MarSolo Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 21 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: Assuming no fuckery (lol I know), if he loses he will resign during the transition. He isn't going to [Dem]'s inauguration. He won’t resign, he’ll claim irregularities and stay in office, and the Republicans will be totally fine with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Reputator said: Both of those characters are smart. But did they have an uncle who was a great professor of the nuclear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: You could do the barest amount of research and understand the context of the statement, which is undeniably not an admission of obstruction of justice. The entire point of the quote, regardless of whether his assessment is true, is that Comey was a dirty cop and the dirty cop was out to get him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodimus Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Trump really is taking ownership of the DOJ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Rodimus said: Trump really is taking ownership of the DOJ. When you're president, they let you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html Appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump The three-judge panel -- Judges Karen Henderson, David Tatel and Thomas Griffith -- was in unanimous agreement, saying the Democratic lawmakers lack the standing to challenge the President, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled. The Democrats' "claim is based entirely on the loss of political power," the appellate panel wrote in the opinion. "Our conclusion is straightforward because the Members -- 29 Senators and 186 Members of the House of Representatives -- do not constitute a majority of either body and are, therefore, powerless to approve or deny the President's acceptance of foreign emoluments." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Uh pretty sure that the constitution says shall not, not "shall not unless you get permission". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Jason said: Uh pretty sure that the constitution says shall not, not "shall not unless you get permission". Quote And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. It says exactly that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: It says exactly that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePi Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 So, it seems like they're arguing that consent is assumed unless Congress votes to not allow it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 21 minutes ago, Reputator said: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/emoluments-lawsuit-trump/index.html If the House (or Senate) doesn't have standing to bring a case on behalf of the constitution, then who the hell does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, osxmatt said: If the House (or Senate) doesn't have standing to bring a case on behalf of the constitution, then who the hell does? That isn’t what they ruled. They said this group doesn’t have standing because the specific issue they raised is directly related to the whether or not congress gave consent for these emoluments, and a minority of the congress isn’t enough to grant or block consent. 8 minutes ago, ThreePi said: So, it seems like they're arguing that consent is assumed unless Congress votes to not allow it? No, the court didn’t even get to such questions. They just ruled on the issue of standing to bring the suit in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, sblfilms said: That isn’t what they ruled. They said this group doesn’t have standing because the specific issue they raised is directly related to the whether or not congress gave consent for these emoluments, and a minority of the congress isn’t enough to grant or block consent. That seems pedantic now that Democrats control the majority of the House. I guess they should just resubmit the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputator Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, osxmatt said: If the House (or Senate) doesn't have standing to bring a case on behalf of the constitution, then who the hell does? The idea was that when the lawsuit was filed in 2017, Democrats SPECIFICALLY did not have majorities in either the House or the Senate, so they basically didn't have the authority to make a case for/against Emoluments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, osxmatt said: That seems pedantic now that Democrats control the majority of the House. I guess they should just resubmit the case? It’s not pedantic to say that the people who brought they case didn’t constitute a majority in either chamber at the time, it’s the facts at the time the lawsuit was submitted which is what the court is limited by. The case could presumably move past the issue of standing if a majority of current House members submitted a new lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 I imagine this is well trod legal territory, and I didn't read the decision, but when I read that you can't do a thing "without the consent of congress," I think that you'd need permission to do that thing. Not that you can do that thing until congress tells you not to. I generally find that cases involving standing are the most frustrating. It's obviously more complicated than I feel like it should be, but I honestly don't know enough about it to make any kind of legal argument. I just know that when an important case goes up before a high court and instead of looking at the merits of the case they just throw it out on a standing issue, it's frustrating, even when it's correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 This is the part where the Secretary of Defense or Army resigns in normal times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 And so it begins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: This is the part where the Secretary of Defense or Army resigns in normal times. If this happened in a foreign country, in a foreign language (coupled with Trump's speech from yesterday) Republicans would feverously denounce it as authoritarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 A second term of Trump will create a real deep state of loyalists because even people who just tell the truth about what they saw/heard are purged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 But he learned his lesson! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, osxmatt said: If this happened in a foreign country, in a foreign language (coupled with Trump's speech from yesterday) Republicans would feverously denounce it as authoritarianism. It was considered authoritarianism when Obama wore a tan suit, had some Dijon mustard, and used a selfie stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 minute ago, MarSolo said: It was considered authoritarianism when Obama wore a tan suit, had some Dijon mustard, and used a selfie stick. Right but he was black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 Just now, 2user1cup said: Right but he was black He was practically Idi Amin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jwheel86 Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarSolo Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Susan Collins must be so proud knowing Trump learned his lesson. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, MarSolo said: Susan Collins must be so proud knowing Trump learned his lesson. Collins admits comments about Trump learning a lesson are 'aspirational' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 20 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said: I love that Trump is doing exactly everything Democrats said he would do. He’s the easiest person to predict in the history of mankind. I can’t wait to bump this when Mulvaney is fired too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brick Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Can people in Maine hurry up and vote out Collins? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted February 8, 2020 Author Share Posted February 8, 2020 4 hours ago, Jwheel86 said: This is the part where the Secretary of Defense or Army resigns in normal times. Haha what a bunch of cucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 8, 2020 Share Posted February 8, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.