The Impeachment Thread

#32,052
#32,052
ajvol01 said:
All of the FISA applications are classified.

Are you gonna seriously die on this hill?

It’s absolutely ridiculous. Refusing to reinstate his clearance is nearly the same as Comey pleading the fifth.
Click to expand...

You don't have to read all the classified information aloud to ask him questions about his involvement with the applications. Use your brain here.
 
#32,053
#32,053
luthervol said:
Hope I didn't keep you waiting.
U.S. Foreign Policy Powers: Congress and the President
The U.S. Constitution parcels out foreign relations powers to both the executive and legislative branches. It grants some powers, like command of the military, exclusively to the president and others, like the regulation of foreign commerce, to Congress, while still others it divides among the two or simply does not assign.
“The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958.
The periodic tug-of-war between the president and Congress over foreign policy is not a by-product of the Constitution, but rather, one of its core aims.
Article I of the Constitution enumerates several of Congress’s foreign affairs powers, including those to “regulate commerce with foreign nations,” “declare war,” “raise and support armies,” “provide and maintain a navy,” and “make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.” The Constitution also makes two of the president’s foreign affairs powers—making treaties and appointing diplomats—dependent on Senate approval.
Click to expand...

For one there is a difference between "policy", which is the intent of this discussion, and "power" which you ascribe.

Here it is in black and white straight from the US State Department website

"Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States."

Duties of the Secretary of State - United States Department of State
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, NCFisher, tbwhhs and 1 other person
#32,055
#32,055
NCFisher said:
A president can make such a request of any government, with or without such a treaty. The treaty does not preclude presidential inquiry or request, but merely outlines how formal requests will be made, terms & conditions and scope of investigations. Trump clearly defers to our 'Central Authority' (Barr) three times, and belies no intent to kickstart, manage, or oversee such an investigation himself.

The claim from the left is that since Biden is a political opponent - which he is not until he is nominated - Trump is trying to smear his opponent for personal, political gain.

I reject the proposition. We know that a candidate can be investigated because it happened to Trump, and with the opposition party in the WH fully plugged into the investigation. That alone provides any cover Trump may need to ask a candidate be looked at but should require a reasonable level of plausibility.

If, though, as the left seems to imply, Trump cannot legally/ethically do so because "Democrat candidate", then we have to admit Trump should have never been investigated. One cannot have it both ways.
I trust that clears it up.
Click to expand...

Dems always believe they have the right to have it both ways. "No, you can't have your witnesses in the house, but we insist on witnesses we want in the senate" is a perfect example of how the goose sees the gander as a second class citizen ... it"s the inbred liberal thought process that begins as a toddler and never matures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DC_Vol and Orangeburst
#32,058
#32,058
Velo Vol said:
How many of yappers that you approvingly quote/link to here, with all their insights into the inner workings of the "Deep State," have security clearances?
Click to expand...
Wtf does anything I link to or quote on VN have to do with Michael Horowitz or his team questioning James Comey in a sworn deposition about FISA applications that are classified information?

Are you trying to change the subject?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#32,059
#32,059
Orangeburst said:
For one there is a difference between "policy", which is the intent of this discussion, and "power" which you ascribe.

Here it is in black and white straight from the US State Department website

"Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States."

Duties of the Secretary of State - United States Department of State
Click to expand...
So that's the State Department's stance: that the state department, under the direction of the president, controls foreign policy. How convenient.
To bad that is not what the constitution says nor is it legally accepted or binding.
 
#32,060
#32,060
luthervol said:
So that's the State Department's stance: that the state department, under the direction of the president, controls foreign policy. How convenient.
To bad that is not what the constitution says nor is it legally accepted or binding.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Luther, but your referenced article is full of "interpretations" by "scholars" and courts. Nothing as cut and dried as you want to believe. A ruling made in one court can be revised in another if they so choose. Now, I think all of us can agree about the advice and consent clauses regarding treaties and cabinet appointments being specified. You also failed to mention that the article made a point about Obama unilaterally involving the US in a couple of wars.

If you go back to the referenced case the US v Curtis-Wright, Roosevelt (one of your guys) was given a pass in the case:

While the Constitution does not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, it is nonetheless given implicitly and by the fact that the executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way that Congress cannot and should not.
Click to expand...
And a by the way, Roosevelt wasn't allowing Curtis-Wright to sell armament to S. American countries that time (hence the lawsuit), but only a few years later his administration was doing some very much under the table deals that allowed Curtis-Wright P-40s to China for the AVG ... also later known as the Flying Tigers. Apparently, it's all rather fluid. Can you just imagine how much congress critters could have demanded for their votes in cases like those if they controlled foreign policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#32,062
#32,062
AM64 said:
Sorry, Luther, but your referenced article is full of "interpretations" by "scholars" and courts. Nothing as cut and dried as you want to believe. A ruling made in one court can be revised in another if they so choose. Now, I think all of us can agree about the advice and consent clauses regarding treaties and cabinet appointments being specified. You also failed to mention that the article made a point about Obama unilaterally involving the US in a couple of wars.

If you go back to the referenced case the US v Curtis-Wright, Roosevelt (one of your guys) was given a pass in the case:


And a by the way, Roosevelt wasn't allowing Curtis-Wright to sell armament to S. American countries that time (hence the lawsuit), but only a few years later his administration was doing some very much under the table deals that allowed Curtis-Wright P-40s to China for the AVG ... also later known as the Flying Tigers. Apparently, it's all rather fluid. Can you just imagine how much congress critters could have demanded for their votes in cases like those if they controlled foreign policy.
Click to expand...
It's full of interpretations by scholars and courts because it is not outlined in the Constitution.
This conversation all started with NC stating that foreign policy is whatever the POTUS says. That it is his and his alone to determine - and that's just not true. It's a little ridiculous for us to debate it when constitutional scholars say it's intentionally ambiguous and fluid.
 
#32,064
#32,064
luthervol said:
It's full of interpretations by scholars and courts because it is not outlined in the Constitution.
This conversation all started with NC stating that foreign policy is whatever the POTUS says. That it is his and his alone to determine - and that's just not true. It's a little ridiculous for us to debate it when constitutional scholars say it's intentionally ambiguous and fluid.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of "ambiguous and fluid" so much as a matter of common sense. Go back to a corporate environment, a board of directors gives very general guidance to a CEO for making policy decisions. Why? One, because they aren't in session to make daily decisions; and two, trying to make timely decisions by committee is an absurd practice. Expand that to two fractious committees - one of something like 435 committee members and the other one a hundred and you have chaos. Even small committees within the house and senate can't make timely decisions ... and then there's the overlap between money and policy committees and between the two houses. For congress to handle foreign policy except as oversight is nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#32,065
#32,065
RockyTop85 said:
You should notify DOJ that the president is the chief law enforcement officer, so they can update their website.

“The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.“

About the Office

Also, the White House:

“The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.“

The Executive Branch | The White House

Beyond that, I can’t tell if you’re unwilling to acknowledge an independent investigation is an alternative to your binary choice of “trump starts the investigation” or “there can be no investigation” or if I’m just misunderstanding something, but so far it seems like your response to that is to just keep repeating your original opinions and add in new opinions to support your old opinions.

Maybe I am just overlooking it somehow.
Click to expand...

If you notice I caught that errant thought and edited it nearly an hour before you posted, and thought I'd dumped it on the original post.

I didn't imply Trump starts the investigation or there can be no investigation, but that if being a candidate didn't shield Trump from investigation, neither does it shield Biden regardless of party affiliation or who he's running against. The entire impeachment charade rest on the premise that Trump was trying to damage a rival...who isn't even a rival. If Biden had been some congressman from Kansas running for the Senate, we wouldn't be talking now. Neither should have bearing on whether conflict of interest should be investigated.

Of course an independent investigation is an alternative, a preferred one, so long as it is not baseless like this impeachment or the Mueller probe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#32,066
#32,066
luthervol said:
It would be nice if the people in charge of carrying out the official U.S. foreign policy actually knew what policy to carry out.
Having your ambassadors and diplomats carry out what they think is the official U.S. foreign policy because that is what they have been told is the official U.S. foreign policy only to find out later that the official U.S. foreign policy is actually something different that the president has come up with on the side with people who have no official capacity, have not been confirmed by congress, and have gone through little or no security clearance seems like a poor way of building trust among other countries regarding the official U.S. foreign policy.
Click to expand...

Policy is what the President decides with cabinet level members, via State Dept. It's a pretty simple concept; the policy of Obama isn't the same as Trump's, just as Obama's wasn't the same as Bush's, and his not the same as Clinton's. The bureaucrats get their marching orders, observe and implement any changes they're told. Or resign.

Can that be more plain?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, 37L1, Orangeburst and 1 other person
#32,067
#32,067
Velo Vol said:
So is it within his powers for a president to request/direct specific citizens be criminally investigated? Or not?
Click to expand...

Is there some reason to think that if a president is aware of criminal or potentially criminal activity, he can't make someone aware of it?
Especially when it involves a foreign country? Of course he can, just like you or I can.
 
#32,068
#32,068
Velo Vol said:
That doesn't explain anything. It's Barr's spin to undermine the report.

Given all that is now public knowledge, give an example of something specific that Horowitz would be unable to ask about without disclosing classified information to Comey?
Click to expand...

You can't review classified information even with a disgraced - perhaps especially with a disgraced - former FBI Director unless he possesses security clearance.

Tip: it's his actions regarding the classified shite that needs explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#32,070
#32,070
AM64 said:
I don't think it's a matter of "ambiguous and fluid" so much as a matter of common sense. Go back to a corporate environment, a board of directors gives very general guidance to a CEO for making policy decisions. Why? One, because they aren't in session to make daily decisions; and two, trying to make timely decisions by committee is an absurd practice. Expand that to two fractious committees - one of something like 435 committee members and the other one a hundred and you have chaos. Even small committees within the house and senate can't make timely decisions ... and then there's the overlap between money and policy committees and between the two houses. For congress to handle foreign policy except as oversight is nonsense.
Click to expand...
This quote summarizes my position pretty well:
“The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958.

The idea that US foreign policy is whatever the POTUS says it is on any given day is what I consider nonsense.
 
#32,071
#32,071
RockyTop85 said:
You should notify DOJ that the president is the chief law enforcement officer, so they can update their website.

“The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government.“

About the Office

Also, the White House:

“The Attorney General is the head of the DOJ and chief law enforcement officer of the federal government.“

The Executive Branch | The White House

Beyond that, I can’t tell if you’re unwilling to acknowledge an independent investigation is an alternative to your binary choice of “trump starts the investigation” or “there can be no investigation” or if I’m just misunderstanding something, but so far it seems like your response to that is to just keep repeating your original opinions and add in new opinions to support your old opinions.

Maybe I am just overlooking it somehow.
Click to expand...

Wow, I admire your spunk. Get slapped down like a bitch but you keep getting up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and FLVOL_79
#32,072
#32,072
luthervol said:
This quote summarizes my position pretty well:
“The Constitution, considered only for its affirmative grants of power capable of affecting the issue, is an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy,” wrote constitutional scholar Edward S. Corwin in 1958.

The idea that US foreign policy is whatever the POTUS says it is on any given day is what I consider nonsense.
Click to expand...
So who gets to overrule the president on his policy outside of what the POTUS needs congressional approval for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#32,073
#32,073
NCFisher said:
Policy is what the President decides with cabinet level members. It's a pretty simple concept; the policy of Obama isn't the same as Trump's, just as Obama's wasn't the same as Bush's, and his not the same as Clinton's. The bureaucrats get their marching orders, observe and implement any changes they're told. Or resign.

Can that be more plain?
Click to expand...
You're changing your tune, which is good.
As you said, "policy is what the President decides with cabinet level members", that policy is passed onto the people in the field charged with carrying out that policy. It is the policy conveyed to diplomats and ambassadors.
Official U.S. foreign policy IS NOT whatever the president decides and tries to implement through back channels. (feel free to call that the NON-official U.S. foreign policy.)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top