US Officially Blames Russia

[crescent]

As such, Trump may end up as the first President to be impeached and thrown out of office during his first year in office.

Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.

I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? Such a law wouldn't pass SCOTUS.

No one would have standing to bring it before SCOTUS. We currently have laws protecting us from searches without warrants. The government ignores this rule. We can't challenge their behavior, because none of us can prove that it happened and that we were harmed by it.

Anyone alleging torture would have a similar problem: how do they prove they were tortured?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? Such a law wouldn't pass SCOTUS.

Crossbows position is far more speculative than mine om what would happen if it came before the court. Case law absolutely supports that laws passed void any conflicting pieces from earlier treaties. No specific requirement to withdraw from a treaty exists even if the treaty says it does.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The Wikipedia consensus seems to be on my side. There seems little controversy there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.

 

[Belz...]

No one would have standing to bring it before SCOTUS. We currently have laws protecting us from searches without warrants. The government ignores this rule. We can't challenge their behavior, because none of us can prove that it happened and that we were harmed by it.

Anyone alleging torture would have a similar problem: how do they prove they were tortured?

I was refering to the law itself, not the practice.

 

[Crossbow]

Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.

I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.

Indeed! You may be absolutely correct; but as for myself, I am still a bit concerned.

To explain, I find the Watergate example to be most appropriate. In that case Nixon won easily won re-election and that wide margin of victory provided him with quite a few congressional supporters (even several Democrats) when his second term started.

But, as the Watergate case unfolded, gradually Nixon lost more and more and more support until there was virtually no congressional support (either Democrat or no Republican) for him.

If it turns out that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russian hacking, then that would be bad for Trump himself regardless of which party in charge of the Congress but I doubt that it would rise to the level of impeachment.

And if it turns out that Trump himself somehow supported the Russian hacking, then it is quite possible that Trump could be removed from office (either through the impeachment process or his own resignation).

In either case, Trump is going to have a real hornet’s nest on his hands.

 

[Crossbow]

Crossbows position is far more speculative than mine om what would happen if it came before the court. Case law absolutely supports that laws passed void any conflicting pieces from earlier treaties. No specific requirement to withdraw from a treaty exists even if the treaty says it does.

Since your positions are so wrong that you even cannot defend them, then stop your characterizations of my positions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I was refering to the law itself, not the practice.

I know. I'm saying that SCOTUS would never actually hear the case on whether it was constitutional, or in violation of our treaty requirements. Someone has to be be provably wronged by such a law first, and that would be nigh impossible to prove.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

And here's another bombshell:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?

It used to be absurdly rare. Obama promised more protections for civil rights after the Snowden leaks, so maybe they're actually working...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And those people were wrong to say those things then, also.

What people? Woodward and Bernstein? Deep Throat?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Non skeptical thinkers will be right sometimes. That doesn't mean their approach is reasonable.

Did you read the intelligence report or are you just going with Trump's superlative claim the news media is lying?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Since your positions are so wrong that you even cannot defend them, then stop your characterizations of my positions.

The precedent of the head money cases stands. There is no case law that points to courts making an exception to certain treaties.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What people? Woodward and Bernstein? Deep Throat?

Anybody that argued the president directed it based on a hunch rather than after actual evidence appearing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.

Don't forget the "never Trump" arm of the GOP which would love to trade him for Pence.

I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.

They aren't going to waste any more time/resources on Clinton.

1) If we go by the fact the Clinton Foundation has an A rating by an independent charity watch, aka no corruption, and, had there been evidence of a quid pro quo it would have come out long ago.

2) More importantly, it was never anything but a political witch hunt and Clinton no longer poses any threat to win the POTUS election. Thus the motive for the witch hunt is gone.

 

[Crossbow]

The precedent of the head money cases stands. There is no case law that points to courts making an exception to certain treaties.

So what?

Nobody has said otherwise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?

I too thought it unusual, but I would think asking to investigate a candidate for POTUS might have just a bit of a higher bar than your usual FISa request.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anybody that argued the president directed it based on a hunch rather than after actual evidence appearing.

So you never read the intelligence report directly. Got it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?

These people weren't brown, so naturally there is a higher burden of proof required.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So what?

Nobody has said otherwise.

More than one person here has brought up the Geneva convention to a post where I said congress hypothetically takes action to legalize torture. Argumemon specifically said "Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? " That would be an explicit contradiction to existing precedent. People do seem to be saying otherwise.