"White House seeks to clarify Trump remarks on emergency"

Discussion in 'United States' started by archives, Feb 15, 2019.

  1. Chuck711

    Chuck711 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just the Facts ............
    A comparison of immigrants in the country illegally and native-born residents.In 2015 Texas police made 815,689 arrests of native-born Americans, 37,776 arrests of immigrants in the country illegally and 20,323 arrests of legal immigrants. The arrest rate for illegal immigrants was 40 percent below that of native-born Americans.”
     
  2. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A national emergency, means the prez HAS to take action.
    If it's NOT a NE, then he doesn't have to do this or need to do this. Has he publicly stated. So, nope, not a national emergency. And likely, he gave the courts the reason to shut it down.
    Why would the idiot do that?
     
  3. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,435
    Likes Received:
    51,250
    Trophy Points:
    113
    80% of the women and girls illegally entering are raped during their journey to illegally cross our border, yet Democrats are fine with this mass-rape of brown women and girls and block all of Trump's attempts to stop the functioning of the illegal rape routes. Would Democrats assist in ending the carnage if these were white women and girls being subjected to mass rape?

    NYT: Trump stopped the caravan
     
  4. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact remains that illegal aliens are not supposed to be in America at all

    Every crime committed by an ilkegal slien is a crime that libs are directly responsible for along with the criminal himself
     
  5. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Should I have focused on the part of the speech where he said he would be making an amazing trade deal with China?

    Perhaps I should have focused on the part of the speech where he said Obama was on the verge of declaring war with North Korea and that he has a great personal relationship with KJU?

    Should I have focused on the portion of the speech where he said Japan nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize (only for reports to emerge that the nomination was made at the White House Request)?

    Perhaps I could have focused on the portion of the speech where Trump explicitly called the statistics from the DEA, regarding drugs entering the country at ports of entry, a lie?

    Should I have, instead, focused on the portion where Trump explicitly endorsed China's use of the death penalty for selling drugs?
     
    AZ. likes this.
  6. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Arkansas Bar can't hold anyone criminally liable for anything. The motion before the Bar began with Judge Wrights referral for disbarment for the perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering he engaged in in her court. That was for a full disbarment. Robert Wray then the Independent Counselor based on the fact that Judge Wright had already fined Clinton $90,000, that he had paid the plaintiff $900,000 let Clinton plea bargain the criminal charge in a deal with the Arkansas Bar to suspend his license for 5 years and Clinton would accept that without objection. And the legal standard was prima facie evidence he engaged in the perjury and obstruction of justice, as the judge found.

    I think the Democrats had better tread carefully if they start trying to throw people in jail including a President for not doing something no law requires his to do based on an abuse of their power and the law. There is no legislative purpose here, this is to find something with which to attack Trump. Let's go to court. Have Neal demonstrate to the court the overriding legislative purpose for his demanding private tax records. You DO agree he should have to prove that first don't you?
     
  7. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,381
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See above.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2019
  8. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please do not respond to my post within the quotes it makes it more difficult for me to respond.

    Correct he did not and in fact submitted a false affidavit, prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. Why did she go the civil route? Because the Independent Counsel asked her to as he was pursuing the criminal side and in fact asked her to drop the matter entirely but she refused.

    Yes there was. IC Robert Wray presented him with the indictment and offered him the plea deal as described.
    He had no defense, he submitted a false affidavit into a federal court.

    That was with Judge Wright not the IC. Yes she gave him the opportunity to hold a trial but as I said he had no defense and essentially pled guilty.

    Judge dismisses suits claiming Trump violated emoluments clause
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610

    Just to see them is not a " legislative purpose" .
     
  9. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,381
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1. Did you happen to notice that the plaintiffs in the suits that were dismissed were not the same ones that I presented as filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._and_Maryland_v._Trump? These cases have not been dismissed. Did you happen to notice the reasoning of Justice Daniels behind the dismissals? Here let me quote it.
     
  10. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,381
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "
    1. You have not supplied me with any links proving your assertions on Clinton and Wray and Wright. I will wait for them. It tells me more about you than Clinton's case that you have decided that Clinton 'essentially pled guilty' to perjury and obstruction and had no defense simply because he chose not to demand a hearing , when in fact the charges were not even filed and the impeachment trial in the Senate could not muster a simple majority for either charge, with five republicans voting against conviction on both charges. And you think that Clinton's lawyers were not pretty damn sure they could get to get at least a juror or two to vote not guilty in a criminal trial? Really?

    2.. Did you happen to notice that the plaintiffs in the suits that were dismissed were not the same ones that I presented as filed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._and_Maryland_v._Trump? These cases have not been dismissed.


    3. Did you happen to notice the reasoning of Justice Daniels behind the dismissals? Here let me quote it."
    Daniels, who sits in Manhattan and is an appointee of President Bill Clinton, also said the issue was one that Congress should police, not the courts.


    “As the only political branch with the power to consent to violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, Congress is the appropriate body to determine whether, and to what extent, Defendant’s conduct unlawfully infringes on that power,” the judge wrote. “If Congress
    determines that an infringement has occurred, it is up to Congress to decide whether to challenge or acquiesce to Defendant’s conduct. As such, this case presents a non-justiciable political question.” Now how does that work for your theory that Congress can find legislative purpose to look into Trump's finances and tax records secondary to this constitutional issue when Judge Danials ( your link) thinks they are the only ones who really should. Thanks for handing me that one.
     
  11. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    He filed a false affidavit. That is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. What are you denying here? It wouldn't have been a jury trial in Judge Wright's court but a bench trial. It was Starr and later Ray (excuse me no W in the front) that prosecuted the criminal side. That led to the indictment to which Clinton plea bargained to the five year suspension of his license to practice law. Clinton was impeached, and remains impeached by the House. The Senate Democrats said perjury and obstruction of justice did not warrant removal, it was not a matter of whether he committed the offenses.

    What lawsuit sill has standing?

    And I would say the attempt to use the emoluments clause is going nowhere

    "The Emoluments Clause says that “no person holding any office” of the United States “shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” Some legal experts have interpreted this to mean that President Trump is barred from receiving foreign gifts. But Tillman points out this clause was never intended to be enforced against the president.

    “While (George Washington) was president, Washington received two gifts from officials of the French government — including a diplomatic gift from the French ambassador. Washington accepted the gifts, he kept the gifts, and he never asked for or received congressional consent. There is no record of any anti-administration congressman or senator criticizing the president’s conduct,” Tillman wrote.

    What’s more, he says when the Constitution refers to the term “office” like in the Emoluments Clause, the founders were not meaning to include the office of the president and vice president. He contends that when the founders intended to specifically include them, they named them like with the Impeachment Clause, which specifically states “the president and vice president.”

    “It is unfortunate that those that are speaking first and loudly haven’t familiarized with the literature regarding the Emoluments Clause,” Tillman said. “The President can accept gifts without trespassing on this clause. They are constitutionalizing an issue that should not be constitutionalized.” Tillman added that Trump could potentially be held liable under laws like the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, and federal bribery statutes. But bottom line, he said, this is a good governance issue not a constitutional one."
    https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...f-violating-constitution-with-his-businesses/
    But if the Democrats still want to go down that road they don't need his tax records they can subpoena the hotel records.
     
  12. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,003
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And
    "Daniels concluded that all the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. He also suggested that if foreign governments were patronizing Trump businesses as a result of his presidency, this wouldn’t amount to a violation of the emoluments clause unless the president encouraged them to do so to receive some benefit from the U.S. government."
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/21/judge-dismisses-suits-emoluments-312610
     

Share This Page