All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

Trump to start using veto now that Dems have House

[Tero]

Guardian:
McCabe denies that charge, over which he may yet be prosecuted. He told CBS he followed Department of Justice protocol in providing information to the Wall Street Journal. In his book he offers an unflattering portrayal of Sessions, who resigned after the midterm elections.

The Guardian obtained a pre-publication copy of McCabe’s book, The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump. He writes that Rosenstein complained Trump forced him to write a now-notorious memo justifying the firing of Comey.

He told CBS: “Rod was concerned by his interactions with the president, who seemed to be very focused on firing the director and saying things like, ‘Make sure you put Russia in your memo.’ That concerned Rod in the same way that it concerned me and the FBI investigators on the Russia case.

“If Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein listed the Russia investigation in his memo to the White House, it could look like he was obstructing the Russia probe by suggesting Comey’s firing. And by implication, it would give the president cover.”

[Cunt]

Please familiarise yourself with the concept of separation (or balance) of powers. It is an important one.

No need. Instead, I familiarized myself with how often the US Presidents declare these things, and it happens often.

Often about 'emergencies' which are thousands of kilometers away from the US.

It may be that every President who uses it is putting the Republic in danger, but even if so, it is FAR from a new danger.

People just want to be pissy and overdramatic because it is Trump this time, and I get it - you guys have a...a focus, lets call it.

It isn't that important. Didn't Obamacare get pushed through similarly, but it got cancelled as soon as another president wanted to end it.

The Democrats can knock down the wall if they want to. (though they seem to have built border walls in other countries, without calling them 'immoral' lol)

[pErvinalia]

Sorry, what's the emergency again?

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's relatively common for US presidents to declare national emergencies, but unprecedented for a president to declare a national emergency for the express purpose of circumventing the constitutional power of the Congress to determine spending of federal funds. No previous president has made such a power grab. Courts will slap it down, but having Kavanaugh (who has previously made it clear that he supports an imperial presidency) in the Supreme Court, its ultimate decision is unknown.

The framers [of the US Constitution] were unanimous that Congress, as the representatives of the people, should be in control of public funds—not the President or executive branch agencies. This strongly-held belief was rooted in the framers’ experiences with England, where the king had wide latitude over spending once the money had been raised.

[source]

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

A great article on 42, Seth, and Cunt.

https://theoutline.com/post/7083/the-ma ... EE8g1mZVF8

[Cunt]

I'm going to guess it leads to more 'nothing new from animavore' and skip it.

Good of you to remind me of Seth though. I hope he is ok.

[Tero]

It’s uncanny! Almost like listening to Cunt!
From Animavore’s link:
A good illustration of this phenomenon recently appeared in a piece for MEL magazine about an increasingly disturbing trend — women whose once-promising romantic relationships implode after their boyfriends become “redpilled.” For the benefit of the blissfully uninitiated: to be “redpilled” means to internalize a set of misogynistic far-right beliefs popular with certain corners of the internet; the product of a noxious blend of junk science, conspiracy theory, and a pathological fear of social progress.
THESE MEN WILL TELL YOU, OVER AND OVER, HOW THEY LOVE TO USE LOGIC, AND HOW THE PEOPLE THEY FOLLOW ONLINE ALSO USE LOGIC. THEY ARE ALSO MASSIVE FANS OF DECLARING THAT THEY HAVE “FACTS” AND THAT THEIR ANALYSIS IS “UNBIASED.”

[Cunt]

Sorry, what's the emergency again?

Which one?

There is probably a list somewhere.

[pErvinalia]

It's your story, bro.

[Cunt]

You do misunderstand.

My 'story' is that this is one of many not-very-special events being pitched as extremely important because Trumphate.

I don't think it matters.

Do you?

[pErvinalia]

What are some examples of other alleged not very special emergencies?

[Tero]

CNN
9. "Take a look at Israel. They're building another wall. Their wall is 99.9% effective, they tell me -- 99.9%."

The border wall between Israel and Egypt is 150 miles long. The US border with Mexico is 2,000 miles long. Apples, please meet oranges.

10. "And a big majority of the big drugs -- the big drug loads don't go through ports of entry."

Just to reiterate: Trump is wrong about this, according to his own administration.

11. "They can't see women with tape on their mouth or three women whose hands are tied."

Trump often leans on this notion -- of women who are being taken across the border as part of human trafficking rings. The problem? There doesn't appear to be any factual evidence for this disturbing image.

12. "It's all a big lie. It's a big con game."

Trump is speaking specifically about the border here. But again, this statement is also a decent stand-in for his worldview: Everyone is lying to you and trying to screw you. Everybody but me.

13. "I'm going to be signing a national emergency. And it's been signed many times before. It's been signed by other presidents. From 1977 or so, it gave the presidents the power."

True! The National Emergencies Act of 1976 did give presidents broad powers to declare national emergencies. And 58 have been declared since the law went into place.

14. "There's rarely been a problem. They sign it; nobody cares. I guess they weren't very exciting. But nobody cares."

The issue here is not whether Trump can declare a national emergency at the border (he can!) but whether it qualifies as an actual national emergency. If it doesn't, it set a huge precedent for the executive branch to seize power from the legislative branch.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/02/18/poli ... index.html

[JimC]

You do misunderstand.

My 'story' is that this is one of many not-very-special events being pitched as extremely important because Trumphate.

I don't think it matters.

Do you?

Clearly you forgot to read this post by L'emmy, which explains why Trump's "emergency" is indeed special with great clarity:

It's relatively common for US presidents to declare national emergencies, but unprecedented for a president to declare a national emergency for the express purpose of circumventing the constitutional power of the Congress to determine spending of federal funds. No previous president has made such a power grab.