Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 18, 2024 23:19:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 21:06:26 GMT
“Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of government responsibilities into distinct branches to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.” Kyle Griffin... “The Mueller protection bill has been blocked again. Jeff Flake asked for unanimous consent on the Senate floor to move the bill. Republican Mike Lee objected, citing concerns over separation of powers.” So stopping the president from obstructing Justice raises a “separation of powers” concern? How so? What Lee means is that the president has the statutory right to fire anyone in the Executive branch, and it is not within the “core function” of the Legislative branch to determine who should stay or who should be fired in the Executive branch. To do otherwise is to undermine the principle of separation of powers. Do NOT get the impression I’m against the bill to protect Mueller. I’m merely answering your question. In fact, Lee is actually being disingenuous because when Ken Starr was special prosecutor, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, part of which protected Starr from being fired by the president and instituted a process whereby a three-judge panel would determine if his removal is justified. That has expired and was never renewed. If separation of powers was no issue then, it should not be an issue now. I agree that the president can fire people who work directly for him, like Sessions. But if I’m not mistaken, the President can not directly fire Mueller. What essentially trump has done is fire and remove people who were overseeing the Mueller investigation and put in place someone that can remove or impede the special counsel investigation into trump and those around him, and is willing to do so. Which if I’m not mistaken is obstruction of justice. I mean look at what trump did by-passing the chain of command and naming his guy as acting AG. A person who was not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. So it is clear what his intent is. That being the case, wouldn’t this be part of checks & balance by Congress to stop the President from obstructing justice by passing this law, which is about the only thing they can do? So I don’t see it as a separation of power of issue. I see it strictly as a checks and balance issue. No one is questioning or stopping the authority the president legally has but are stopping him from grabbing authority he shouldn’t have or at least congress should be stopping him.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 28, 2018 21:11:08 GMT
Mueller's playing chess....
Trump's playing marbles.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 28, 2018 21:13:35 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 28, 2018 21:16:30 GMT
Not only that, but he tried to blame CANADA for the California fires!
I have to find that article..
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 28, 2018 21:29:16 GMT
Ladies.....your POTUS......
Noice his own deputy AG in there? What a class act.....not
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 28, 2018 21:36:21 GMT
What Lee means is that the president has the statutory right to fire anyone in the Executive branch, and it is not within the “core function” of the Legislative branch to determine who should stay or who should be fired in the Executive branch. To do otherwise is to undermine the principle of separation of powers. Do NOT get the impression I’m against the bill to protect Mueller. I’m merely answering your question. In fact, Lee is actually being disingenuous because when Ken Starr was special prosecutor, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, part of which protected Starr from being fired by the president and instituted a process whereby a three-judge panel would determine if his removal is justified. That has expired and was never renewed. If separation of powers was no issue then, it should not be an issue now. I agree that the president can fire people who work directly for him, like Sessions. But if I’m not mistaken, the President can not directly fire Mueller. What essentially trump has done is fire and remove people who were overseeing the Mueller investigation and put in place someone that can remove or impede the special counsel investigation into trump and those around him, and is willing to do so. Which if I’m not mistaken is obstruction of justice. I mean look at what trump did by-passing the chain of command and naming his guy as acting AG. A person who was not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. So it is clear what his intent is. That being the case, wouldn’t this be part of checks & balance by Congress to stop the President from obstructing justice by passing this law, which is about the only thing they can do? So I don’t see it as a separation of power of issue. I see it strictly as a checks and balance issue. No one is questioning or stopping the authority the president legally has but are stopping him from grabbing authority he shouldn’t have or at least congress should be stopping him. I'm bothered by everything he's doing or planning to do because I (and many) know that his objective is simply to scupper the Mueller investigation (especially now that it's been discovered that Stone and Corsi were indeed communicating with WikiLeaks). But it's Lee...one of his water carriers at the Senate so, of course, he will do everything in his power for this bill to not be voted on. As to "obstructing justice," we know that's what it is, but unfortunately, we're not the ones in the Senate. The GOP will continue to protect Trump no matter what. The president's right to fire Mueller is fiercely debated because one side asserts that only the AG can do so. The other side fiercely disagrees. The Supreme Court ruled (Myers v. US) that "the grant of executive power to the president in Article II to make appointments (including those confirmed by the Senate) carries with it the power of removal." That's why at some point, this will need to be resolved because therein lies the problem. (The one body I truly blame for this is Congress because they allowed the Ethics in Government Act to expire and didn't vote to renew.) I talked about the Mueller protection bill on this board a couple months ago and I said that, for sure, it will be a slog because I knew McConnell will fight tooth and nail against bringing this to a floor vote, and I don't see McConnell giving up. I'm just hoping that Flake's tactic of voting against judicial nominees and Coons' continued push might make a difference. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 28, 2018 21:38:28 GMT
Ladies.....your POTUS...... Noice his own deputy AG in there? What a class act.....not i don’t see Ivanka in there. Fair is fair
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Nov 28, 2018 21:50:01 GMT
Did I miss something? New information about Russia collusion being a proven lie?
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 28, 2018 21:59:05 GMT
Ladies.....your POTUS...... Noice his own deputy AG in there? What a class act.....not Now that Russia collusion is a proven lie? It’s actually being proved that there WAS collusion. Corsi himself publicized the draft of the plea deal which was part of his negotiations with Mueller (which Corsi ultimately turned down). It shows emails were exchanged between Stone and Corsi on seeking the Wikeleaks emails that were hacked by the GRU. Stone was an informal adviser on the Trump campaign at that time. All major news outlets have been reporting on this since yesterday afternoon. Whoever created that tweet must not read or listen to the news.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 28, 2018 22:44:39 GMT
@bergdorfblonde sent you a message
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 28, 2018 22:54:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 18, 2024 23:19:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 23:08:31 GMT
I agree that the president can fire people who work directly for him, like Sessions. But if I’m not mistaken, the President can not directly fire Mueller. What essentially trump has done is fire and remove people who were overseeing the Mueller investigation and put in place someone that can remove or impede the special counsel investigation into trump and those around him, and is willing to do so. Which if I’m not mistaken is obstruction of justice. I mean look at what trump did by-passing the chain of command and naming his guy as acting AG. A person who was not vetted or confirmed by the Senate. So it is clear what his intent is. That being the case, wouldn’t this be part of checks & balance by Congress to stop the President from obstructing justice by passing this law, which is about the only thing they can do? So I don’t see it as a separation of power of issue. I see it strictly as a checks and balance issue. No one is questioning or stopping the authority the president legally has but are stopping him from grabbing authority he shouldn’t have or at least congress should be stopping him. I'm bothered by everything he's doing or planning to do because I (and many) know that his objective is simply to scupper the Mueller investigation (especially now that it's been discovered that Stone and Corsi were indeed communicating with WikiLeaks). But it's Lee...one of his water carriers at the Senate so, of course, he will do everything in his power for this bill to not be voted on. As to "obstructing justice," we know that's what it is, but unfortunately, we're not the ones in the Senate. The GOP will continue to protect Trump no matter what. The president's right to fire Mueller is fiercely debated because one side asserts that only the AG can do so. The other side fiercely disagrees. The Supreme Court ruled (Myers v. US) that "the grant of executive power to the president in Article II to make appointments (including those confirmed by the Senate) carries with it the power of removal." That's why at some point, this will need to be resolved because therein lies the problem. (The one body I truly blame for this is Congress because they allowed the Ethics in Government Act to expire and didn't vote to renew.) I talked about the Mueller protection bill on this board a couple months ago and I said that, for sure, it will be a slog because I knew McConnell will fight tooth and nail against bringing this to a floor vote, and I don't see McConnell giving up. I'm just hoping that Flake's tactic of voting against judicial nominees and Coons' continued push might make a difference. We'll just have to wait and see. I had to go read Meyers v US. I just read the cliff notes. Nothing is absolute and everything has limitations attached to them. I think even with Meyers v US and the president’s right to remove appointed officials without the Senate’s approval there should be limitations. I read today that trump considered keeping Janet Yellen as Fed Chair but decided she was too short for the job. Say he applied that kind of reasoning to get rid of Sessions. While it’s dumb, I don’t think anyone would dispute his right to do so. But this is different, and this should be the limitation to Meyers v US, trump eliminating folks to stop an investigation into his actions and the actions of those connected to him that could be tied back to him. That is a crime. A crime being committed by the President of the United States. Just like he is publicly dangling pardons to those indicted by the Mueller Investigation. And I don’t think any of this was contemplated in 1789 when there was a debate in the first Congress and 1926 when the decision was rendered. The question is, if this does make its way to the Supreme Court will the Justices decide there should be limitations to the president’s authority to fire people. And with the make up of the current court I think the Constitution and the American People are screwed I also looked up the definition of obstruction of justice.. the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process the defendant's ...
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 28, 2018 23:59:44 GMT
the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process the defendant's ... Thinking the Supreme Court won't let this go if it should get to them.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Nov 29, 2018 0:18:01 GMT
Ladies.....your POTUS...... Noice his own deputy AG in there? What a class act.....not Holy shit. It's like he's not even pretending to be President anymore.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Nov 29, 2018 0:43:58 GMT
I'm bothered by everything he's doing or planning to do because I (and many) know that his objective is simply to scupper the Mueller investigation (especially now that it's been discovered that Stone and Corsi were indeed communicating with WikiLeaks). But it's Lee...one of his water carriers at the Senate so, of course, he will do everything in his power for this bill to not be voted on. As to "obstructing justice," we know that's what it is, but unfortunately, we're not the ones in the Senate. The GOP will continue to protect Trump no matter what. The president's right to fire Mueller is fiercely debated because one side asserts that only the AG can do so. The other side fiercely disagrees. The Supreme Court ruled (Myers v. US) that "the grant of executive power to the president in Article II to make appointments (including those confirmed by the Senate) carries with it the power of removal." That's why at some point, this will need to be resolved because therein lies the problem. (The one body I truly blame for this is Congress because they allowed the Ethics in Government Act to expire and didn't vote to renew.) I talked about the Mueller protection bill on this board a couple months ago and I said that, for sure, it will be a slog because I knew McConnell will fight tooth and nail against bringing this to a floor vote, and I don't see McConnell giving up. I'm just hoping that Flake's tactic of voting against judicial nominees and Coons' continued push might make a difference. We'll just have to wait and see. I had to go read Meyers v US. I just read the cliff notes. Nothing is absolute and everything has limitations attached to them. I think even with Meyers v US and the president’s right to remove appointed officials without the Senate’s approval there should be limitations. I read today that trump considered keeping Janet Yellen as Fed Chair but decided she was too short for the job. Say he applied that kind of reasoning to get rid of Sessions. While it’s dumb, I don’t think anyone would dispute his right to do so. But this is different, and this should be the limitation to Meyers v US, trump eliminating folks to stop an investigation into his actions and the actions of those connected to him that could be tied back to him. That is a crime. A crime being committed by the President of the United States. Just like he is publicly dangling pardons to those indicted by the Mueller Investigation. And I don’t think any of this was contemplated in 1789 when there was a debate in the first Congress and 1926 when the decision was rendered. The question is, if this does make its way to the Supreme Court will the Justices decide there should be limitations to the president’s authority to fire people. And with the make up of the current court I think the Constitution and the American People are screwed I also looked up the definition of obstruction of justice.. the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process the defendant's ... I hear you but that’s not the way our justice system works. (Btw, it’s Myers, not Meyers.) Until there is another SC ruling that supersedes that, it is the precedent being used by those who assert that the president has the authority to fire anyone in the Executive branch. SC rulings are also absolute (Article III vests in them the appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact) until they themselves reverse their earlier rulings. It is what it is. This bill is also a steep climb – 60 votes are needed, and they were whipping the bill to see if votes were there…they weren’t. The legislator who has a better way is actually Hatch (R) (or maybe it was Cornyn, I can’t remember now) who proposed they vote on a non-binding resolution (not a law) stating that the legislature’s intent is that Mueller should be allowed to complete his investigation and not be fired. There are two advantages to this: (1) Trump cannot veto a non-binding resolution; and (2) it does not infringe on Executive branch powers and is freed from constitutional challenge. So, more likely to get the votes. Why they did not go for that, I don’t know.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 29, 2018 1:45:59 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 29, 2018 1:46:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Nov 29, 2018 1:53:04 GMT
OMG the horror! Those screaming violent Dems have made *Nancy Pelosi* SPEAKER of the house! Go Nancy go.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Nov 29, 2018 2:07:58 GMT
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,790
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Nov 29, 2018 2:24:16 GMT
sounds like he is playing a new version of rock, paper, scissors. Let's see... Atmosphere beats ocean... atmosphere "yuge!" Ocean beats island... ocean only "big" Which leaves island to beat atmosphere. (cuz of carbon-emitting humans on it) aka he is a non-stable non-genius. losing it.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Nov 29, 2018 3:26:54 GMT
Does every one know this about the protective press pool? Trump leaves press pool behind at National Christmas Tree lightingBY BRETT SAMUELS - 11/28/18 08:04 PM EST President Trump on Wednesday departed the National Christmas Tree lighting event without White House staff notifying a pool of reporters assigned to monitor the president's movements of his whereabouts following a logistical mixup. Members of the protective press pool — a group of reporters assigned to remain with the president and document his activities — indicated shortly after 6:30 p.m. that Trump had returned to the White House without any warning or comment from staffers. Reporters were briefly held at the Ellipse outside the White House without any immediate indication of where the president had gone. They were later notified that Trump had returned to the White House via motorcade without the press pool in tow. Members of the press pool protested the situation on Twitter. ** thehill.com/homenews/administration/418819-trump-leaves-press-pool-behind-at-national-christmas-tree-lighting
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 18, 2024 23:19:46 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 4:55:34 GMT
@bergdorfblonde sent you a message Got it and responded. Thanks so much. Spent the week going to doctors and we have 2 more days of it with DH (to see where he's at with his cancer). I read on here when I'm able, but I appreciate it!!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 29, 2018 13:39:00 GMT
All those on this board who bagged HRC...I expect, no DEMAND, an apology right now!!
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on Nov 29, 2018 13:43:53 GMT
Mueller’s playing chess ..... Trump’s playing marbles.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Nov 29, 2018 16:03:19 GMT
except I think he's lost some of his!!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 1:22:49 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 1:24:44 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 1:26:34 GMT
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 1:29:20 GMT
So much going on today!!
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Nov 30, 2018 1:32:09 GMT
Oh God, Me too! Me tooooooo!
|
|