• 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!

Pelosi Warns of ‘New Stage’ of Inquiry if Trump Blocks Whistle-Blower Complaint

Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?

Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.

This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.

Of course, you understand you are conflating a soiled president with the current occupant. You also seem to forget that the SC is but one of the there branches of government, right? If Nixon had made a bonfire of his tapes, rather than doing the right thing and allowing their display, this would have been a different discussion. Or, has the SC ruled on burned, non-existent evidence?

Regards,
CP
 
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?

Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.

This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.

Not so quick....
See post 184.
 
Did the Clinton's try to hold back $250 million dollars from Russia unless they cooperated? Show me the proof of that. Show me the same verification of your lies about the Obama administration while you're at it. I'll wait, and don't send me anything from Faux News.

Faux News? Has CNN or MSNBC changed their call signs?

Regards,
CP
 
Did the Clinton's try to hold back $250 million dollars from Russia unless they cooperated? Show me the proof of that. Show me the same verification of your lies about the Obama administration while you're at it. I'll wait, and don't send me anything from Faux News.

I find it hard to believe that you are unaware that:
1. The Steele report was commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
2. The Steele report solicited anti-Trump dirt from annonymous Russian sources.
3. The Steele report was used by the Obama Admin to obtain a warrant on an American citizen.
 
I find it hard to believe that you are unaware that:
1. The Steele report was commissioned by the Clinton campaign.
2. The Steele report solicited anti-Trump dirt from annonymous Russian sources.
3. The Steele report was used by the Obama Admin to obtain a warrant on an American citizen.

Patience, and keep in mind Athan, that there are none so blind, as those who won't see.
Regards,
CP
 
https://www.congress.gov/105/plaws/publ272/PLAW-105publ272.pdf



The law makes no mention of complaints being void if discredited by future information. That's for Congress to decide. The law also makes no mention of the DNI having the power to disregard the IG's investigation. The law only says that if the IG finds the complaint credible and urgent, he must forward it to the DNI, who must forward it to Congress. If it's a bull**** claim, Congress will find out.

And meanwhile we violate what should be a sacred trust with another nation. Is this so important to you guys that you want that? Over what is obviously yet another bogus scandal?

If the DNI has no power in these matters, why is he in the loop at all?
 
Yeah, I already did refute you. It doesn't matter the rank of the subject of the complaint.
Just saying Constitution and proclaiming victory is a dodge. If the IWPA was Unconstitutional it would not be law.

The President setting foreign policy is a red herring. The argument is about a whistleblower filing a complaint and the DNI breaking the law I've already cited to you MANY times.

I didn't say the law was unconstitutional.
The law requires the DNI to act upon receipt of an urgent concern, within his authority, as determined by the IG.
You keep wanting to say the president is within the authority of the DNI. And he isn't. I don't know what else to tell you.
 
The complaint itself MUST be given to the intelligence committee under the law, and the WH is refusing to comply with the law, what part of that are you not grasping?

Furthermore, the courts have ruled that executive privilege doesn't cover conduct the congress might deem impeachable.

Not if it has no merit. And especially when it has no merit and would violate what should be sacred confidentiality between national leaders.
 
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?

Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.

This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.

Separation of powers IS constitutional. Read it and you'll see for yourself.
 
And meanwhile we violate what should be a sacred trust with another nation. Is this so important to you guys that you want that? Over what is obviously yet another bogus scandal?

If the DNI has no power in these matters, why is he in the loop at all?

The law says it's under the purview of the IG to determine whether a complaint is credible and urgent. It's just the law. They were written by men and men are fallible.

As for betraying a foreign country's trust, I'm not sure I feel the concern is warranted. The complaint is going to an intelligence committee. A small handful of people will see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And meanwhile we violate what should be a sacred trust with another nation. Is this so important to you guys that you want that? Over what is obviously yet another bogus scandal?

If the DNI has no power in these matters, why is he in the loop at all?

He's the director of the intelligence agencies.

Do you somehow think its his job to run interference for the president?
 
Not so quick....
See post 184.
You obviously didn't read the entire article yourself.

... even though President Clinton’s signing statement, later adopted by President Obama, reserved the right to withhold information from Congress “in exceptional circumstances,” he also said that he anticipated that in such circumstances the intelligence agencies will “contact the congressional committees promptly to begin the accommodation process that has traditionally been followed with respect to disclosure of sensitive information.” This process typically seeks to accommodate the interest in congressional oversight by providing Congress relevant information while protecting classified and privileged information. There’s no indication that the administration has made any efforts to seek an accommodation; and any process of accommodation in this case should recognize that, given the definition of an “urgent concern,” congressional oversight interests would seem to be very strong.
What this means is that if there is information contained in a whistleblower complaint that might undermine national security, an administration may negotiate what it discloses to the congress in a good faith accommodation process, which the Trump WH hasn't even attempted to do.

Trump already flapped his big gums and revealed that he did request that Ukraine investigate Biden, and the courts WILL rule that the business of congress.

What will likely happen is a court will force the WH to file the IG complaint and (later) any phone transcript under seal, where the court will redact any information the WH can legitimately argue can jeopardize national security, and then the relevant parts of the transcript will be handed over to the congress.
 
I didn't say the law was unconstitutional.
The law requires the DNI to act upon receipt of an urgent concern, within his authority, as determined by the IG.
You keep wanting to say the president is within the authority of the DNI. And he isn't. I don't know what else to tell you.

The law says the DNI must forward a complaint that is credible and urgent to Congress. It doesn't matter the rank of the subject of the complaint. If the DNI doesn't forward the complaint that the IG found credible and urgent he is in violation of the law. The rank of the subject of the complaint is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Separation of powers IS constitutional. Read it and you'll see for yourself.
This isn't a separation of powers issue.

It falls under oversight.

This Nixonian philosophy won't work in court.
 
So when some future democrat president pressures a foreign government for information about an opponent, he just gets to do it if its a private conversation?

Do you hear what you are saying?

I'm not saying you don't believe trump is innocent, I'm positive you are.

But you're basically saying that once elected a president can do as he pleases without question or sanction.

And that's ridiculous. Presidents aren't kings.

News flash. President Trump pressured nobody. The Ukranians say so. But if he had, it does not break the law. Consider the pressure President Trump put on Mexico to get them to help with our illegal immigration crisis. Nothing illegal whatsoever about it and it would have been legal if conducted in private. Unless there is quid pro quo of some kind, our President can pressure anybody he wants. And certainly when the one who is allegedly pressured say the event never happened, and there is zero evidence of any quid pro quo, it is not an issue at all. Unless small minded, hateful people insist on it being an issue which seems to be the case here.
 
Not if it has no merit. And especially when it has no merit and would violate what should be sacred confidentiality between national leaders.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.
 
That's not an argument, that's an assertion.

I've made my argument. I get tired of having to type it out again and again for those who don't bother to read the thread. Thanks and have a nice evening.
 
He's the director of the intelligence agencies.

Do you somehow think its his job to run interference for the president?

Oh, yes, yes, yes! By all means run this down another dead end Rabbit tunnel! How much will this one cost, or is your hate so deep and warped that wasted funds and constructive legislation mean nothing? Just dollars, ya' know!
Regards,
CP
 
News flash. President Trump pressured nobody. The Ukranians say so. But if he had, it does not break the law. Consider the pressure President Trump put on Mexico to get them to help with our illegal immigration crisis. Nothing illegal whatsoever about it and it would have been legal if conducted in private. Unless there is quid pro quo of some kind, our President can pressure anybody he wants. And certainly when the one who is allegedly pressured say the event never happened, and there is zero evidence of any quid pro quo, it is not an issue at all. Unless small minded, hateful people insist on it being an issue which seems to be the case here.
This argument is literally "Trump didn't do anything wrong ... BUT IF HE DID, SO WHAT?".

News flash: it doesn't have to be illegal to be impeachable at all. Congress is the arbiter of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor in executive power.
 
You obviously didn't read the entire article yourself.


What this means is that if there is information contained in a whistleblower complaint that might undermine national security, an administration may negotiate what it discloses to the congress in a good faith accommodation process, which the Trump WH hasn't even attempted to do.

Trump already flapped his big gums and revealed that he did request that Ukraine investigate Biden, and the courts WILL rule that the business of congress.

What will likely happen is a court will force the WH to file the IG complaint and (later) any phone transcript under seal, where the court will redact any information the WH can legitimately argue can jeopardize national security, and then the relevant parts of the transcript will be handed over to the congress.

All your wishing and hoping opining doesn't change what I quoted above.
 
I've made my argument. I get tired of having to type it out again and again for those who don't bother to read the thread. Thanks and have a nice evening.
While I sympathize with not enjoy having to repeat oneself, you never made an argument worth a flip.

You made a plead to executive privilege that mirrors US v Nixon.
 
Do conservatives think if they insert the word "constitution" into an argument they are magically right, even if they're wrong?

Nixon tried to make the argument that his private conversations were executive privilege, refusing to comply with congress. The courts, however, have ruled that evidence that might relate to criminal or impeachable conduct, is not protected by executive privilege.

This IS a loser in court for Trump, no matter what you've been told.

There are no criminal aspects at play here. If Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the Biden clan for alleged crimes in exchange for fubds, then one can make an abuse of power argument. Which is not a crime but can certainly be impeached over.
Then the Democrats can take responsibility and make the argument for impeachment.
 
This argument is literally "Trump didn't do anything wrong ... BUT IF HE DID, SO WHAT?".

News flash: it doesn't have to be illegal to be impeachable at all. Congress is the arbiter of what constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor in executive power.

Yep. Helps though.
Which is why the Nixon comparisons are off base.
 
Back
Top Bottom