• 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!

Well, the Senate hung Trump's ass out to dry

Kal'Stang said:
And just like Trump they're going to have to prove that they have standing. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Trump does not have standing. No President has ever declared a National Emergency because Congress could not Appropriate money for something he wanted. That is the crux of any Article 1 based suit. Its not about nor will it be about whether or not there is actually a National Emergency on the Southern Border. That may well be the basis for the eminent domain suits. It won't be the basis for Constitutionality. That said, the same property owners making Eminent Domain suit arguments will likely also make the Constitutional argument.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Only if they get a veto proof majority support.



Actually that happens more often than you think. Its not uncommon for funds to be shifted from one project to another.
Click to expand...

Right. It's not uncommon for agencies to cooperate on funding. In this case, I'm not expecting many to be in a cooperative mood.
 
jnug said:
This was not a good week for the GOP to see Manafort going down in flames. Federal Prosecutors the caliber of Mueller do not Indict until they own your balls. Now that a judge has agreed that Manafort lied to the FBI and to the Special Council about meetings where Manafort was passing proprietary polling data to a Russian agent and meeting throughout his term as Campaign Manager we are not far from another superseding Indictment against Manafort IMO. The 3rd member of the secret meetings was Gates. Now Manafort's lawyers will be hamstrung trying to claim that its Gate's word against Manafort's.

Now the GOP has to have real concerns that Trump will not even be there for them in 2020.
Click to expand...

Red:
Well, I must agree.

What ever moved Manafort to think he could "dick around" with Bob Mueller is beyond me. I mean, really. In addition to being the longest serving post-Hoover FBI director, Mueller has practiced law at the highest levels of prosecutorial and defensive "white collar" law, as well as oversaw the successful investigation and prosecutions of Noriega, Pan Am 103 terrorists, and John "effing" Gotti! He's just not the kind of guy with whom one "cat and mouses," not in his professional capacity.

Truly, one who knows s/he has behaved criminally -- and all felons know damn well they have -- is ill-advised to get on the wrong side of any federal prosecutor, least of all by insulting their acumen and professional abilities by trying to "play" them. One wouldn't pull a stunt like that with a plumber. Why the hell would one pull it with a prosecutor? Doing so is stupid from "square one."


Blue:
I won't publicly posit that potentiality.

As I've noted before, though Mueller is willing to prosecute and incarcerate folks, I don't think he's "got a hard-on" to do so. I think he's overwhelmingly focused on getting to the bottom of the nature and extent of Russia's involvement in the US political process and national security apparatus. Thus I suspect he's of a mind to be lenient to folks, felons or not, who materially abet his efforts to identify and set in motion the excision of Russian actors in the US' affairs and undertakings.

That said, if one makes it difficult for him to perform the counter-intelligence portion of his inquiry, which, frankly, is the most important part of all he's doing, well, yes, damn skippy if he won't in return make one's life difficult. I would do the same. Wouldn't you?
 
Tangmo said:
A major reason Trump had McConnell announce Trump will sign the bill is that Trump was informed it was beyond doubt the bill will cruise through both houses of congress. So Trump got spin dried into letting the word out he'll sign the bill.
Click to expand...

Yep....
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: Never thought otherwise. It's been quite clear over the last decade+ that what one side does, the other will just escalate. Doesn't matter which side either. Both the Republican Party, and the Democrat party have given up all pretenses of actually trying to do what's in the best interests of THIS COUNTRY and have instead focused on what's in the best interests of their party.
Click to expand...
Red:
I think the parties retain some intentions of doing what's best for the country as a whole. I think too, however, the parties prioritize their own good over the good of the whole country.
 
jnug said:
I don't think McConnell can hold his caucus together over this one. In fact, he was likely blackmailed into supporting National Emergency himself. Lets face it, nobody actually knows if DonDon will declare one or not.
Click to expand...

Heard a great, tho a bit overstated quip on GOPers and Trump: “Vichy Republicans.”
 
Carleen said:
This is not a win by any means. It will be tied up in the courts for a long long time.
Click to expand...

If a judge issues an injunction, which I suspect will be among the first things to occur if the matter "goes judicial," the "build the wall" side attorneys will try to move it along as hastily as they can.
 
Xelor said:
If a judge issues an injunction, which I suspect will be among the first things to occur if the matter "goes judicial," the "build the wall" side attorneys will try to move it along as hastily as they can.
Click to expand...

I would not be all that surprised if the SC took it up directly from District Court as opposed to going to Appellate Court first.
 
Carleen said:
And if so he will lose IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

Remember: for Trump the wall is, most importantly, a political lever, not a policy imperative. He's fine with keeping the level "well oiled" and he's fine with getting his wall. The one thing he isn't fine with is the matter being finally settled with no wall.

Think about it. Where did his wall start?
-- "Sea to shining sea"
-- Concrete
-- As a wall, not a fence or some other barrier
-- Mexico paying for it

Where is it now? It has not one of those attributes, but he's still talking about it. It's nothing but a talking point.
 
Xelor said:
I really don't know whether the SCOTUS would have original jurisdiction as goes a declaration of national emergency. It'd depend on how the matter is challenged.
Click to expand...

Correct....If they take the case, I suspect that will mean Trump has a good deal to worry about with his National Emergency. If they don't take the case at all, that is as much of a statement about the District Court ruling as anything. I just cannot imagine briefs from either side in this instance being so poorly constructed that it does not end up going through a complete process, particularly the Eminent Domain disputes. Neither can I find my way to the SC deciding to stay on the sidelines. What are they going to do, determine that they should wait for more cases of similar intent and see how it all plays out? Where are those other cases supposed to come from? But anything is possible. Constitutionality is the dicy one IMO.

The amicus briefs could be a scream.
 
Last edited:
Grokmaster said:
McConnell is in on the upcoming NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION, and RE-ALLOCATION of EXECUTIVE BRANCH MONIES.

Pres.Trump PLAYS CHESS, the Dumb-o-crats play tiddly winks...


Choke on it.
Click to expand...



Trump play chess?

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

The man is as dumb as a turd and has the attention span of a gnat. The only piecew he would know is "king". He has the vocabulary of a six year old
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: Never thought otherwise. It's been quite clear over the last decade+ that what one side does, the other will just escalate. Doesn't matter which side either. Both the Republican Party, and the Democrat party have given up all pretenses of actually trying to do what's in the best interests of THIS COUNTRY and have instead focused on what's in the best interests of their party.
Click to expand...

Pelosi is running circles around Trump and she's doing it in high heels.

It's past time Democrats got some balls to stand up and fight back against Republican campaigns that are in fact either arbitrary or uncompromising or, worse, subterranean.
 
Tangmo said:
Pelosi is running circles around Trump and she's doing it in high heels.

It's past time Democrats got some balls to stand up and fight back against Republican campaigns that are in fact either arbitrary or uncompromising or, worse, subterranean.
Click to expand...

After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.
-- Ann Richards​


​
 
Fearandloathing said:
Trump play chess?

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

The man is as dumb as a turd and has the attention span of a gnat. The only piecew he would know is "king". He has the vocabulary of a six year old
Click to expand...

I am absolutely sure no Trump even knows the rules governing chess.
 
Xelor said:
After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.
-- Ann Richards​


​
Click to expand...



Excellent indeed as an illustration.

An illustration of becoming a patriot as Capt. Renault declares Rick to be and to which Rick states, "It seemed like a good time to become one."




Best picture Oscar 1944.



(Apologies for the subtitles but the English tract is perfect.)
 
Kal'Stang said:
And McConnel is going to support it. Guess the Senate hasn't "hung Trump's ass out to dry"
Click to expand...

In many ways they have hung "Trump's ass to dry" since they are now showing to Trump that the Republicans are no longer going to blindly endorse everything he wants to do. They are showing Trump that they have veto power and will use it in the future if they have to.

83 votes is veto power.
 
Mycroft said:
Nancy had better hope she has a veto proof vote to stop the declaration. If she doesn't, that will be a BIG failure on her part. Given her walkback on “no money for a wall”, this could result in her being removed as Speaker...if the Dems retain the House in the next election.
Click to expand...
Apparently you’re misinformed. There is no money allocated for any wall. The bill specifically precludes any money for the wall. Funds are for repairs of existing fencing and construction of additional fencing only.
 
This problem is so easily solved. I don't understand why Trump doesn't simply declare the wall has been built and it was completed under budget.

But, you say, it hasn't been built. That would be a lie.

And I say, what's the relevance? Trump lies every day. What's one more?

Just say the Fxxking wall is built and let the Trumpsters celebrate the great victory. Everybody wins.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And McConnel is going to support it. Guess the Senate hasn't "hung Trump's ass out to dry"
Click to expand...

That is all they have done so far. They talk a great game then cower when it is time to put up or shut up.
 
Xelor said:
The Senate passed the funding bill with 83 votes, making clear Senators will not be party to another shutdown. The message: "You do what you want, but we're not going to be hoist by your shutdown petard."

Assuming the House also passes the measure with more votes than needed to override a veto, Trump's on his own if he doesn't sign the bill and no shutdown will occur.
Click to expand...

Trump knew he already lost that battle, his next move is a bogus "National Emergency", then the courts jump in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom