President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't agree that he did.

You do surprise us

Whether the distinction between words, it's just semantics, the statement in Trump's tweet is correct. Adam Schiff omitted information for political reasons because it was his party being alleged to be involved in the FISA abuses.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Whether the distinction between words, it's just semantics, the statement in Trump's tweet is correct. Adam Schiff omitted information for political reasons because it was his party being alleged to be involved in the FISA abuses.

But Trump's tweet was in quotation marks and referenced Fox News.

Originally Posted by Mick

I don't agree that he did.

And Trumps UK spokesman as ever, kept to the script.

Originally Posted by Mr Banana

And Trumps UK spokesman as ever, kept to the script.

Change the record.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b1636464a424

Supreme Court declines to enter controversy over ‘dreamers,’ rejects Trump administration’s request to review lower court rulings

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to enter the national controversy over “dreamers,” turning down the Trump administration’s request to immediately review lower court decisions that keep in place the program that protects undocumented immigrants brought here as children from deportation.

President Trump announced in September that he would let the program expire in March, unless Congress acted. Efforts on Capitol Hill to revive the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) as part of a broader deal on immigration policy have failed.

Federal district judges in California and New York have issued nationwide injunctions against ending the program, siding with states and organizations challenging the administration’s rescission. The court orders effectively block the Trump administration from ending the program on March 5, as planned.

No appellate court has reviewed those decisions, and it would have been exceedingly rare for the Supreme Court to take up a case without that interim step. In the past, the court has granted such cases only in matters of grave national importance, such as the controversy over President Richard Nixon’s White House tapes or solving the Iranian hostage crisis.

The litigation now will take its usual course, and the issue probably won’t return to the Supreme Court before the next term. In the meantime, the White House and Congress can continue to seek a political resolution.

The Trump administration skipped the more usual procedure of asking the high court to stay the lower court decisions. Instead, it said the court should accept the case now because it raised such important legal questions about presidential authority.

Seems fairly straight forward, the DoJ skipped a step in the litigation procedure, went from A to C and skipped B.

That notwithstanding, a court cannot just cancel constitutionally written laws as it sees fit, a DoJ spokesman has said on the SC decision: "We will continue to defend DHS’ lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

That’s why it’s going through the legal process - there is a difference of opinion about the extent of the ‘lawful authority’.

Anyway, it’s not about a court ‘cancelling Constitutionally written laws’ - it’s about Trump cancelling DACA, and courts objecting to that.

Trump is not trying to cancel the unconstitutional DACA. He is trying to get bipartisan deal done on immigration, and get to build the wall.

[1andrew1]

Things look bad for Donald Trump — extremely, extremely bad
Move one could come around July, when Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel probing Trump’s election links with Russia, “returns an obstruction of justice case”. Not against Trump but “probably” against his son-in-law Jared Kushner, whose emergence, says Wolff, along with his wife Ivanka as one of the most powerful people in the world is “totally absurd”.
If that happens, move two will follow: Muller “sends this report to Congress, and that is essentially the election — the Democrats saying this man must be impeached”.
Would Americans vote to topple him? Wolff thinks they might. Poll numbers, he says, “look bad for Trump, extremely, extremely bad” — though there’s always a chance the people would pick Trump’s side as an underdog.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a3775991.html

---------- Post added at 19:55 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Trump is not trying to cancel the unconstitutional DACA. He is trying to get bipartisan deal done on immigration, and get to build the wall.

DACA has not been found unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

DACA has not been found unconstitutional.

No court had said that, but because they have not, does not mean it isn’t.

It is unconstitutional has explained previously.

As for Michael Wolff, wtf would he know about what Mueller is doing, Wolff is an utter plank, who’s speciality is writing fiction, so say his critics.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

No court had said that, but because they have not, does not mean it isn’t.

It is unconstitutional has explained previously.

As for Michael Wolff, wtf would he know about what Mueller is doing, Wolff is an utter plank, who’s speciality is writing fiction, so say his critics.

Until a court rules, we have to assume it's constitutional. The same as everyone's innocent until proved guilty.
Clearly, Wolff's critics would be critical of him, that's a given. And he does have a book to sell. But I've read elsewhere that Kushner is the family member likely to be impeached and certainly Trump seems to be distancing himself from him. As we saw with Watergate, these investigations can take a couple of years so maybe July is a bit early, I don't know.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Until a court rules, we have to assume it's constitutional. The same as everyone's innocent until proved guilty.
Clearly, Wolff's critics would be critical of him, that's a given. And he does have a book to sell. But I've read elsewhere that Kushner is the family member likely to be impeached and certainly Trump seems to be distancing himself from him. As we saw with Watergate, these investigations can take a couple of years so maybe July is a bit early, I don't know.

A court did put an injunction in place after several States sued, blocking Obama when he tried to extend the same protections to Adults, it’s not Constitutional, I can determine that without a legal expert. DACA implementation cancels and suspends a law, that is in direct breach of the President’s duties to execute all laws, he cannot just suspend written laws by Congress. Plus plenty of congressional lawmakers have also agreed, DACA is unconstitutional.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

A court did put an injunction in place after several States sued, blocking Obama when he tried to extend the same protections to Adults, it’s not Constitutional, I can determine that without a legal expert. DACA implementation cancels and suspends a law, that is in direct breach of the President’s duties to execute all laws, he cannot just suspend written laws by Congress. Plus plenty of congressional lawmakers have also agreed, DACA is unconstitutional.

If everyone in America decided the law themselves, there would be chaos as everyone would have different views. That's why we have to leave it to the courts. Whatever we might believe or understand about the due processes that have or haven't taken place.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If everyone in America decided the law themselves, there would be chaos as everyone would have different views. That's why we have to leave it to the courts. Whatever we might believe or understand about the due processes that have or haven't taken place.

This has nothing to do with deciding laws, the laws are already decided and written. The President does not have the Constitutional Authority to suspend a law, this exactly what DACA does.