• 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!

Trump warned of a ‘constitutional crisis’ if president faced an investigation

cuban smokes said:
well, let's look at some of the verbiage .............

Trump predicted that Clinton’s election would bring “an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis” because of the looming investigation and suggested Americans would not want to endure a second Clinton administration marred by scandal.

Three days later, Trump insisted that Clinton, as president, couldn’t possibly be expected to govern – because the investigation into her email server protocols would make such an endeavor impossible.


OK, what is Trump facing? An investigation? OK, you tell us, have the tables turned?

I don't know; maybe .................
Click to expand...

Maybe. There certainly is a witch hunt going on.
 
cuban smokes said:
Trump warned of a ‘constitutional crisis’ if president faced an investigation

Trump warned of a 'constitutional crisis' if president faced an investigation | MSNBC


In June 2016, after the Democratic presidential primaries, Barack Obama officially threw his support behind Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump, borrowing a page from Fox News, pushed a very specific line: “Never before,” the Republican tweeted, “has a president endorsed someone under investigation” by the Justice Department.

Trump predicted that Clinton’s election would bring “an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis” because of the looming investigation and suggested Americans would not want to endure a second Clinton administration marred by scandal.

Three days later, Trump insisted that Clinton, as president, couldn’t possibly be expected to govern – because the investigation into her email server protocols would make such an endeavor impossible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will the Trump administration be able to 'govern' now that the tables have been turned? :lol:
Click to expand...

There is no Constitutional crisis...not even the potential of one.

This is just a made-up phrase Republicans are using in their attempt to forestall any investigation involving Pres. Trump or his Administration. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a special (investigative) counsel from investigation allegations of wrong-doing by a sitting president or members of his Cabinet. Of course, the ideal route to take would be for the House to conduct their investigation(s) (via an appointed Select Committee) and if the evidence dictates draw up impeachment charges, whereby the Senate would tried the President on said charges. However, there's nothing that would prohibit the House from accepting (or declining) the investigative findings of a special counsel especially one appointed by the (Deputy) Attorney General and approved by the POTUS.

So, don't get fooled by political speak. The only crisis that would arise from any of this is if both the POTUS and the VP are both caught up in turmoil. Then we'd have a true Constitutional crisis on our hands.
 
Chomsky said:
I try the avoid arguments of the type "If Trump, what about Clinton", and "If Clinton, what about Trump".

But it does appear you have an irrefutable logical lock here, on anyone that claimed Clinton was unfit due to her investigation.
Click to expand...

And if folks truly believed that to be the case, shouldn't the same hold true for Pres. Trump currently?

Oh, the tangled web we weave when first we try to deceive.
 
MrPeanut said:
I can't think of a single politician that openly lies and contradicts himself more often than Trump. Why does anyone actually trust him?
Click to expand...

Because they want to believe he will be a remarkable President. Well, he's re"mark"able alright...just not in the way his supporters or the GOP hoped.

(Re: Late night POTUS Twitter rants anyone?)
 
Objective Voice said:
There is no Constitutional crisis...not even the potential of one.

This is just a made-up phrase Republicans are using in their attempt to forestall any investigation involving Pres. Trump or his Administration. There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a special (investigative) counsel from investigation allegations of wrong-doing by a sitting president or members of his Cabinet. Of course, the ideal route to take would be for the House to conduct their investigation(s) (via an appointed Select Committee) and if the evidence dictates draw up impeachment charges, whereby the Senate would tried the President on said charges. However, there's nothing that would prohibit the House from accepting (or declining) the investigative findings of a special counsel especially one appointed by the (Deputy) Attorney General and approved by the POTUS.

So, don't get fooled by political speak. The only crisis that would arise from any of this is if both the POTUS and the VP are both caught up in turmoil. Then we'd have a true Constitutional crisis on our hands.
Click to expand...



wasn't anything I took seriously as Trump can NOT be taken seriously

I would take the least convincing speech coming from the lips of a dead Marie Laveau more serious than I would ever take the most urgent bull**** coming from the yap of Trump .......
 
reinoe said:
If Trump was colluding with the Russians, then why didn't Obama demand that Comey say Trump was under investigation?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure there was no demand. The former FBI Director likely was presented with counter-intelligence information of concern which he in turn presented to the Pres. Obama. Subsequently, the Director was given the go-ahead to continue initiate an investigation into the matter. Granted, the initial investigation likely morphed into something more, but you can't fault the man (Comey) for carrying out his sworn duties. You may not like it, but let's be honest here. Hillary's investigation (an outcome many people don't agree with) lasted for over 4 years! How anyone can get pissed over investigating members of Team Trump (be it members of his presidential campaign staff or his Cabinet) over the last year or so or Pres. Trump himself - an investigation that's just getting started - is beyond me when one compares time frames.

It's clear that Comey was a weak-willed feckless coward who did whatever Obama and Lynch ordered him today without resistance.
Click to expand...

I won't argue with you there; every man is entitled to his own opinion.

EDIT:
Saying that Trump wasn't under investigation would have been a very easy thing to do.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. (You're welcome. :mrgreen: )
 
Why would anyone listen to or pay attention to Trump's opinion?
 
Fenton said:
Nope, you are " profoundly " wrong....

Dershowitz: Comey confirms that I'm right - and all the Democratic commentators are wrong | Fox News
Click to expand...

From the FoxNews opinion piece:

...the president can, in theory, decide who to investigate, who to stop investigating, who to prosecute and who not to prosecute. The president is the head of the unified executive branch of government, and the Justice Department and the FBI work under him and he may order them to do what he wishes.
Click to expand...

In theory the President can direct anyone to say whatever he wants them to say, but a man of integrity wouldn't have any of it! In any case, I think you're wrong here. Per Art. II, Sect. 1, clause 1 and Sect 2, clause, respectively:

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

The President...may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices...
Click to expand...

But there's nothing in Article 2 to the U.S. Constitution that specifies that the POTUS can stop an investigation conducted by any federal law enforcement agency. Now, maybe there's something that addresses this in standing law, but if it is I haven't seen it. That said, although the FBI Director position isn't a Cabinet position, the POTUS can fire anyone within his (or her) Administrative who is not a major Department Head (i.e., Dir, National Intelligence Agency or Secretary of State) upon the recommendation of the cognizant Department Head. Hence, the reason Pres. Trump "sought" the recommendation from the Deputy AG and not AG Sessions directly. The FBI Dir. doesn't work for the AG; he works for the Deputy AG.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Maybe if every day until these investigations end, you close your eyes, tap your heels together and say "There is nothing criminal going on which Trump needed to worry about. No obstruction" 1000 times a day, then your ridiculous wish might come true! Or maybe you could write a Political Fiction novel and peddle it to TrumpBots! Thank you for sharing your humorous and narrow view!
Click to expand...

IMO, Pres. Trump was only out to protect himself and nobody else. It's why he only inquired about any pending investigation about himself and that of Michael Flyn (concerned, I think, over what Flynn might have on him) and nobody else. But we'll see how this all turns out over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom