There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[Cow Poke]

"There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign."

https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/behind...site%20buttons

But it's perfectly OK, cause it was "their guy" spying on "your guy".

[seer]

"There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign."

https://nypost.com/2019/04/15/behind...site%20buttons

That is a good read, it lays it all out...

[Mountain Man]

That is a good read, it lays it all out...

It's essentially a distillation of what Sundance at The Last Refuge has been doggedly reporting for the past several years, but it's a good primer for anybody who isn't up to speed with the facts.

[Cow Poke]

It's essentially a distillation of what Sundance at The Last Refuge has been doggedly reporting for the past several years, but it's a good primer for anybody who isn't up to speed with the facts.

Unfortunately, the "liberal talking points for dummies" crowd won't even read it.

[oxmixmudd]

Executive orders are not legislation.

Obama tried to use them as an end-run around Congress, and he was repeatedly slapped down by the courts. Trump, on the other hand, has used them exactly as they were intended: as special instructions to the Executive Branch, and his orders have been upheld by the Judicial Branch.

That would be true for Obama and Trump. Both are trying to use their executive order power to effectively legislate. You are the one that called what obama did with his use of the executive orders "legislate by Pen". All you are doing by turning that back on me is informing me that if I let any inaccuracies on your part slide, you will eventually turn that against me. So be it. Make sure you don't fudge any terminology going forward, I will call you on it, and I won't be polite about it.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

That would be true for Obama and Trump. Both are trying to use their executive order power to effectively legislate. You are the one that called what obama did with his use of the executive orders "legislate by Pen". All you are doing by turning that back on me is informing me that if I let any inaccuracies on your part slide, you will eventually turn that against me. So be it. Make sure you don't fudge any terminology going forward, I will call you on it, and I won't be polite about it.

You can try to call me out all you want, but what you're refusing to acknowledge is that Obama was attempting to use execute orders as a substitute for legislation, and the judicial branch repeatedly overruled him because of it. Trump is using executive orders as they were intended, not as substitute legislation, and the judicial branch has consistently ruled in his favor.

If you have a problem with that then your disagreement is with the judicial branch, not with me.

[rogue06]

Didn't Obama even once say that he couldn't legally do something via executive order -- right before he tried to do it through executive order?

[Tassman]

Not really.

Yes really.

The only way the president could have "too much power" is if the other two branches could not keep him in check, but since Barr recognizes and fully supports the role of the other two branches providing oversight of the Executive Branch then there's no need for your paranoid delusions of Trump donning a crown and ruling by fiat.

The Legislative Branch is unable to fulfill its Constitutionally appointed role of oversight of the Executive Branch if it is denied the information it requires to do so. It has requested the president’s Tax Returns and the full unredacted Mueller Report into foreign interference into the US presidential elections. What it has received is a flat-out refusal to provide the Tax Returns and a Report redacted by a Trump stooge. The Congress and public have no choice other than assume the president is hiding information damaging to himself.

[NorrinRadd]

Yes really.



The Legislative Branch is unable to fulfill its Constitutionally appointed role of oversight of the Executive Branch if it is denied the information it requires to do so. It has requested the president’s Tax Returns and the full unredacted Mueller Report into foreign interference into the US presidential elections. What it has received is a flat-out refusal to provide the Tax Returns and a Report redacted by a Trump stooge. The Congress and public have no choice other than assume the president is hiding information damaging to himself.

Donald J. Trump's tax returns have zero relevance to the office of POTUS. I fully support his stonewalling. My only (minor) complaint is his use of "I'm under audit" as an excuse. I'd prefer he plainly say, "Screw you! They're none of your business."

Just out of curiosity, can you point out the exact spots where the Constitution "appoints" to Congress the role of oversight of the Executive Branch? I'm not denying some measure of oversight exists, but I think you're overstating it.

[oxmixmudd]

Donald J. Trump's tax returns have zero relevance to the office of POTUS. I fully support his stonewalling. My only (minor) complaint is his use of "I'm under audit" as an excuse. I'd prefer he plainly say, "Screw you! They're none of your business."

Just out of curiosity, can you point out the exact spots where the Constitution "appoints" to Congress the role of oversight of the Executive Branch? I'm not denying some measure of oversight exists, but I think you're overstating it.

That simply isn't true. A public figure's right to privacy does not extend to those elements that could be a threat to national security or to the moral fitness for duty. If his tax records show evidence if crimes or connections to criminal organizations, or they simpley reveal that he has lied through his teeth about what his potential for compromise it as it related to foreign entities, it is 'our buisiness'.

There has to be some means for the legislative and judicial branches to check the executive branch. "Oversight" is one such means. Further, since impeachment can't be implemented with knowledge of whatever crimes or misdemeanors the president is guilty of, they have to be able to get information that will expose the same (surely you don't suppose impeachment is such a toothless lion that only if the President chooses to tell them about what wrongs he has committed can they act - do you?)


Jim

[Mountain Man]

If there was anything criminal or irregular in Trump's tax returns then you can be sure the IRS would have caught it. Trump is under no legal obligation to make his tax returns public. However, he is required to submit an annual financial disclosure report which he has dutiful done for the past three years and which show far more detail than his tax returns ever would, but it's been a non-story because there is nothing suspicious in them, and since they're public record, you can be sure his political enemies have gone over them with a fine-tooth comb looking for anything to pin on him.

Face it, ox, you're chasing after another nothing-burger.

[Cow Poke]

Ya know, this sudden re-focus on Trump's tax returns pretty much tells you that the liberals have given up on any hope of the Mueller report felling their adversary.

[Mountain Man]

Ya know, this sudden re-focus on Trump's tax returns pretty much tells you that the liberals have given up on any hope of the Mueller report felling their adversary.

It also smells like a desperate attempt to distract from the spying scandal.

[Cow Poke]

It also smells like a desperate attempt to distract from the spying scandal.

What? There's a SPYING SCANDAL!?!?!?!

[tabibito]

What? There's a SPYING SCANDAL!?!?!?!

spyingless scandal (by the unaltright no less)