• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected

NIMBY said:
Which election year was Justice Kennedy confirmed?

McConnell Republicans are confirmed hypocrites .
Click to expand...

Kennedy's case is different in that Reagan had first appointed Bork and Democrats trashed the man and did not confirm. The next appointee Reagan put forth withdrew his name. So in 1987 Reagan appointed Kennedy. The Democrat majority did not confirm him till Feb. 89.
 
vesper said:
Ike was finishing the end of his second term. He had already appointed 5 jurists to the SC. It was an election year where Dems were feeling pretty good that JFK would win and they wanted their guy to appoint the next justice.
Click to expand...

Of course they did, but there was no agreement and no precedent set.

Seriously - do you think in year 4 or 8 of Reagan, year 4 of Bush I or year 4 and 8 of Bush II that the GOP would have agreed not to send a nominee to the Senate? No one believes that - Bush would have sent a nominee over and the GOP demanded a vote.
 
vesper said:
Kennedy's case is different in that Reagan had first appointed Bork and Democrats trashed the man and did not confirm. The next appointee Reagan put forth withdrew his name. So in 1987 Reagan appointed Kennedy. The Democrat majority did not confirm him till Feb. 89.
Click to expand...

Kennedy's case is not different. Kennedy was confirmed by a DEMOCRATIC Senate in an election year. Just the opposite from McConnell's hypocritical republican senate last year. It will always be a stolen seat, vesper .
 
vesper said:
Kennedy's case is different in that Reagan had first appointed Bork and Democrats trashed the man and did not confirm. The next appointee Reagan put forth withdrew his name. So in 1987 Reagan appointed Kennedy. The Democrat majority did not confirm him till Feb. 89.
Click to expand...

Well, no, he was confirmed in 1988, aka an election year.

The only difference is IOKIYAR.
 
JasperL said:
Of course they did, but there was no agreement and no precedent set.

Seriously - do you think in year 4 or 8 of Reagan, year 4 of Bush I or year 4 and 8 of Bush II that the GOP would have agreed not to send a nominee to the Senate? No one believes that - Bush would have sent a nominee over and the GOP demanded a vote.
Click to expand...

They can't even accept that Kennedy was confirmed in an election year .
 
JasperL said:
Well, no, he was confirmed in 1988, aka an election year.

The only difference is IOKIYAR.
Click to expand...

My error on the date. Fact is he was nominated in 87. There was a 7 month battle for a nomination to fill a vacant seat that started around sometime in June of 87. Kennedy was not nominated during an election year.
 
NIMBY said:
They can't even accept that Kennedy was confirmed in an election year .
Click to expand...

No one is denying the fact that Kennedy was confirmed Feb 88. But what you and others don't get is he was nominated back in the middle of the previous year. Dems didn't have a problem with the seat remaining empty back then for 7 months. But they sure changed their tune when they wanted Scalia's seat filled immediately.

Geesh.
 
vesper said:
No one is denying the fact that Kennedy was confirmed Feb 88. But what you and others don't get is he was nominated back in the middle of the previous year. Dems didn't have a problem with the seat remaining empty back then for 7 months. But they sure changed their tune when they wanted Scalia's seat filled immediately.Geesh.
Click to expand...

Kennedy was confirmed AFTER three GOP primaries in 1988, vesper, proving that the presidential campaign had started.

To those objective posters like me, the presidential campaign had obviously started several months before Kennedy's confirmation.

As with trump, you cannot admit the obvious and just defend the indefensible .
 
vesper said:
My error on the date. Fact is he was nominated in 87. There was a 7 month battle for a nomination to fill a vacant seat that started around sometime in June of 87. Kennedy was not nominated during an election year.
Click to expand...

I'll quit here because the facts are pretty simple. There is no example of a POTUS failing to send a nominee to the Senate for confirmation in the last year of his term. It has never happened. There are multiple cases of a nominee being confirmed in the final year of a POTUS term. There has been no agreement for a POTUS to give up this prerogative, nor will there ever be.

Bottom line is the GOP is playing hardball politics, which is fine, but we don't need to pretend that it's based on some kind of precedent - it's just not. They COULD do it - refuse to even hold a damn hearing - and they did because they COULD. That's it - the end of the analysis.

And frankly a little history reveals that the GOP obstruction started essentially as soon as Obama won his second term. From that point the GOP basically refused to consider any of Obama's judicial appointments and it came to a head with the D.C. circuit in 2013 - the GOP basically told Obama - "F you, we're not going to have a vote on ANY replacement for that open slot." And so the democrats blew up the filibuster just as a matter of survival - to maintain any right of Obama to appoint anyone to any court and have the Senate provide that nominee a vote.

So let's just call it for what it is - McConnell and the GOP waged a bare knuckles power play against really ANY Obama judicial nominee and Garland was just the latest in a long, long line of similar incidents that dated well before an election year.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Do you know what a recess appointment is?

It's a special proceeding, that allows the President to make appointments when Congress is not in session. It's also temporary; it would only last about a year.
Click to expand...
So what? It does not change the fact that the Dems were trying to obstruct Ike from nominating another jurist to the Supreme court during an election year. Warren was a recessed appointment of Ike's. He was the first jurist appointed by a Republican prez. The rest of the jurists on the court at that time were appointed by FDR or Truman.

In 1960 there was talk that one of the jurists by the name of Frankfurter wanted to retire. And sure enough in 1962 under Kennedy he did andKennedy named labor union lawyer Arthur Goldberg to replace him.
 
Ikari said:
You have no proof that "Obama's spooks" were listening to phone calls from Trump Towers. Only that some of Trump's communications were intercepted incidentally. There is no evidence he was ever subject of the surveillance or that Trump Towers itself was subject of the surveillance.

Thus you are wrong.

I know the word game you're trying to play, but your conspiracy theory falls flat on its face. You have no evidence or proof of your accusation.
Click to expand...

It seems that the Trump bashers want it all sorts of different ways. On the one hand, Trump is committing treason and the investigation will uncover proof of such dastardly plotting.

OR, there is no real invrstigation going on, and anything discovered is just blind luck.
 
Let's just agree that the Trump team got busted.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It seems that the Trump bashers want it all sorts of different ways. On the one hand, Trump is committing treason and the investigation will uncover proof of such dastardly plotting.

OR, there is no real invrstigation going on, and anything discovered is just blind luck.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of options other than that false choice you provide there. Just for starters, it's actually entirely possible to investigate members of the Trump campaign or those in the campaign orbit (like Roger Stone) and NOT in fact wiretap DJT's phone or the phones in Trump Tower. Second, I don't know if Trump was involved in a possible conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians that AFAIK is still in the investigation stage. Etc......
 
vesper said:
So what? It does not change the fact that the Dems were trying to obstruct Ike from nominating another jurist to the Supreme court during an election year.....
Click to expand...
So you have to go back over 50 years to find an example of Democrats trying to prevent Eisenhower from making a recess appointment.

You do realize that none of those Democrats are still alive, yes? That the party has changed dramatically since then?

And did you miss how -- in the words of the article you linked -- "the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times" ?

Wait, never mind. If a Democrat does it, it's wrong; if a Republican does it, it's perfectly fine.
 
JasperL said:
I don't know if it's just me, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of options other than that false choice you provide there. Just for starters, it's actually entirely possible to investigate members of the Trump campaign or those in the campaign orbit (like Roger Stone) and NOT in fact wiretap DJT's phone or the phones in Trump Tower. Second, I don't know if Trump was involved in a possible conspiracy to coordinate with the Russians that AFAIK is still in the investigation stage. Etc......
Click to expand...

For #44 to be investigating the future #45 is a huuuge deal. Its not something to be taken lightly (one might recall the dangers of a Trump Admin, as per the Dems, as per the response to "lock her up"). It too, could be of 'watergate'' significance.
 
Visbek said:
So you have to go back over 50 years to find an example of Democrats trying to prevent Eisenhower from making a recess appointment.

You do realize that none of those Democrats are still alive, yes? That the party has changed dramatically since then?

And did you miss how -- in the words of the article you linked -- "the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times" ?

Wait, never mind. If a Democrat does it, it's wrong; if a Republican does it, it's perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

BS.

The point of all my posts were to show the Democrats were the first to use such a measure to try and stop a sitting Republican from seating anymore recess appointments during an election year.

You know because when you do such things they tend to bite you in the ass later on.
Sorta like doing away with the 60 votes needed on confirmations as the Dems did under Reid. So this time the Republicans have accomplished much from denying Garland a confirmation hearing following in the footsteps of Dems to Trump having his cabinet confirmed on majority vote because in the past Dems played fast and loose with the rules.

So thank you Dems for without your leadership it would have never occurred. I am getting the guy I want on the Supreme Court thanks to you come hell or high water.

So thank you Dems for without you this Republican president would have never gotten his Cabinet confirmed if it hadn't been for you!


Yeah paybacks are Hell. Deal with it.
 
Athanasius68 said:
For #44 to be investigating the future #45 is a huuuge deal. Its not something to be taken lightly (one might recall the dangers of a Trump Admin, as per the Dems, as per the response to "lock her up"). It too, could be of 'watergate'' significance.
Click to expand...

That's right, it is a big deal. It would also be a big deal if the FBI and others in the IC came to Obama with evidence of frequent contacts between the Trump campaign or some of its members, and Russians that they KNEW at the time were trying to influence the election....and ignored it.

But I agree, which is why it's so critical to have a thorough investigation of the whole mess, and it needs to be non-partisan.
 
vesper said:
BS.

The point of all my posts were to show the Democrats were the first to use such a measure to try and stop a sitting Republican from seating anymore recess appointments during an election year.
Click to expand...

You're grasping for straws and moving goal posts all over the place in this debate. Democrats could not use a measure to try and stop an event that never happened. There was no opening on the court, Eisenhower had no one to appoint.

And even if we grant the premise, trying to stop a RECESS APPOINTMENT that happens with no input whatsoever from the Senate, cannot establish a precedent that the POTUS cannot nominate a person to the SC in the last year of his term and expect the Senate to give that person an up or down vote. Democrats objected to X, so that established precedent for....Golf Ball! Right...WTF?

Just for starters, how do you connect the dots from no recess appointment =====> one year?? Why not 3 months or six months or TWO years, or only in the first year can a POTUS nominate anyone to the USSC?

You know because when you do such things they tend to bite you in the ass later on.
Sorta like doing away with the 60 votes needed on confirmations as the Dems did under Reid. So this time the Republicans have accomplished much from denying Garland a confirmation hearing following in the footsteps of Dems to Trump having his cabinet confirmed on majority vote because in the past Dems played fast and loose with the rules.

So thank you Dems for without your leadership it would have never occurred. I am getting the guy I want on the Supreme Court thanks to you come hell or high water.

So thank you Dems for without you this Republican president would have never gotten his Cabinet confirmed if it hadn't been for you!

Yeah paybacks are Hell. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I'll just say I'm very glad the filibuster died for Cabinet nominations. The POTUS (Obama, Trump, whoever) won the election, and deserves to seat his people except in extraordinary cases, and in those cases if the other party can't bring along a few from the President's party to block a truly crappy nominee, that's their fault, or the voters, who then only have themselves to blame for electing morons to the majority.

I'd like to say the filibuster should be retained for a lifetime appointment to the highest court, but things are so politicized these days that I'm beginning to doubt even that.
 
NIMBY said:
One day at a time we'll undo this Bannon web of chaos, deceit and corruption.

Next up is comrade Paul Manafort .
Click to expand...

Manafort got fired last year.
 
JasperL said:
That's right, it is a big deal. It would also be a big deal if the FBI and others in the IC came to Obama with evidence of frequent contacts between the Trump campaign or some of its members, and Russians that they KNEW at the time were trying to influence the election....and ignored it.

But I agree, which is why it's so critical to have a thorough investigation of the whole mess, and it needs to be non-partisan.
Click to expand...

But they didnt ignore it. Both Clapper and Coney must have investigated it, as there is no other way for them to say they have seen no evidence. The stuff that Nunes is talking about is being claimed to have originated as a result of incidental surveillance. Which leads to the conclusion there wasnt much of an investigation, which leads to a conclusion that there wasnt anything to investigate.
So why did the Obama Admin double down?
 
Athanasius68 said:
But they didnt ignore it. Both Clapper and Coney must have investigated it, as there is no other way for them to say they have seen no evidence.
Click to expand...

And the investigation continues through today, and will not be done any time soon. And I guess I'm missing your point - you say it was a big deal for Obama to investigate Trump, and now you say, well, sure they had to investigate Trump. And we've got all kinds of conflicting statements about the 'evidence.' We've seen 'no evidence' but others say 'more than circumstantial' which means direct evidence. We're not done yet - we will see.

The stuff that Nunes is talking about is being claimed to have originated as a result of incidental surveillance. Which leads to the conclusion there wasnt much of an investigation, which leads to a conclusion that there wasnt anything to investigate.
So why did the Obama Admin double down?
Click to expand...

Who the hell knows what that lying hack is talking about because he won't share his evidence and the next day he says he's not really sure what they hell he saw. The significance if any of what he claims to have seen, from his confidential informant, depends on about a dozen factors that he's not sharing with ANYONE besides Trump.

And it's impossible to make those conclusions - there was not much of an investigation or that there was not anything to investigate - from Nunes' claims on this super sekret documents he allegedly has but will not share. Even if what he says, to the extent he actually said anything worthwhile, is true - has no bearing on what you're claiming, which he's walking back...

The head of the House Intelligence Committee partially backed away from his dramatic claim that officials in President Trump’s transition team had been subjects of surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, with an aide saying that Chairman Devin Nunes did not know “for sure.”

On Wednesday, Nunes (R-Tulare) said that names of transition team members had come up in conversations that were referred to in U.S. intelligence documents summarizing surveillance. But until Nunes sees the actual documents, he does not know whether any of the transition officials were actually part of the surveilled conversations or were just talked about by others, spokesman Jack Langer said Thursday.
Click to expand...

So this bombshell info could be, "Japan Trade minister tells Japan Prime Minister that he had productive talks with TRUMP..." or who the hell knows since the lying hack won't share his information with anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom