PDA

View Full Version : House Democrats counting on their base voters being the morons they think they are



Robo
01-04-2019, 12:48 PM
How stupid and useless can a politician be?


Well here’s one flaring example of uncommon stupidity and a useless exercise in futility. One of the Democrats first acts after taking the majority in the House Of Representatives is to conjure up legislation that would make it illegal for Trump to fire Mueller.


"Incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Thursday led a group of Democrats in introducing a bill designed to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired by President Trump." https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/423750-dems-move-to-protect-mueller-in-new-congress


How does Chairman Nadler suppose that should such legislation pass the House Of Representatives it could also possibly be passed by the Republican majority Senate? And by 60 votes to boot. Then how, might we ask, if by the overcoming of all odds should such legislation pass both Houses of the Congress does Chairman Nadler believe President Trump would actually sign such legislation into law?


This friends is the House Democrats grand plan. Spend their time and your money opposing and attempting to belittle and prevent everything Trump. Chairman Nadler and the House Democrats are counting on their belief that the Democrat’s base voters are brain-dead enough to think they’re actually doing something of value and have a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding The House Democrats game plan folks is STOKE UP THE TRUMP HATE FIRES.

pjohns
01-04-2019, 01:42 PM
This was a purely political move--designed, as the article indicated, to fire up the (liberal) Democratic base--and not to actually accomplish anything.

From Jerrold Nadler, though, we should probably expect nothing better...

Jeb!
01-04-2019, 01:45 PM
House Democrats counting on their base voters being the morons they think they are (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/104601-House-Democrats-counting-on-their-base-voters-being-the-morons-they-think-they-are)

*know they are

Common
01-04-2019, 02:05 PM
The democrats are going to conjure up every absurd ridiculous idea from everyone of their members and push a bill to make their base believe they are doing something. Meanwhile most wont pass the senate and Trump will veto all of them that do.

They are playing whos the most liberal and who hates trump the most hopscotch

MMC
01-04-2019, 04:20 PM
Nadler forgot to mention his Bill will die in the Senate. Flake tried in the Senate.....and it went nowhere.


Some have figured out.....not to give Mueller card Blanc. The Democrats aren't that intelligent to figure that out.

Common Sense
01-04-2019, 05:10 PM
There are several Republicans in both the House and the Senate who support protections for Mueller.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2019, 05:23 PM
There are several Republicans in both the House and the Senate who support protections for Mueller.
Of the ones you are claiming are any of them familiar with the US Constitution?

Common Sense
01-04-2019, 05:55 PM
Of the ones you are claiming are any of them familiar with the US Constitution?
Yes.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2019, 05:58 PM
Yes.
If they were familiar they would know the legislative branch cannot tell the executive he cannot fire a member of the executive branch.

Common Sense
01-04-2019, 06:07 PM
If they were familiar they would know the legislative branch cannot tell the executive he cannot fire a member of the executive branch.
The legislative branch can indeed create legislation with respect to the Department of Justice.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2019, 06:11 PM
The legislative branch can indeed create legislation with respect to the Department of Justice.
Nope. It would be unconstitutional for the legislative branch to tell the executive branch the executive cannot fire a member of his branch.

Green Arrow
01-04-2019, 08:38 PM
Nobody should have the power to fire someone that is investigating them. Allowing that to occur would enshrine and protect future corruption.

Captain Obvious
01-04-2019, 08:39 PM
Nobody should have the power to fire someone that is investigating them. Allowing that to occur would enshrine and protect future corruption.

Well that depends, if the job of the person is to ensure integrity of the person who is their superior there is an issue of impartiality and that's not a good design.

Captdon
01-04-2019, 08:40 PM
How stupid and useless can a politician be?


Well here’s one flaring example of uncommon stupidity and a useless exercise in futility. One of the Democrats first acts after taking the majority in the House Of Representatives is to conjure up legislation that would make it illegal for Trump to fire Mueller.


"Incoming House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Thursday led a group of Democrats in introducing a bill designed to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired by President Trump." https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/423750-dems-move-to-protect-mueller-in-new-congress


How does Chairman Nadler suppose that should such legislation pass the House Of Representatives it could also possibly be passed by the Republican majority Senate? And by 60 votes to boot. Then how, might we ask, if by the overcoming of all odds should such legislation pass both Houses of the Congress does Chairman Nadler believe President Trump would actually sign such legislation into law?


This friends is the House Democrats grand plan. Spend their time and your money opposing and attempting to belittle and prevent everything Trump. Chairman Nadler and the House Democrats are counting on their belief that the Democrat’s base voters are brain-dead enough to think they’re actually doing something of value and have a snowball’s chance in Hell of succeeding The House Democrats game plan folks is STOKE UP THE TRUMP HATE FIRES.


Congress can't prevent the President from firing anyone in the executive branch.

Captdon
01-04-2019, 08:41 PM
There are several Republicans in both the House and the Senate who support protections for Mueller.

Unconstitutional.

Look up the Saturday Night Massacre.

Captdon
01-04-2019, 08:42 PM
The legislative branch can indeed create legislation with respect to the Department of Justice.

The President can fire anyone in the Executive Branch except the VP.

Captdon
01-04-2019, 08:43 PM
Nobody should have the power to fire someone that is investigating them. Allowing that to occur would enshrine and protect future corruption.

Should doesn't matter.

Captdon
01-04-2019, 08:44 PM
Well that depends, if the job of the person is to ensure integrity of the person who is their superior there is an issue of impartiality and that's not a good design.

It depend only on the Constitution.

Captain Obvious
01-04-2019, 08:59 PM
It depend only on the Constitution.

That's great, but if my job is to check and balance something or someone who can in turn remove me from that position then there is no independence and it's a shitty design, constitutional or not.

MisterVeritis
01-04-2019, 09:02 PM
That's great, but if my job is to check and balance something or someone who can in turn remove me from that position then there is no independence and it's a shitty design, constitutional or not.
The special counsel is an unconstitutional construct.

Captain Obvious
01-04-2019, 09:06 PM
The special counsel is an unconstitutional construct.

That's great but if there is no independence you can wipe your ass with the process.

What are you people not getting?

MisterVeritis
01-04-2019, 09:07 PM
That's great but if there is no independence you can wipe your ass with the process.

What are you people not getting?
The process is unconstitutional.

countryboy
01-04-2019, 10:13 PM
The legislative branch can indeed create legislation with respect to the Department of Justice.

You cannot usurp executive powers with legislation. It would take a constitutional amendment.

Green Arrow
01-04-2019, 10:17 PM
Should doesn't matter.

Sure it does.

alexa
01-04-2019, 10:21 PM
That's great but if there is no independence you can wipe your ass with the process.

What are you people not getting?


How much time do you have?

The number of unemployed Constitutional scholars on the internet is exceeded only by the number of 40-something guys who would have been Olympic/professional athletes if they just hadn't blown out their knee right before the tryouts/draft.

A good rule of thumb with these *scholars* is that the more vehemently they insist they're right, the more likely it is that they're not just wrong, but comprehensively, monumentally wrong.

Having said that, there are many Executive Branch employees whom the president cannot fire without cause- the Fed Chairman for one.

A well crafted bill would certainly be constitutional.

Captain Obvious
01-04-2019, 10:42 PM
How much time do you have?

The number of unemployed Constitutional scholars on the internet is exceeded only by the number of 40-something guys who would have been Olympic/professional athletes if they just hadn't blown out their knee right before the tryouts/draft.

A good rule of thumb with these *scholars* is that the more vehemently they insist they're right, the more likely it is that they're not just wrong, but comprehensively, monumentally wrong.

Having said that, there are many Executive Branch employees whom the president cannot fire without cause- the Fed Chairman for one.

A well crafted bill would certainly be constitutional.

ok

I think you get my point though. I'm a CPA, I understand independence and how that translates to "check and balance" with people kind of amazes me.

The rubber stamp is a funny thing.

MMC
01-05-2019, 07:32 AM
The amusing thing about the left is in how much they know, about what they don't know. Reagan had a similar statement. But he thought the left was friends. They aren't. They never were.


3 Reasons Rod Rosenstein’s Special Counsel Appointment Was Illegal (http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/31/3-reasons-rosensteins-special-counsel-appointment-illegal/)


Rosenstein Overreached His Authority Big Time.
Therein lies the first problem: Rosenstein did not have the authority to grant Mueller such wide-ranging powers because Sessions only recused as attorney general from the investigation of “matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Yet Rosenstein purported to authorize Mueller to investigate, among other things, “[a]llegations that Paul Manafort [c]ommitted a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.”


This matter could not possibly have “related, in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” Why? Because Yanukovych was ousted (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26386946) from office in February of 2014—long before the 2016 run for the White House attracted Trump’s attention. Thus, Rosenstein did not have authority to direct a special counsel investigation of these alleged crimes.


This Special Counsel’s Activities Are Not Authorized
The May 2, 2017, special counsel appointment, however, referred not to a criminal investigation, but to a counterintelligence investigation. It also lacked any specific factual statement. It was not until more than two months later that Rosenstein referenced a detailed factual scenario—and one that had no connection to the presidential campaign!


Mueller’s Appointment Violates the Constitution
There is yet a third problem stemming from Rosenstein’s decision to grant Mueller such sweeping jurisdiction and power: Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller to serve as a special counsel violates the constitution’s appointments clause.



The Supreme Court has interpreted the appointments clause as “constitut a vital power of the President.” Thus, Calabresi stresses, while “inferior officers” may be appointed by “the President alone, by heads of departments, or by the Judiciary,” “principal officers” may only be “selected by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Also, “Congress has specified that the 96 U.S. Attorneys are all principal officers who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.”



[I]The New York Times seems wise to this fact and has moved from publishing leaks designed to soft-peddle the Obama administration’s use of an informant to trying to goad Trump into firing Sessions. On Tuesday, we saw the opening salvo (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/us/politics/trump-sessions-obstruction.html) when, under the guise of reporting that Mueller is investigating whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice by asking Sessions to “unrecuse,” the Times rehashed in detail the bad blood between Trump and Sessions prompted by the attorney general’s decision to recuse from the Russia investigation.
Unfortunately, yesterday Trump took the bait and responded to the article by tweeting (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/30/trump-slams-sessions-for-russia-recusal-wish-did-appoint-different-ag.html) that he wished he had “picked somebody else” as attorney general. This was a mistake: Trump should stick with “spygate” and leave Manafort’s attorneys and congressional oversight committees to address the abuse of the special counsel appointment.


After analyzing controlling Supreme Court precedent and the circumstances and scope of the special counsel appointment, Calabresi concludes that Mueller is behaving like a U.S. attorney:......snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/31/3-reasons-rosensteins-special-counsel-appointment-illegal/


As you can see while the leftists talk about the need for a independent counsel. What they fail to mention is.....in order for a special counsel to be appointed. A crime had to be committed. Yet in this case with Trump. No crime was committed.


Naturally there are experts in Constitutional law on both sides that are not in agreement that a Special Counsel can be protected. Especially if they were appointed illegally. Or if a Special Counsel is acting as a Principle Officer of the DOJ.


The know it alls on the left whine about independence and the need for such independence. Which is no different than saying. Well just in case. Just in case some slim shady is going on we need to have a Special Counsel. If we are to use such a lame argument. Then with every incoming President. We need a special counsel.....Just in case.

Robo
01-05-2019, 07:51 AM
There are several Republicans in both the House and the Senate who support protections for Mueller.

Washington is full of never Trump Republicans.

Robo
01-05-2019, 08:03 AM
The legislative branch can indeed create legislation with respect to the Department of Justice.

All legislation has to pass constitutional muster. In order for the Congress to protect Mueller they'd have to pass a constitutional amendment overriding the powers of the President. Simple legislation won't getter done. There's also a very good argument that the Special Counsel laws themselves are unconstitutional and any Special Counsel must and should be confirmed by the Senate. So, any legislation to protect Mueller would #1 have to pass both houses of the Congress, #2 be signed into law by a President, or a Presidential veto override by the Congress or #3 survive any and all challenges in the courts. Of course in Washington constitutional violations are the norm, and the Justice Department is simply a bleeping joke!

Robo
01-05-2019, 08:10 AM
Nobody should have the power to fire someone that is investigating them. Allowing that to occur would enshrine and protect future corruption.

Then present and promote a constitutional amendment for such. That's how it's supposed to be. While your at it present and promote amending the Special Counsel laws so they must come into constitutional decorum by mandating that any and all Special Counsels be confirmed by the Senate.

Robo
01-05-2019, 08:14 AM
Nobody should have the power to fire someone that is investigating them. Allowing that to occur would enshrine and protect future corruption.

No investigator should have the power to appoint investigators to investigate the investigators. The Justice Department investigating themselves is a bleeping joke.

Robo
01-05-2019, 08:17 AM
The special counsel is an unconstitutional construct.

I agree!

Robo
01-05-2019, 08:24 AM
That's great but if there is no independence you can wipe your ass with the process.

What are you people not getting?

We're not getting the fact that there's no constitutional authority to begin with as the Constitution requires. Only a constitutional amendment can constitutionally establish what you call "independent" investigations. That would have to look something like a Special Counsel appointed by the Speaker Of The House and confirmed by the Senate to investigate a President.

Peter1469
01-05-2019, 09:44 AM
The amusing thing about the left is in how much they know, about what they don't know. Reagan had a similar statement. But he thought the left was friends. They aren't. They never were.


3 Reasons Rod Rosenstein’s Special Counsel Appointment Was Illegal (http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/31/3-reasons-rosensteins-special-counsel-appointment-illegal/)

This Special Counsel’s Activities Are Not Authorized
The May 2, 2017, special counsel appointment, however, referred not to a criminal investigation, but to a counterintelligence investigation. It also lacked any specific factual statement. It was not until more than two months later that Rosenstein referenced a detailed factual scenario—and one that had no connection to the presidential campaign!

As you can see while the leftists talk about the need for a independent counsel. What they fail to mention is.....in order for a special counsel to be appointed. A crime had to be committed. Yet in this case with Trump. No crime was committed.


Naturally there are experts in Constitutional law on both sides that are not in agreement that a Special Counsel can be protected. Especially if they were appointed illegally. Or if a Special Counsel is acting as a Principle Officer of the DOJ.


The know it alls on the left whine about independence and the need for such independence. Which is no different than saying. Well just in case. Just in case some slim shady is going on we need to have a Special Counsel. If we are to use such a lame argument. Then with every incoming President. We need a special counsel.....Just in case.
Right, the special counsel statute states that the special counsel appointment letter state what criminal violation is believed to have occurred. It does not do this.

donttread
01-05-2019, 12:40 PM
This was a purely political move--designed, as the article indicated, to fire up the (liberal) Democratic base--and not to actually accomplish anything.

From Jerrold Nadler, though, we should probably expect nothing better...

The parties should have to reimburse the feds for the cost of processing frivolous legislation. Otherwise known as most modern legislation.

pjohns
01-05-2019, 01:21 PM
There are several Republicans in both the House and the Senate who support protections for Mueller.

Just what "protections" are necessary, given the fact that President Trump has given no indication that he intends to end the Mueller probe?

(By the way, just what Republicans who are not RINOs have jumped on this boat?)

MMC
01-05-2019, 01:35 PM
Washington is full of never Trump Republicans.

And worse.....still full of Democrats. Who's Main loyalty isn't to Country.

MMC
01-05-2019, 01:50 PM
Right, the special counsel statute states that the special counsel appointment letter state what criminal violation is believed to have occurred. It does not do this.

And once again it falls on the Repubs for allowing the Democrats to get away with pushing for a Special Counsel. Then giving in.

If they would have ran Mueller out of Town. The Demos and their Sheep wouldn't be able to use any excuse about Mueller. Which would have taken a good chunk of their lame excuses away from them. Not that it would have lessened the TDS. But then the Demos like Adam Shitforbrains would have no play whatsoever.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2019, 02:13 PM
How much time do you have?

The number of unemployed Constitutional scholars on the internet is exceeded only by the number of 40-something guys who would have been Olympic/professional athletes if they just hadn't blown out their knee right before the tryouts/draft.

A good rule of thumb with these *scholars* is that the more vehemently they insist they're right, the more likely it is that they're not just wrong, but comprehensively, monumentally wrong.

Having said that, there are many Executive Branch employees whom the president cannot fire without cause- the Fed Chairman for one.

A well crafted bill would certainly be constitutional.
Nope.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2019, 02:14 PM
ok

I think you get my point though. I'm a CPA, I understand independence and how that translates to "check and balance" with people kind of amazes me.

The rubber stamp is a funny thing.
The special counsel is operating as a fourth branch of government. The special counsel law is unconstitutional.

Captdon
01-05-2019, 03:02 PM
That's great, but if my job is to check and balance something or someone who can in turn remove me from that position then there is no independence and it's a $#@!ty design, constitutional or not.

Be that as it may, it's the way it is and Congress can't change it.

Captdon
01-05-2019, 03:06 PM
That's great but if there is no independence you can wipe your ass with the process.

What are you people not getting?

It's what are you not getting? We are a nation of laws. There is no such thing as an Independent Counsel. The Constitution places the execution of the law in the Executive branch. Congress can't change that. What's the trouble you're having with something so simple?

Captdon
01-05-2019, 03:07 PM
Sure it does.

No, it does not. If Trump fires Mueller it won't make any difference. He'll be gone.

Captain Obvious
01-05-2019, 03:07 PM
It's what are you not getting? We are a nation of laws. There is no such thing as an Independent Counsel. The Constitution places the execution of the law in the Executive branch. Congress can't change that. What's the trouble you're having with something so simple?

I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the issue, I'm just saying there lacks independence and it's flawed.

That's it, get over it.

Green Arrow
01-05-2019, 04:40 PM
No, it does not. If Trump fires Mueller it won't make any difference. He'll be gone.

"Should" means everything. For example, you think Trump "should" build a wall. He hasn't built a wall yet, but you think he should.

I guess by your logic, since "should" doesn't matter, Trump "should" not build the wall.

Captdon
01-05-2019, 07:44 PM
I'm not arguing the constitutionality of the issue, I'm just saying there lacks independence and it's flawed.

That's it, get over it.

Independence is the flaw in your point. No one is independent. The President has to follow certain rules. The Independent Counsel should have unlimited power? The only way he can be independent is just that.

That's it. Now, get over it and quit cluttering the forum with your ugly junk.

You might want to change that before a certain member gets all worked up and...

Captdon
01-05-2019, 07:49 PM
"Should" means everything. For example, you think Trump "should" build a wall. He hasn't built a wall yet, but you think he should.

I guess by your logic, since "should" doesn't matter, Trump "should" not build the wall.

No, you're still wrong. We should build a wall because we need it. We shouldn't declare war on France. Since we haven't declared war on France we shouldn't.

What logic is that?

Captain Obvious
01-05-2019, 08:07 PM
Independence is the flaw in your point. No one is independent. The President has to follow certain rules. The Independent Counsel should have unlimited power? The only way he can be independent is just that.

That's it. Now, get over it and quit cluttering the forum with your ugly junk.

You might want to change that before a certain member gets all worked up and...

No, there is no flaw.

I really don't know what you're hung up on. I'm not arguing anything. I'm making the statement that if there isn't independence in a check and balance process it's weak.

So the process you're describing is weak.

Let it go, I'm not arguing anything.

Good lord...