The executive should brush up on their constitutional knowledge if the don't want to be trumped by some lowly judge. Yes, punt intended.
I still find it funny a judge is your problem but not a President misappropriating funds already legislated for other purposes by Congress. But a judge doing his job (i.e. hearing a case brought before him under Article 2) is your issue. The judge did not wake up and make a proclamation, he was hearing a suit filed by 19 states in which the U.S. government was also represented in a fair hearing. The President's counsel sucked balls then in your mind. So if Trump raped a baby goat in the White House, your problem would be the judge trying to convict him of a crime, not the action haha. CONGRESS represents the citizenry with respects to how money is spent, NOT the PRESIDENT. Its odd how you conservatives cry for the Constitution but know fuck about how it works.
oh look, he's doing it again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f3edf1351e_story.html?utm_term=.2e94017a7cd7 Trump to sidestep Congress to clear arms deals benefiting Saudi Arabia, UAE Secretary of State Mike Pompeo notified lawmakers Friday that President Trump is invoking his emergency authority to sidestep Congress and complete 22 arms deals that would benefit Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other countries, despite lawmakers’ objections to the transactions. Republicans and Democrats urged the Trump administration this week not to take the rare step of exploiting a legal window to push through deals — worth about $8 billion, according to congressional aides — that lawmakers have blocked from being finalized. Pompeo’s notification letters effectively give the Trump administration a green light to conclude the sale and transfer of bombs, missile systems, semiautomatic rifles, drones and repair and maintenance services to aid the Saudi air fleet, and precision-guided munitions that lawmakers fear Saudi Arabia may use against civilians in Yemen’s civil war. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had been blocking the sale of the precision-guided munitions. In a statement, he said that Trump had “failed once again to prioritize our long term national security interests or stand up for human rights, and instead is granting favors to authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia.” Foreign Relations Committee Chairman James E. Risch (R-Idaho) said in a statement that he was “reviewing and analyzing the legal justification for this action and the associated implications.” Traditionally, the administration must notify Congress when it contemplates a new arms sale, giving lawmakers the opportunity to review deals and block those they find objectionable. In each of his letters notifying lawmakers of the decision, Pompeo stated that he had “determined that an emergency exists which requires the proposed sale in the national security interest of the United States and thus, waives the congressional review requirements” — without noting the nature of the emergency or offering details about it. In his letters, he added that the government had “taken into account political, military, economic, human rights, and arms control considerations.” Lawmakers have frequently questioned the Trump administration’s approach to national security policy and its track record on human rights. In particular, Trump and Congress have been at odds over the president’s unapologetic embrace of Saudi leaders, despite U.S. intelligence showing that the Saudi crown prince was behind the October 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a contributing columnist for The Washington Post. This year, the House and Senate voted to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led military coalition operating in Yemen — a move that Trump vetoed with the support of most of the GOP. But even key Republican lawmakers who balked at curtailing U.S. engagement through a war-powers resolution have advocated halting nondefensive weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies until the country does more to improve the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. “There is no new ‘emergency’ reason to sell bombs to the Saudis to drop in Yemen, and doing so only perpetuates the humanitarian crisis there,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of Congress’s chief advocates for extracting the United States from the Yemen conflict, said in a statement. “This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. . . . If we don’t stand up to this abuse of authority, we will permanently box ourselves out of deciding who we should sell weapons to.” But it is not clear how lawmakers will try to reassert control over the arms deals or challenge Trump’s use of emergency authority over them. Democrats are hoping that Risch will agree to expedite legislation through the Foreign Relations Committee that could stop the contracts before parts and weapons are sent abroad. Barring that, they may try to use funding measures to block completion of the sales, by prohibiting federal funds from being used to transfer the weapons. Lawmakers anticipated that the Trump administration might try to push through arms deals benefiting Saudi Arabia, in light of increased tensions with Iran. Earlier this week, Pompeo, acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., briefed all House and Senate lawmakers on the intelligence behind the administration’s latest moves in the Persian Gulf, arguing they were necessary to respond to evidence showing an increased threat. [Trump approves sending more forces to the Middle East amid tensions with Iran] Republicans largely endorsed their actions as prudent, while Democrats accused the officials of spinning the evidence to justify a march toward war, expressing consternation that the administration would not consult Congress before taking military action. Yet the breadth of the Trump administration’s decision Friday, which benefits many more countries than just Saudi Arabia and the UAE, Iran’s regional rivals, will probably upset members of both parties, according to congressional aides. Thus far, however, few are openly criticizing it, save for figures such as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who is also the only congressional Republican to have endorsed the idea of impeaching Trump. Amash tweeted about the arms sale Friday: “Congress must reclaim its powers. When will the legislative branch stand up to the executive branch?” Democratic congressional aides pointed to one transaction — a deal to support manufacturing and production of F-18 combat jets — as particularly disturbing. Saudi Arabia does not use F-18s but helps make them for countries such as Israel, India and South Korea. Democrats are also questioning whether Trump invoked the proper emergency authority under the Arms Export Control Act, pointing out that deals with NATO countries and allies such as Australia are treated as legally distinct from deals with nations such Saudi Arabia and arguing Pompeo’s letters conflate them. “The Administration failed to even identify which legal mechanism it thinks it is using, described years of malign Iranian behavior but failed to identify what actually constitutes an emergency today, and critically, failed to explain how these systems, many of which will take years to come online, would immediately benefit either the United States or our allies and thus merit such hasty action,” Menendez said, accusing Trump of “destroying” relations between Congress and the executive branch and jeopardizing the interests of defense contractors.
ha ha ha. And neither did trump have anything to do with your post that Tony replied to. To wit:: You seem to be confused. The "investigation" everyone assumes you're referring to was the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling into the 2016 election. It was not an investigation into either Trump or Manafort per se. They just turned up as criminals, as a by-product of the investigation. Trump, it turns out, is an unindicted co-conspirator in campaign contribution violations, and Manafort was found to have committed tax and bank fraud, among eleven other crimes. Mueller referred these incidentally discovered crimes to other venues where they were prosecuted. Many crimes were discovered in the course of the investigation including perjury, and many people went to jail, or will be going to jail, as a result of the Mueller investigation. Many Russians were indicted as well, but it would appear they won't be extradited to stand trial. Mueller's investigation was incredibly productive! So when you say, " you have zero evidence of crimes" I'm afraid you look rather like a fool. The most interesting crime to me that Trump committed, according to the Mueller Report, was Trump's many attempts at obstruction. Mueller didn't prosecute those because he was an employee of the Department of Justice over which the chief administrator is Donald Trump, and it turns out that the Department has a policy of not indicting a sitting President. It is incorrect to say that Mueller exonerated Trump on obstruction charges. It is quite the opposite actually. Mueller lays out the evidence for obstruction in his report, which you really ought to read before you post any more on the topic of the Mueller investigtion!
No you are confused, aren't you supposed to be libertarian. If the investigation had nothing to do with Trump then why did it require a Special Counsel? The investigation was about the deep state being upset that the wrong person won. Biggest hit job in history. Why are you okay with that?
Of course you realize that a majority of U.S. citizens look on you folks as conspiracy nuts who have bought into Russian originated, disinformation posts on Facebook, twitter and youtube, hook line and sinker. Are we wrong or are you wrong? We can't both be right!
So now you are claiming I bought into the Russian posts of social media? What planet are you from? You do realize Trump did not collude with the Russians, as was claimed by the Democrat party and the overwhelming majority of the media. You bought into that conspiracy. Not me. In fact,
Evidence please, to prove your negative. https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...-response-to-flynn-document-order-60712005892
Rachel Maddow? Seriously? Bob Mueller "The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy." You lose.