• 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: "I have the absolute right to do what I want with the DOJ!"

Vetplus40 said:
Well, their numbers both here and nationally are shrinking but rest assured that they will be along shortly to tell you how right their new "GOD" is. We must remember that these are the same phony Conservative hypocrites that would have gone ballistic if the former black president had uttered such an absurd comment.

These would be the same phony Conservative hypocrites that preached fiscal responsibility until their new "GOD" decided to further line his pockets with a ridiculously flawed and very expensive tax bill.
Click to expand...

Tax cuts to the rich while cutting services to the poor, and going after medicaid, medicare and social security have been the GOP MO for a lot longer than Trump has been president.
Although it's gotten worse with Ryan being speaker of the house.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Presidential appointees tend to go along with reasonable requests from the POTUS.
Click to expand...
The key word is reasonable.

No AG wants to be the guy that appoints a special counsel that ends up getting in trouble with some federal judges, and brings on a lawsuit against the DOJ for political targeting -- which is against the law.
 
MovingPictures said:
The key word is reasonable.

No AG wants to be the guy that appoints a special counsel that ends up getting in trouble with some federal judges, and brings on a lawsuit against the DOJ for political targeting -- which is against the law.
Click to expand...

No political targeting has happened. As you even admitted to. Why continue to bring it up?
 
Kal'Stang said:
No political targeting has happened. As you even admitted to. Why continue to bring it up?
Click to expand...
Because Trump believes he has the authority to do things he absolutely does not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So...1: He hasn't had the DOJ go after Clinton. Which means that your claim is a non-issue and nothing more than hyperbole. 2: Even IF he did, Hillary, as far as Trump is concerned, is a non-issue. She lost to him. The one person she had a chance of beating out of everyone that ran and she couldn't even beat him. She is no more a political rival to him anymore than I am. Certainly has no reason to go after her in some sort of retaliatory strike.
Click to expand...

Which certainly explains why trump tweets on Hillary 24/7/365, since she's one of the DEMons that live in trump's brain ...
 
Kal'Stang said:
What law is there that says Trump, or any President for that matter, cannot do what they want with the DOJ? Last I knew the DOJ was under the Executive Branches control. Obama certainly treated the DOJ as a selective strong arm as shown when the DOJ went after Arizona for making their own law in regards to immigration while completely ignoring Sanctuary States/Cities.

That said, that doesn't mean that he can do whatever he wants without being limited by Congress/Senate if they so wish.
Click to expand...

So you believe that the president does and should have the authority to end any investigation of himself by the DOJ? And if so, then does that not mean that the president is effectively not subject to any laws whatsoever?
 
MovingPictures said:
Because Trump believes he has the authority to do things he absolutely does not.
Click to expand...

What law states that the President cannot appoint a special counsel? You pointed to a law which shows that the AG has that power. But you haven't shown any law which forbids the President from doing so.
 
How reassuring to hear Gen. McMaster state that "trump has moved a lot of us out of our comfort zone" ...
 
Kal'Stang said:
Who has he had the DOJ go after in political retaliation?
Click to expand...

Gee, how many times has Trump castigated the DOJ for not investigating Hillary? Or Obama? Or - more recently - the FBI?

Here's a clue - the DOJ can only investigate when there's something to investigate. If there's no apparent crime (or threat thereof) to be investigated, then they will NOT investigate. In the case of Arizona, there was obviously crime committed, which is why the DOJ did investigate. But when there's NO apparent crime and there's NO apparent threat thereof, then the DOJ will not investigate no matter how much Der Cheeto calls for it.
 
NIMBY said:
Which certainly explains why trump tweets on Hillary 24/7/365, since she's one of the DEMons that live in trump's brain ...
Click to expand...

Guess you would know about this more than I since I don't follow Trumps tweets 24/7/365. :shrug: Could you link to the last 7 tweets he made about Hillary?
 
Barnacle said:
How is that any different to what Obama had said?

Obama - January 2014 -: “One of the things that I will be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need, ... I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone ..."
Click to expand...

When Obama said that, he was referring to his authority to issue executive orders...and you know it, just as you know that by issuing executive orders, Obama was doing nothing different from any other president since WWII. In other words, you were building a strawman.
 
Moon said:
What is the legal basis for claiming that Trump is wrong about his authority over the DOJ?
Click to expand...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kal'Stang: do you believe that the president has the authority to disallow the DOJ from investigating him? And if so, since the president would effectively no longer be subject to ANY laws, how, then, would the president not be a dictator in fact if not in name?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
From Raw Story, concerning an interview Trump had with the New York Times: “I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department,” Trump told reporter Michael Schmidt. “But for purposes of hopefully thinking I’m going to be treated fairly, I’ve stayed uninvolved with this particular matter.”

Well, I guess we can expect the DP right-wingers to leap to Trump's defense - after all, since when has the Right ever believed in the rule of law? I mean, when there's a Republican in the White House...'cause one can only imagine what the right-wing media would be saying if Obama had ever said such a thing....
Click to expand...

Come to Trumps defense for doing the right thing?

OF COURSE




EDIT: Actually since there is no bad act there is nothing to defend.
 
Barnacle said:
How is that any different to what Obama had said?

Obama - January 2014 -: “One of the things that I will be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need, ... I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone ..."
Click to expand...

Deflection noted.
 
ludin said:
Not if they have broken the law it isn't.
Click to expand...

But the DOJ cannot investigate someone if there is no law that has been broken, or if there is no threat of a law being broken. That, sir, is why they're investigating Trump and his team - a whole s**tload of laws were broken. And if Trump gets to arbitrarily shut down any investigation of him by the DOJ, then he is effectively not subject to ANY laws...and so we have a dictator. Of course, since he's doing what you personally like, you probably wouldn't have a problem with Der Cheeto becoming dictator for life....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So you believe that the president does and should have the authority to end any investigation of himself by the DOJ? And if so, then does that not mean that the president is effectively not subject to any laws whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Currently he has the authority. But as I said earlier, the congress/senate does have the ability to limit what he can do.

Whether or not he "should" have the authority is subjective. Some will believe that he should, others will say "no", still others will say "depends on the situation". I tend to fall into the category of "depends on the situation".
 
Barnacle said:
... or Obama.

Oh, forgot - that's exactly what Obama did.
Click to expand...

1. Please show me where Obama ordered an investigation of political opponents, and
2. Was there a crime committed by those investigated? Last I recall, Arpaio - among other things - forced a woman to give birth while manacled to a table...but since she was an illegal immigrant (and therefore subhuman in the eyes of conservatives), I guess you don't see anything wrong with that.
 
MovingPictures said:
While the president is allowed oversight of the DOJ, there is such a thing as abuse of power, even for a sitting president.

A president targeting opponents of his in the name of political retaliation would certainly fall under that umbrella. It smells of that Nixonian philosophy I thought this country agreed was abuse after Watergate.
Click to expand...

The President doesn't have "oversight" of Justice, Congress does. The President is the head of the executive branch, the DoJ is part of that branch of government. Somewhere, some when, liberals decided certain agencies of the Executive branch can only have hiring and firings when a Democrat is in office.

Get over it, because that isn't the case.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kal'Stang: do you believe that the president has the authority to disallow the DOJ from investigating him? And if so, since the president would effectively no longer be subject to ANY laws, how, then, would the president not be a dictator in fact if not in name?
Click to expand...

Legally, he might. Realistically, no because of Special and Independent Counsels .

I recall a similar conversation coming up when Clinton was impeached, with the specific question being could the President be charged by law enforcement be charged with a crime while in office. The discussion was around him perjuring himself and whether he could be charged. As I recall, one if the contributors thought he wouldn't be charged until after he left office, likely through impeachment. I don't recall where I saw that discussion, though.
 
Kal'Stang said:
What law states that the President cannot appoint a special counsel? You pointed to a law which shows that the AG has that power. But you haven't shown any law which forbids the President from doing so.
Click to expand...
The law is crystal clear on this issue: the authority to appoint special counsels is within the acting AG, not the president. If the president had that authority, the law would say so, and you haven't pointed to anything that remotely gives one that power.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Gee, how many times has Trump castigated the DOJ for not investigating Hillary? Or Obama? Or - more recently - the FBI?
Click to expand...

Has Trump ordered them to? And even if he did what relevance is it? Hillary lost to him...the one person she could have beat but didn't. There is no reason to go after her in political retaliation because she has become a hot potato..even for her own party. And Obama has no political ambitions that would threaten Trump. Again, no need for political retaliation.

Glen Contrarian said:
Here's a clue - the DOJ can only investigate when there's something to investigate. If there's no apparent crime (or threat thereof) to be investigated, then they will NOT investigate. In the case of Arizona, there was obviously crime committed, which is why the DOJ did investigate. But when there's NO apparent crime and there's NO apparent threat thereof, then the DOJ will not investigate no matter how much Der Cheeto calls for it.
Click to expand...

I get it, you think Hillary and Obama are completely innocent and they are above any need for any investigations. They are above the law. Tell me, when was the last time you advocated for any investigation against someone you supported due to possible crimes committed? Or did you simply ignore those possibilities as being "fake" or some such?
 
Can you guys imagine the GOP Congress standing by, while Obama suggested he could order a special counsel to investigate Bush?

They'd scream bloody murder.
 
Oh OUCH OUCH OUCH, Civics lesson for J. Haas aka Checkers.
You're right, DOJ is Executive Branch.

I'm going to go hide in the corner behind my egg proof barrier for a little while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom