syria,_2012–2017

Using an authority granted by Congress, to disobey Congress, in order to escalate the US involvement in the Syrian civil war, seems to me to be a lot scarier than Trump's vanity wall. Anyway, there's your "in recent memory" example of other presidents getting tolerance for the same kind of thing that's supposedly unacceptable when Trump does it.

 

[dudalb]

"I don't care if Trump is a racist and abuses his powers as president. and clearly would like to be a dictator, as long as I get my Tax cuts".,

 

[theprestige]

An excellent question, and I generally agree with your comments above. I guess I'm reacting to the realisation that much of the stability of democracies in the modern world is due to people respecting the rules and acting with forebearance. But what happens when they don't?

Kinda looks like they bounce off the fence around the perimeter of the playground, and go back to running around the yard like a jackass. Maybe they bounce off the fence a few more times before recess is over.

Trump's a buffoon, and although he can damage some of the institutions of the US, I don't think he's a Hitler wannabe. But what if the next POTUS is, and the Senate is just as unwilling to act against them?

Trudeau's not a Hitler wannabe, either, but what happens to Canada if the next PM is, and a vote of no confidence fails to remove him?

 

[theprestige]

Theoretically. However since Senators, Presidents and Representatives are all picked from the same pool of political parties, there's quite a bit of overlap.

No there is not. Or rather, there may be quite a bit of overlap in priorities and outlook, but there is still zero overlap in powers. (Except for when Congress delegates some of its own power to the president by statute. But the delegated powers Trump is exercising weren't granted by this Congress, and weren't granted during this presidency. It's hard to blame Trump-Senate collusion for the continuation of the status quo.)

 

[theprestige]

I know that. I wasn't talking about SCOTUS removing the president, but ordering him to do something. What happens if Nixon refuses to give up the tapes, and the Senate is willing to cover for him? Nothing, that's what.

And that is as it should be. Every organization has to have a top level, above which no higher authority exists. Even if you did somehow add a higher level of authority, you'd still have the same problems of recourse, at that new level. The US could subordinate itself to "International Law", and you'd still have the problem of what to do when International Law returns the wrong answer.

 

[theprestige]

"I don't care if Trump is a racist and abuses his powers as president. and clearly would like to be a dictator, as long as I get my Tax cuts".,

I would care a lot more if...
... Trump were actually more bigoted than other folks; or
... Trump were actually abusing his powers in some way; or
... Trump actually did clearly want to be a dictator (he clearly doesn't); or
... Tax cuts [sic] were actually a priority for me.

Anyway, I guess this:

I do appreciate you actually quoting my post and replying directly to it. Do you want to continue the discussion?

Is going by the wayside. I'm sorry I missed your window for actual discussion. Hopefully you'll hold it open a bit longer next time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The GOP has turned on Mueller with a vengeance.

Why? He handed his report over to them alone.

 

[Cabbage]

As Ziggurat pointed out, this authority was granted to the President by Congress. They can revoke it at any time. I'm not seeing any great risk to the separation of powers, neither by this arrangement, nor by its application.

Were you similarly concerned about the undermining of federal checks and balances, when President Obama used the War Powers Resolution to ignore Congress and deploy troops in Syria?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Syria,_2012–2017

Using an authority granted by Congress, to disobey Congress, in order to escalate the US involvement in the Syrian civil war, seems to me to be a lot scarier than Trump's vanity wall. Anyway, there's your "in recent memory" example of other presidents getting tolerance for the same kind of thing that's supposedly unacceptable when Trump does it.

I just wrote a somewhat long response but accidentally lost it. I don't have time to recreate it, so let me just summarize it:

Can the House really revoke the Emergency Act (doesn't it require the cooperation of a noncooperative Senate). And even if they did, it wouldn't retroactively renege Trump's border wall "emergency", would it? THAT is the topic, not the Act itself.

And is Obama's Syria action legitimately unique and without precedent? Isn't that the type of violation you want me to provide? Hasn't that one been violated many times before? Vietnam, for example, which of course predates the act but was the same type of violation; indeed it inspired the War Powers Act.

Finally, I would argue that Trump's action is more dangerous than Obama's: It's more insidious because, while repeated violations of the War Powers Act is likely to create MAJOR public outcries over unnecessary violence, repeated violations of the National Emergency Act is more likely to be tolerated by those (like you) who are OK with the president declaring emergencies to get funding without House approval. The fact that it's not so flagrantly corrupt (wanton war and unnecessary violence versus...funding issues) makes it an area much more subject to abuse.

And yes, I said "Repeated". I know we're talking about Trump's single violation of the National Emergency Act and I am asking you to give me a precedent.

Which you have not done.

 

[Cabbage]

As Ziggurat pointed out, this authority was granted to the President by Congress. They can revoke it at any time. I'm not seeing any great risk to the separation of powers, neither by this arrangement, nor by its application.

Were you similarly concerned about the undermining of federal checks and balances, when President Obama used the War Powers Resolution to ignore Congress and deploy troops in Syria?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution#Syria,_2012–2017

Using an authority granted by Congress, to disobey Congress, in order to escalate the US involvement in the Syrian civil war, seems to me to be a lot scarier than Trump's vanity wall. Anyway, there's your "in recent memory" example of other presidents getting tolerance for the same kind of thing that's supposedly unacceptable when Trump does it.

Oh, and I forgot I wanted to call this out: When Obama did it, it wasn't "tolerated", I recall there being significant outcry. You're being disingenuous there.

I also meant to include this quote from Boehner regarding Obama and Syria:

But Boehner’s also been unclear about whether Obama is even violating the act. Two weeks ago, Boehner said that “technically,” he wasn’t: “Legally, they’ve met their requirements [under] the War Powers Act,” he said of the administration.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...r-powers-act-and-is-obama-really-violating-it

 

[Minoosh]

Mueller's letter to Barr was a black-belt bureaucratic maneuver. I believe he wanted to get his objections to Barr's characterizations on the record to be clear about his unhappiness with the extent of the redactions. He didn't want to be seen as going along with a whitewash. He also would have known the letter would probably be leaked by White House staffers independently alarmed by Barr's maneuvers.

Someone made a play on words, could we be dis-Barred, referring to impeachment proceedings. In fact I think Barr is actually afraid of losing his legal license, even without a word spoken about impeachment. What he objected to in the House committee's request was being questioned by other lawyers. They'd pin him down like a frog waiting to be dissected. Judge Andrew Napolitano's eloquent take-down of Trump and Barr illustrates that even attorneys who have been politically friendly are pushing back hard on a perceived whitewash. There is professional pride at stake that is probably surprising to people with a negative view of lawyers.

Many lawyers have resisted Trump. Even Jeff Sessions wouldn't fall on his sword for Trump. Don McGahn wouldn't. Rudy Giuliani is happy to mangle both the truth and the law, but he's the exception.

Barr has now made himself a human shield, but he's trying to balance on a knife's edge: Pacify his boss without completely mangling the Special Counsel's findings, which he knows would subject him to withering scorn from his own tribe. He is willing to be questioned, but not cross-examined. That's how I read the situation. Exactly what the House committee should do, I don't know, but I would like to see restraint - not on investigating, but on grandstanding. Impeaching Barr would be a mistake, I think, but I could be wrong. Meanwhile I'd like to see some solid legislation written on immigration and health care, even if it can't currently pass.

 

[Cabbage]

I can try. But first can you be clear on what specific acts or omissions of the Senate you're talking about?

And hey, while you're still struggling to find a precedent, let's pile on and have another go. You know, for a few days now I've pointed out how you're falsely representing my position as being a uniquely bad president (while I insist I'm saying bad, which should be concerning whether it's unique or not). So if you really want to argue "unique"ness, let's go, bro:

Find me a precedent for a special prosecutor's report on an issue involving the President being misrepresented to the press and public by the President's own Attorney General.

 

[varwoche]

I would care a lot more if...
... Trump were actually more bigoted than other folks; or
... Trump were actually abusing his powers in some way;

Wow. alt.universe.

Call in the laughing dogs in numbers never previously conceived by human or canine imagination.

 

[Minoosh]

I just wrote a somewhat long response but accidentally lost it. I don't have time to recreate it, so let me just summarize it:

This is drifting pretty far afield from the thread topic but while I hate Trump's power grabs I kind of liked Obama's. I thought it was fine to declare that longtime U.S. residents, gainfully employed and raising American children were way, way down on the list of deportation priorities, so far down that they didn't even have to worry about it. I did wonder if it was quite legal, though. I'm pretty sure GW Bush would have done the same thing if he thought he could get away with it.

A state of emergency to get a few billion dollars for "steel slats" is histrionic but not necessarily catastrophic. Meanwhile there (ironically?) really is a humanitarian emergency on the border, but a fence IMO isn't the best way to fix it. That might be one piece, depending on what area we're talking about, but having thousands of Central Americans and miscellaneous others showing up to turn themselves needs a legislative solution and I'm not sure Trump can pass any legislation or he wouldn't have declared an emergency to begin with.

Find me a precedent for a special prosecutor's report on an issue involving the President being misrepresented to the press and public by the President's own Attorney General.

Good save to get back on topic. But that scandal, if it is one, doesn't really address Trump power grabs. Wouldn't every president want a sympathetic attorney general?

That's on one's on Barr, IMO. He's the one who is supposed to know better.

 

[Cabbage]

Good save to get back on topic. But that scandal, if it is one, doesn't really address Trump power grabs. Wouldn't every president want a sympathetic attorney general?

That's on one's on Barr, IMO. He's the one who is supposed to know better.

I think Trump bears some responsibility for the actions of those in his cabinet, and I don't for one second believe that Barr is the sole instigator of this plan of defense. I'm not saying he's being coerced, but I'm confident that the choice in his approach can be traced back to Trump.

 

[Ziggurat]

In which case, those powers should not be used to get around something that Congress has specifically forbidden.

Congress has not specifically forbidden it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I would care a lot more if...
... Trump were actually more bigoted than other folks; or
... Trump were actually abusing his powers in some way;

Wow. alt.universe.

Call in the laughing dogs in numbers never previously conceived by human or canine imagination.

No ****** That's some heavy duty denial there.

 

[theprestige]

Wow. alt.universe.



Call in the laughing dogs in numbers never previously conceived by human or canine imagination.

Those are all debatable points. Feel free to debate them if you want. But if you're just going to declare stuff, in order to preempt debate, I can play that game too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those are all debatable points. Feel free to debate them if you want. But if you're just going to declare stuff, in order to preempt debate, I can play that game too.

While we're at it, let's debate if water is wet or the world is flat.