Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Democrats are looking for a pretext to impeach Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Her 'politics' are irrelevant. She works for the state department and they work for the US government no matter who is president or what political party is in power. They, like the armed forces, are apolitical.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

      Hahaha.

      I know you are desperate to change my post into something I did not say, but pretending doesn’t make it real.
      Its amusing all the same.

      I’ve noticed that you avoid making any reference to the post I responded to as you attempt to misinterpret what I was saying. It’s almost as if you wish to lie.

      I will include the original post.

      What is needed is for oversight from Congress to be enforced and to not allow the executive branch not only to ignore Congressional subpoenas and to actively encourage or forbid those who are subpoenaed to ignore the subpoena. That is against the law and is against the rule of law.

      If those who either refuse or are forbidden to testify before a Congressional committee had nothing to hide there wouldn't be a problem.

      Congress has no authority to make decisions for the executive branch as the post called for.
      But have at it, you’re just kicking my butt again.
      Actually, it is you who avoids my post who shows that your idea of what oversight is has nothing to do with reality.

      Again

      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-936.pdf

      Statutes The “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution also allows Congress to enact laws that mandate oversight by its committees, grant relevant authority to itself and its support agencies, and impose specific obligations on the executive to report to or consult with Congress, and even seek its approval for specific actions.

      or

      http://people.brandeis.edu/~woll/gal...reorgact46.pdf

      Another main objective of the Act was to promote closer cooperation and better relationships between the executive and legislative branches. To this end the standing committees were directed (section 136) to exercise "continuous watchfulness" of the execution of the laws by the administrative agencies under their jurisdiction. In recommending "legislative oversight by standing committees," the La Follette-Monroney committee observed that "without effective legislative oversight of the activities of the vast executive branch, the line of democracy wears thin....

      And again I was responded clearly to a post of yours (#13) where you said the following:

      https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...44#post5154544

      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
      see
      "Separation of powers".

      Congress has no authority under the constitution to engage in "oversight of the executive branch".

      Voters do that.


      The claim is yours and if you want to admit that you did not phrase it correctly say so. But trying to defend your claim that Congress has no authority under the constitution to engage in "oversight of the executive branch" by telling us that "oversight" means "that congress gets to essentially run the executive branch" (see your #31 post https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...27#post5154627) is clearly wrong as my links show, and it makes zero sense to use such counterargument against the OP to which you responded.

      Just be upfront and admit that your counterpoint you tried to make was 100% wrong instead of trying to "lecture us" with absurd vocabulary and BS theories about the US constitution. and the powers that are vested by it in the Congress to engage in oversight of the executive branch.
      Last edited by pamak; 20 Nov 19, 01:45.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Actually, it is you who avoids my post who shows that your idea of what oversight is has nothing to do with reality
        First hand knowledge:

        https://youtu.be/-zYFcy_1Toc

        What are you leftist going to do next? Go after Trump's underwear in an attempt to impeach him?
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post

          First hand knowledge:

          https://youtu.be/-zYFcy_1Toc

          What are you leftist going to do next? Go after Trump's underwear in an attempt to impeach him?
          Do not address me with links which have nothing to do with the content of my interaction with another poster
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            Do not address me with links which have nothing to do with the content of my interaction with another poster
            Sorry that you are offended.

            I recommend that you look at the title of this thread. My reply is directly to this thread, your attempts to derail it doesn't matter. Also, control your temper.

            Again, read the title and read the thread. It really is that simple.

            Have a nice day.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post

              Sorry that you are offended.

              I recommend that you look at the title of this thread. My reply is directly to this thread, your attempts to derail it doesn't matter. Also, control your temper.

              Again, read the title and read the thread. It really is that simple.

              Have a nice day.
              You replied to my quote.
              if you want to make a statement on this thread do so without quoting an answer of mine to another member's post.

              No temper at all. Just brief and to the point.

              Have a good night


              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by American87 View Post

                Are you saying opposition research is a crime? Because it's not. And it's certainly not a crime when investigating possible corruption on the part of the former Vice President. That might not even be considered opposition research, but Trump just doing his job.
                If the 'opposition research' is taken from or given by a foreign government, it most certainly is a crime.
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • #53
                  It is not a crime "Trump is the principal LEO and it is his duty ,when he hears claims about a US citizen violating the US law in Ukraine,to investigate these claims .

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                    I agree completely, congress can withhold money.
                    Congress has the right to conduct investigations.
                    It does not have the right to dictate or manage executive branch actions.

                    Anything to with with money they do get to dictact exectuve actions or at least they should be consulted.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by craven View Post


                      Anything to with with money they do get to dictact exectuve actions or at least they should be consulted.


                      I would agree that a president probably should consult with congress if he is looking for funding, but he doesn't need to.

                      I think the border wall is a good example.
                      Even though congress opposed it trump ordered it. Congress refused to fund it.
                      They had no right to dictate his decision, they could only refuse to cooperate with funding.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                        I would agree that a president probably should consult with congress if he is looking for funding, but he doesn't need to.

                        I think the border wall is a good example.
                        Even though congress opposed it trump ordered it. Congress refused to fund it.
                        They had no right to dictate his decision, they could only refuse to cooperate with funding.
                        if money is involved he does because Congress has the power over money not the president.

                        So the president if changing how money is being spent he need to consult with congress Otherwise why do we need congress the president can spend or not spend money how ever he wants to. It would mean our budgets would finally get approved on time

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by craven View Post

                          if money is involved he does because Congress has the power over money not the president.

                          So the president if changing how money is being spent he need to consult with congress Otherwise why do we need congress the president can spend or not spend money how ever he wants to. It would mean our budgets would finally get approved on time
                          The president does not have to consult with congress in determining how money in control of the executive branch is spent.
                          Once congress gives the money to the executive branch in the budget they surrender control.

                          The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
                          Congress cannot micromanage how the DOJ spends the money budgeted to it.

                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                            The president does not have to consult with congress in determining how money in control of the executive branch is spent.
                            Once congress gives the money to the executive branch in the budget they surrender control.

                            The DOJ is part of the executive branch.
                            Congress cannot micromanage how the DOJ spends the money budgeted to it.
                            yes he does because that money is authorized specific things. Spending the money for non authorized things is against the law.

                            Now granted it usually authorized in wide guidelines but it is to be spent for specific things. I have dealt with federal budgeting in the past you would be amazed at the level of detail that involved at times. ie training is sometimes a called out item.

                            A good example of this is fire borrowing by the US Forest Service.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by craven View Post

                              yes he does because that money is authorized specific things. Spending the money for non authorized things is against the law.

                              Now granted it usually authorized in wide guidelines but it is to be spent for specific things. I have dealt with federal budgeting in the past you would be amazed at the level of detail that involved at times. ie training is sometimes a called out item.

                              A good example of this is fire borrowing by the US Forest Service.


                              No. Congress delegates authority with enabling acts.
                              Congress gives money to the DOJ and the EPA and others (executive branch) and those agencies determine how to spend it.
                              Congress even makes rule making authority to agencies like the EPA.
                              EPA rules pretty much have the force of law even though only congress can pass laws.

                              Those agencies may have to justify budget increases to congress and explain where the money is going, but congress doesn't micromanage that. They couldn't possibly make all the spending decisions of all agencies and departments.


                              When an agency exceeds its budget and must borrow that is a different matter
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Massena View Post

                                If the 'opposition research' is taken from or given by a foreign government, it most certainly is a crime.
                                I misused the term "opposition research," which means spending money to research information on a political oppononent that can harm their run for office. Trump never paid, or offered to pay, for Ukraine to dig up evidence on Biden. What Trump did was ask the Ukraine president to investigate possible corruption on the part of a former Vice President. So it's Trump doing his job, or "cleaning house," rather than opposition research.

                                A possible case of illegal opposition research, that is, paying foreign nationals for "dirt," is Hillary paying for the dirty "dossier." The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS, an American company, to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then used British and Russian nationals to conduct the research. This may be legal only because the Clinton Campaign used an American company as an intermediary. But it's much closer to being illegal than what Trump did.
                                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X