45th President of the United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 7)
Discussion
Carl_Manchester said:
There is no issue with the rule of law.
The problem is the Judiciary system which gets involved. Politicians have to follow the law, the point is whether the court system can/should be used as a weapon by politicians for adversarial litigation against one another where there may be bias implied
by a single judge who is not an elected representative of the people.
The politicians job (one job anyway) is to help form consensus and pass law, the courts job is to help enforce the law. What we are seeing in the USA and the UK is judicial meddling where it is not warranted (the first major example was Wade vs Roe 1973).
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is legal constitutionalism in action, the FBI are not elected by the people but they will use judges and the system to enforce the constitution. The problem is that Comey himself implicated bias in this decision making process and this is why the opposing viewpoint to your ‘very dangerous’ remarks is that it is also very dangerous to allow unelected people to enforce the constitution without strong political oversight.
The answer to all this is simply consensus, allow the politicians to be elected and held accountable with some level of transparency, give the information to the FBI, let them take a view on it and let them work within the law to bring a case separate from the politicians.
As we saw when Clinton was done over, this transparent due process does not happen during impeachment, don’t like it? change the law.
You seem to be conflating US with UK law and two different arguments. The problem is the Judiciary system which gets involved. Politicians have to follow the law, the point is whether the court system can/should be used as a weapon by politicians for adversarial litigation against one another where there may be bias implied
by a single judge who is not an elected representative of the people.
The politicians job (one job anyway) is to help form consensus and pass law, the courts job is to help enforce the law. What we are seeing in the USA and the UK is judicial meddling where it is not warranted (the first major example was Wade vs Roe 1973).
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is legal constitutionalism in action, the FBI are not elected by the people but they will use judges and the system to enforce the constitution. The problem is that Comey himself implicated bias in this decision making process and this is why the opposing viewpoint to your ‘very dangerous’ remarks is that it is also very dangerous to allow unelected people to enforce the constitution without strong political oversight.
The answer to all this is simply consensus, allow the politicians to be elected and held accountable with some level of transparency, give the information to the FBI, let them take a view on it and let them work within the law to bring a case separate from the politicians.
As we saw when Clinton was done over, this transparent due process does not happen during impeachment, don’t like it? change the law.
From a UK perspective, the judiciary stands independent of politics, a little imperfectly at times, but generally, independent. Whether you agree with Gina Miller or not, one thing that came out of her litigation as a private citizen, was that the judiciary was willing to impose it's separate, impartial judgement. The Mail may not have liked it and gone the full Danton, but the fact remains, it was delivered under rule of law, without political interference.
I kinda like it that way.
Where the US gets it wrong, is that each administration loads the benches with politically appointed judges, which creates an opaque, biddable legal system. It arguably goes against the intentions of the Constitution.
Comey did not find any evidence to proceed with a case against Clinton. It wasn't there.
Roe v Wade is an interesting example. I would suggest it supports the need for a fully independent judiciary quite well - one that is not caused to re-draw good law for political means. The US was drawn on the basis of a separation of church and state, and Roe v Wade is very definitely a religious battleground, and religion and politics are incestuously related over there.
Good law is secular.
and if you want politicians to be accountable and transparent, then a clear, transparent impeachment process, where guilt is decided after an exhaustive process, with no pre-conceived agreements or decisions as to guilt would be good. they pretty much did that with Bill Clinton. With Trump, the GOP has decided to w
e itself. edited for my atroshuss spellink
Edited by Castrol for a knave on Tuesday 28th January 16:14
Carl_Manchester said:
There is no issue with the rule of law.
The problem is the Judiciary system which gets involved. Politicians have to follow the law, the point is whether the court system can/should be used as a weapon by politicians for adversarial litigation against one another where there may be bias implied
by a single judge who is not an elected representative of the people.
The politicians job (one job anyway) is to help form consensus and pass law, the courts job is to help enforce the law. What we are seeing in the USA and the UK is judicial meddling where it is not warranted (the first major example was Wade vs Roe 1973).
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is legal constitutionalism in action, the FBI are not elected by the people but they will use judges and the system to enforce the constitution. The problem is that Comey himself implicated bias in this decision making process and this is why the opposing viewpoint to your ‘very dangerous’ remarks is that it is also very dangerous to allow unelected people to enforce the constitution without strong political oversight.
The answer to all this is simply consensus, allow the politicians to be elected and held accountable with some level of transparency, give the information to the FBI, let them take a view on it and let them work within the law to bring a case separate from the politicians.
As we saw when Clinton was done over, this transparent due process does not happen during impeachment, don’t like it? change the law.
The law NEEDS a judicial system to work. The problem in the US is that too much of the judicial system is politicised. Judges and other law enforcement positions are either voted for directly or appointed based on their political views. Here in the UK, it is far less so - and therefore much better at maintaining an independent line and less prone to political manipulation.The problem is the Judiciary system which gets involved. Politicians have to follow the law, the point is whether the court system can/should be used as a weapon by politicians for adversarial litigation against one another where there may be bias implied
by a single judge who is not an elected representative of the people.
The politicians job (one job anyway) is to help form consensus and pass law, the courts job is to help enforce the law. What we are seeing in the USA and the UK is judicial meddling where it is not warranted (the first major example was Wade vs Roe 1973).
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is legal constitutionalism in action, the FBI are not elected by the people but they will use judges and the system to enforce the constitution. The problem is that Comey himself implicated bias in this decision making process and this is why the opposing viewpoint to your ‘very dangerous’ remarks is that it is also very dangerous to allow unelected people to enforce the constitution without strong political oversight.
The answer to all this is simply consensus, allow the politicians to be elected and held accountable with some level of transparency, give the information to the FBI, let them take a view on it and let them work within the law to bring a case separate from the politicians.
As we saw when Clinton was done over, this transparent due process does not happen during impeachment, don’t like it? change the law.
I agree that the IMPEACHMENT process in the US is pretty silly. The problem is that the founding fathers assumed that those involved would be sensible, intelligent and put the needs of the country ahead of their own political loyalties.
So what do you want, a judicial system that's MORE political or one that is LESS political.
_dobbo_ said:
Thought this was amusing:
Not amusing, just worrying.The fact that Parnas recorded this conversation should be a massive talking point considering Trump doesn't know the guy but keeps getting photographed with him over several years and he's invited to a closed, private dinner...
Carl_Manchester said:
Where many of these recent problems stem from is the perceived bias of James Comey and his reluctance to prosecute H.Clinton. Here we see the FBI making decisions in the public interest, as they did in many other cases, especially the ones regarding leaks.
This is an astonishingly revisionist version of events that ignores almost everything that actually happened during and after the Clinton email "scandal".BUT HER EMAILS!!!!!
Carl_Manchester said:
I think the current action against Trump is a sham and if the Democrats really want Trump charged and tried properly using the legal system with witnesses and testimony with full cross-examination of said witnesses, they should wait until Trump is no longer president and hand over all their evidence to the FBI.
...they should wait until trump is no longer President...Incredible!
They have evidence of a crime being committed and have presented it. The trouble is it keeps getting increased...
The latest from Bolton:
Bolton was regularly appalled by what he saw from the president, the people close to him said. He wondered at times if Trump was acting in America's best interest or if he was inspired by nefarious reasons, according to a person familiar with the book."
Lankford says that he asked White House lawyers on the floor yesterday to allow senators to see the Bolton manuscript. They did not give a direct answer. Either way, he says he would want to see it by Friday to inform the decision about whether or not to call witnesses.
Republican senators want to know exactly how terrible they will look for declining to call witnesses once Bolton's book comes out.
Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
I totally support @SenatorLankford's proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each Senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination.
In a classified setting? For a book thats going to be published in a month?
Republican senators want to know exactly how terrible they will look for declining to call witnesses once Bolton's book comes out.
Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC
I totally support @SenatorLankford's proposal that the Bolton manuscript be made available to the Senate, if possible, in a classified setting where each Senator has the opportunity to review the manuscript and make their own determination.
In a classified setting? For a book thats going to be published in a month?
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 28th January 17:26
A retired Navy SEAL whose war crimes trial made international news has launched a video attack on former SEAL teammates who accused him of murder, shooting civilians and who testified against him at his San Diego court-martial in June.
In a three-minute video posted to his Facebook page and Instagram account Monday, retired Chief Special Operator Edward Gallagher, 40, referred to some members of his former platoon as “cowards” and highlighted names, photos and — for those still on active duty — their duty status and current units, something former SEALs say places those men — and the Navy’s mission — in jeopardy.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military...
Remember trump fired the Secretary of the Navy so that this guy could keep his trident.
In a three-minute video posted to his Facebook page and Instagram account Monday, retired Chief Special Operator Edward Gallagher, 40, referred to some members of his former platoon as “cowards” and highlighted names, photos and — for those still on active duty — their duty status and current units, something former SEALs say places those men — and the Navy’s mission — in jeopardy.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military...
Remember trump fired the Secretary of the Navy so that this guy could keep his trident.
trumps not paying for his legal team - he's getting the RNC to pay for it...
As President Trump faces mounting legal bills from his impeachment trial, he is drawing on national party coffers flush with donations from energized supporters — unlike the last president to be impeached who left the White House “dead broke.”
The Republican National Committee is picking up the tab for at least two of Trump’s private attorneys in the ongoing trial, an arrangement that differs from the legal fund then-president Bill Clinton set up, only to see it fail to raise enough to cover his millions of dollars in bills before he left office.
The law firms of Trump’s lead lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and attorney Jane Raskin, have received a total of $225,000 from the RNC through November, according to the most recent campaign finance reports. The party will pay the duo for their work this month and likely into February as the trial continues, according to people familiar with the arrangement who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal financing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/...
As President Trump faces mounting legal bills from his impeachment trial, he is drawing on national party coffers flush with donations from energized supporters — unlike the last president to be impeached who left the White House “dead broke.”
The Republican National Committee is picking up the tab for at least two of Trump’s private attorneys in the ongoing trial, an arrangement that differs from the legal fund then-president Bill Clinton set up, only to see it fail to raise enough to cover his millions of dollars in bills before he left office.
The law firms of Trump’s lead lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and attorney Jane Raskin, have received a total of $225,000 from the RNC through November, according to the most recent campaign finance reports. The party will pay the duo for their work this month and likely into February as the trial continues, according to people familiar with the arrangement who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal financing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/...
House Republican leaders privately conceded in a closed meeting Tuesday morning that they are in the midst of a full-blown fundraising crisis, which would imperil any chance they have at regaining their majority in 2020.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) put it bluntly: "They are kicking our ass," he said, in a meeting at the Capitol Hill Club, the private GOP haunt around the corner from the Capitol, referring to Democrats.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/28/house-gop...
trumps meeting Netanyahu for advice on being charged and indicted?
Dear impeached leader, meet an indicted one! Nothing to see here just two corrupt people meeting each other...
He's unveiled a new peace plan, but without involving Palestine?
When President Donald Trump unveiled his administration's long-anticipated proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the White House on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at his side.
"Today," Trump announced from the East Room, "Israel takes a big step towards peace."
The head of the Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, was thousands of miles away, having cut off diplomatic contact with the US more than two years earlier after Trump broke with longstanding US policy and recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Berfore seeing the details, Palestinian officials had rejected the plan out of hand -- saying that any deal that does not label Israel as an "occupying force" will be the "fraud of the century."
And even in Israel, the plan's release is already being viewed through a political lens -- as an attempt by Trump -- whose own Senate impeachment trial is underway -- to bolster his ally Netanyahu, who is facing bribery and corruption charges as well as another election in just over a month.
https://us.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/donald-trum...
Dear impeached leader, meet an indicted one! Nothing to see here just two corrupt people meeting each other...
He's unveiled a new peace plan, but without involving Palestine?
When President Donald Trump unveiled his administration's long-anticipated proposal to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the White House on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at his side.
"Today," Trump announced from the East Room, "Israel takes a big step towards peace."
The head of the Palestinian Authority, meanwhile, was thousands of miles away, having cut off diplomatic contact with the US more than two years earlier after Trump broke with longstanding US policy and recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
Berfore seeing the details, Palestinian officials had rejected the plan out of hand -- saying that any deal that does not label Israel as an "occupying force" will be the "fraud of the century."
And even in Israel, the plan's release is already being viewed through a political lens -- as an attempt by Trump -- whose own Senate impeachment trial is underway -- to bolster his ally Netanyahu, who is facing bribery and corruption charges as well as another election in just over a month.
https://us.cnn.com/2020/01/28/politics/donald-trum...
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 28th January 17:51
Gameface said:
Trumps Middle East solution, "the deal of the century" which would appease all sides has been immediately rejected by Palestine.
Well it would do, it does not recommend the destruction of the Jewish state.I am of the opinion that there is no solution to the situation for at least 2/3 generations have passed and both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have become as passive/insignificant to the way people think as Christianity.
Chimune said:
Gameface said:
Trumps Middle East solution, "the deal of the century" which would appease all sides has been immediately rejected by Palestine.
To be fair they rejected it before they saw it.Gameface said:
Which just goes to show how little Trump understands the whole situation. And his unparalleled hubris in thinking he'd succeed where decades of effort by others far more qualified than him, failed.
Nothing he does will be accepted since he has recognised Jerusalem as the capital, which puts paid to any claims of being neutral.Gameface said:
Which just goes to show how little Trump understands the whole situation. And his unparalleled hubris in thinking he'd succeed where decades of effort by others far more qualified than him, failed.
Unfortunately he'll just claim success, the bigliest ever, and his base will believe it.MrsMiggins said:
Gameface said:
Which just goes to show how little Trump understands the whole situation. And his unparalleled hubris in thinking he'd succeed where decades of effort by others far more qualified than him, failed.
Unfortunately he'll just claim success, the bigliest ever, and his base will believe it.“I don’t know who this man is,” Trump said. “Oftentimes I’ll be taking a picture with somebody and say, I wonder what newspaper that one will appear in. I don’t know him. Perhaps he’s a fine man. Perhaps he’s not. I know nothing about him.”
Dont like rolls said:
Well it would do, it does not recommend the destruction of the Jewish state.
I am of the opinion that there is no solution to the situation for at least 2/3 generations have passed and both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have become as passive/insignificant to the way people think as Christianity.
That’s a fair assumption. The only possible solution i see is a one state solution (Israel-Palestine) with concessions to Palestinians and free movement. I am of the opinion that there is no solution to the situation for at least 2/3 generations have passed and both the Muslim and Jewish faiths have become as passive/insignificant to the way people think as Christianity.
Israel’s suggested territory map is laughable and ironically looks like some strange slave labour camp. Just a bit of posturing to distract away from Trumps Impeachment.
Edited by NelsonM3 on Tuesday 28th January 20:59
NelsonM3 said:
That’s a fair assumption. The only possible solution i see is a one state solution (Israel-Palestine) with concessions to Palestinians and free movement.
Israel’s suggested territory map is laughable and ironically looks like some strange slave labour camp. Just a bit of posturing to distract away from Trumps Impeachment.
I would not like to use that analogy, it is quite unforgivable considering the present anniversary let alone the past.Israel’s suggested territory map is laughable and ironically looks like some strange slave labour camp. Just a bit of posturing to distract away from Trumps Impeachment.
Edited by NelsonM3 on Tuesday 28th January 20:59
Try another please because that is distasteful and I can only think you did it with intent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff