St. Phatty
Active member
If you guys had an online radio show, you would get listeners.
ICMag should have it's own stoner radio show.
ICMag should have it's own stoner radio show.
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
The Impeachment Of Trump
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
- Status
Ya'llqaeda strikes again
White Beard
Active member
Et voila:
In 1787, the framers gave us a president, not a king.
On Tuesday, lawyers for President Trump gave a dissenting opinion.
In the first of many courtroom showdowns between Trump’s executive branch and the legislative branch, Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy argued to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta that Congress has no authority to pry into Trump’s finances. That was expected. Unexpected was Consovoy’s broader argument: that Congress has essentially no authority to investigate any president for anything. Sorry, Sam Ervin: Even the Watergate investigation would have been illegal under the theory offered by Trump’s team.
Consovoy, a beefy former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, offered two related points:
(A) Congress can’t issue a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a “legitimate legislative purpose.”
(B) Any “legitimate legislative purpose” Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional.
As a result, Consovoy argued, Congress can’t investigate to see if a law is being broken, can’t inform the public of wrongdoing by the executive and can’t look for presidential conflicts of interest or corruption, because that would be “law enforcement.”
Forget about the Unitary Executive Theory. This one is closer to the Divine Right of Kings.
Mehta, an Obama appointee, probed for the limits of this breathtaking theory but found none:
Trump’s finances are not subject to investigation?
“Correct,” Consovoy informed the judge.
Congress can’t verify the accuracy of the president’s financial statements?
“Correct.”
If “a president was involved in some corrupt enterprise, you mean to tell me because he is the president of the United States, Congress would not have power to investigate?”
No, Consovoy said, because that’s “not pursuant to its legislative agenda.”
Consovoy, who is representing Trump as he tries to block the president’s accounting firm from fulfilling a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee for Trump’s financial records, further declared that Congress can’t investigate a president to inform the public of malfeasance (“the president is not an agency”), to see whether a president has a financial conflict of interest in a piece of legislation (“it would lack legitimate legislative purpose”), nor to discover whether financial conflicts impair a president’s ability to make sound policy (“that is law enforcement”).
But surely Congress could investigate a president’s compliance with the Constitution’s emoluments clause?
“I respectfully disagree in part,” Consovoy persisted, saying Congress can’t engage in “anything that looks like a law enforcement investigation.”
Even the Whitewater and Watergate investigations exceeded congressional authority?
Here, Consovoy demurred (“I’d have to look,” he said), rather than admit his theory would have indeed banned both.
The Supreme Court has said judges shouldn’t look at Congress’s motives (even if they appear to be political) for investigating the executive, deferring to the legislature on what is a legitimate legislative function. But Consovoy told Mehta that “I don’t think the court can ignore” the Democrats’ motives, as expressed in public statements, and he called their legislative reasons “retroactive rationalizations.” Consovoy’s own argument sounded more political than legal at times. His brief began: “The Democrat Party . . . has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.”
Consovoy’s argument was so aggressive, it seemed Trump’s lawyers expected defeat in the lower court and were looking for a higher court to reinterpret the law in Trump’s favor or, more likely, for the appeals to stretch until after the 2020 election. Consovoy sought delays for discovery and more arguments, saying it would be a disservice if “I did not go into depth.” But Mehta brushed off these attempts, saying he would close the record this week. And the judge flatly rejected Consovoy’s exotic argument that Mehta should preemptively declare unconstitutional any hypothetical legislation Congress might come up with related to its probe of Trump’s finances.
Douglas Letter, arguing for the House, said Consovoy’s position would require declaring unconstitutional “a whole batch” of laws that require disclosure by the president: the Ethics in Government Act, the Presidential Records Act and the Stock Act against insider trading. Under Consovoy’s theory, Congress couldn’t even investigate whether Trump really took himself out of the lease he had with the General Services Administration to run Washington’s Trump International Hotel.
At one point in the 90-minute argument, the judge asked Letter why the House wanted Trump’s private business records, because “this is not an impeachment proceeding.” And that’s the irony: As strong as the House’s oversight case is now, lawmakers would have more constitutional authority to demand information from Trump if they launched impeachment proceedings. Trump’s reckless legal argument is one more way in which he is goading the House to impeach him.
lol, I just use other links ..
You cant make this shit up.... Now Comey the crook and the Muslim commie Brennan are pointing fingers at each other over the piss dossier.
As their crimes are exposed, I would presume we will see much more of these rat bastards trying to float away on their former comrades bodies.
Rats, through and through. This shit is going to get good. Especially when they get to which rat lied to the FISA courts.
As their crimes are exposed, I would presume we will see much more of these rat bastards trying to float away on their former comrades bodies.
Rats, through and through. This shit is going to get good. Especially when they get to which rat lied to the FISA courts.
You mean legislating religious values that you dont agree with? You lefty cheerleaders had no problem with legislating what cake the man from Colorado should make even after he won in the Supreme court.
Are you immune to the rampant hypocrisy displayed by your side on an hourly basis?
Let me get this straight.
Legislating against someone's religious views against abortion okay?
Legislating against someone's religious views that is pro abortion and the killing of subsequent babies not okay?
That about sum it up? So stomping on someone's religious beliefs is okay as long as you disagree with said beliefs?
Fucking hypocrisy at its finest. Lmfao while smoking this fine blue moonshine dry sift.
Wendull, You want to believe that life begins at conception or six weeks, or at the penis. That's your business. That's your freedom. Don't impose your religious views or beliefs with laws on others. This is like sharia law. Separation of church and state. Deal with it.
It's not hypocrisy on my part, It's idiocy on your part. You will never get this straight.
It's not hypocrisy on my part, It's idiocy on your part. You will never get this straight.
You mean legislating religious values that you dont agree with? You lefty cheerleaders had no problem with legislating what cake the man from Colorado should make even after he won in the Supreme court.
Are you immune to the rampant hypocrisy displayed by your side on an hourly basis?
Let me get this straight.
Legislating against someone's religious views against abortion okay?
Legislating against someone's religious views that is pro abortion and the killing of subsequent babies not okay?
That about sum it up? So stomping on someone's religious beliefs is okay as long as you disagree with said beliefs?
Fucking hypocrisy at its finest. Lmfao while smoking this fine blue moonshine dry sift.
Of course Comey is pissed. Brennan used Comey like a 2 bit whore to start an investigation. However, the state department warned the FBI 10 days before going to FISC about Steele’s politically motivated dossier. Will be comfy as fuck.
I shouldn’t have to bake a cake for ANYBODY. As a small business owner I have the right to serve who I want for whatever reason I want. And SC agrees... so fuck your feels and #LearnToCope
What does it make me if my religious views make it okay to kill a baby?
Here, I'm going to argue like you.
Zeez, just admit you are a bigoted hypocrite and we can move the debate along. By the way, do you still beat your wife?
Comey got 4 bits, it was an ass fuck... all politics aside for a second, blue moonshine is one hell of a good pot strain.
These fuckers are such hypocrites they cant even see it for themselves. If it wasnt so pathetic, it would be sad. At the very least the cheeto bomb got the masks off these crazies whilst getting them to go so nuts they fucked up and admitted their true views.
Now we get to see them for the baby killing hypocrites they are. Meanwhile pissing down your back while telling you its rain caused by global warming. I'm packing another bowl after I get off the floor where I've been laughing over the guy trying to convince me he is no hypocrite.
Or the other one equating not baking a cake to snipping the neck of a late term abortion with scissors ala Kermit Gosnell. Then selling the poor babies, um I mean fetuses parts.
Zeez, I dont think you will ever get the fact you are a hypocrite. Have fun man, I am. You lefties are too much... roflmfao....
By the way. What race is gay? It would truly help me if you could explain that one. I know you are an intelligent individual. Also, what race is muslime?
Sorry fishy, that was meant to quote cannavore.
Someone rattled the knuckle draggers cage again.
Luckily there is a thing called separation of church and state.
Otherwise we have some of these “woke” sky man worshippers trying to tell others how to live their lives because of what an invisible man said.
Now, up to everyone what they believe in, but who believes a single religion out of probably thousands is qualified to tell all the others what to do?
Women’s rights >> religion
Luckily there is a thing called separation of church and state.
Otherwise we have some of these “woke” sky man worshippers trying to tell others how to live their lives because of what an invisible man said.
Now, up to everyone what they believe in, but who believes a single religion out of probably thousands is qualified to tell all the others what to do?
Women’s rights >> religion
It was this one bad fish.
Yeah, rattling my cage disturbs my sleep.
The best thing about your post though, as soon as you start name calling you lost your argument guy. Hope your day is going well. Fucking hypocrites.
See, the knuckle dragger can call names too. It wasnt even the sky man who told me to do it.
- Status
