There Was Spying On The Trump Campaign

[oxmixmudd]

So an isolated opinion that I can not find reflected anywhere else. Okay.

Here's a lengthy defense of Barr's legal opinion from a source that is traditionally very hostile towards President Trump:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/qualifie...rr-memo-part-i

Barr subscribes to a very, very strong form of the unitary executive theory, and as noted per the link I previously gave, goes farther than that. In doing so, and coupled with a president that has no real respect for the doctrine of the separation of powers, it moves us much closer to the concept of a king rather than what we typically think of in terms of Presidential power. To get at the majority of the discussion of how Barr leans towards the idea of President as King, you must understand that is the technical terminology that keeps his views obscure. Once you plug that in, there's a lot of information about it. I'm just going to post a few links here for convenience and to aid in the education of anyone who cares. But that is why you couldn't find a lot on it.

In summary, unitary executive theory holds that the president is in control of the entire executive branch and thus has the right to populate and fire any office of that branch. Strong unitary executive theory:

Source: wikipedia

Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the president

© Copyright Original Source

Starting with my original link:

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-b...al-presidency/

constitutional law professors blog:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/co...executive.html

a Paper discussing whether unitary executive theory is 'originalist' (supported by the ideas of the founding fathers)

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...14&context=jcl

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

as it pertains to Barr (other than my first link):

slate:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...y-general.html

nytimes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/u...ive-power.html


Jim

[Mountain Man]

...that appear evil to me...

Interesting.

[rogue06]

Are you really saying that the only possible thing Trump might be doing that could possibly be called evil would be if he colluded with the Russians?

Have you noticed that all the things I've mentioned in this thread that trump is doing that appear evil to me have nothing whatsoever to do with the Mueller investigation. You and others are the ones that keep trying to drag the conversation back into that arena. I've been talking about what he did to Nielson. And I also brought up what he did to Sessions.

And do you really believe that a criminal that manages to get away with their crimes is not actually still a criminal?

The problems with Trump are many and varied. And potential Russian collusion is only the tip of the iceberg.


Jim

What you seem to think is that everything Trump does is unmitigatingly evil. If he somehow did something that wasn't evil it must have been a mistake on his part.

[oxmixmudd]

What you seem to think is that everything Trump does is unmitigatingly evil. If he somehow did something that wasn't evil it must have been a mistake on his part.

Don't be silly. I only think that the evil things he does are evil.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting.

Just trying to acknowledge I can be wrong, and that you and others may not perceive what trump is doing as wrong.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Barr subscribes to a very, very strong form of the unitary executive theory, and as noted per the link I previously gave, goes farther than that. In doing so, and coupled with a president that has no real respect for the doctrine of the separation of powers, it moves us much closer to the concept of a king rather than what we typically think of in terms of Presidential power. To get at the majority of the discussion of how Barr leans towards the idea of President as King, you must understand that is the technical terminology that keeps his views obscure. Once you plug that in, there's a lot of information about it. I'm just going to post a few links here for convenience and to aid in the education of anyone who cares. But that is why you couldn't find a lot on it.

In summary, unitary executive theory holds that the president is in control of the entire executive branch and thus has the right to populate and fire any office of that branch. Strong unitary executive theory:

Source: wikipedia

Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the president

© Copyright Original Source

Starting with my original link:

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-b...al-presidency/

constitutional law professors blog:

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/co...executive.html

a Paper discussing whether unitary executive theory is 'originalist' (supported by the ideas of the founding fathers)

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...14&context=jcl

Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

as it pertains to Barr (other than my first link):

slate:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...y-general.html

nytimes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/u...ive-power.html

Yes, your sources suggest that it is an open question, and that Barr and anybody else who supports the theory is not some half-cocked radical without a legal leg to stand on. Furthermore, Barr is on record on multiple occasions saying that Congress can and should hold presidents accountable if they are found to have abused their executive privilege or broken the law.

There is no reason to think that Barr believes the President to be exempt from the law, or that he is perpetrating a cover-up with regards to the Mueller's report. Even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstien, who is no friend of President Trump, said that any such suggestion is "completely bizarre".

"He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre

"It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, 'I’m not going to give you the report.' What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do."

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, your sources suggest that it is an open question, and that Barr and anybody else who supports the theory is not some half-cocked radical without a legal leg to stand on. Furthermore, Barr is on record on multiple occasions saying that Congress can and should hold presidents accountable if they are found to have abused their executive privilege or broken the law.

There is no reason to think that Barr believes the President to be exempt from the law, or that he is perpetrating a cover-up with regards to the Mueller's report. Even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstien, who is no friend of President Trump, said that any such suggestion is "completely bizarre".

"He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre

"It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, 'I’m not going to give you the report.' What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do."

I didnt ever say barr was half cocked. I said he holds a position on presidential power that is much closer to that of a king than the founding fathers intended.

Barr is at the extreme end of the spectrum on a doctrine that many argue gives the president too much power. That coupled with a president that has no respect for the separation of powers doctrine is a serious problem, but it is also why Trump selected him. Trump knows that an AG like Barr will allow him to garner even more control, even more specific power. In the hands of a president with self-control and respect for the separation of powers, an AG like barr is dangerous. In the hands of this president, an AG kike barr is a very bad deal.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

I didnt ever say barr was half cocked. I said he holds a position on presidential power that is much closer to that of a king than the founding fathers intended.

Barr is at the extreme end of the spectrum on a doctrine that many argue gives the president too much power. That coupled with a president that has no respect for the separation of powers doctrine is a serious problem, but it is also why Trump selected him. Trump knows that an AG like Barr will allow him to garner even more control, even more specific power. In the hands of a president with self-control and respect for the separation of powers, an AG like barr is dangerous. In the hands of this president, an AG kike barr is a very bad deal.

Jim

I see, so you're just going to ignore Barr explicitly saying that Congress has broad political and legal power to hold the president accountable, and you're going to push ahead with your conspiracy theory ravings.

[Tassman]

Who else would need sanctuary cities? Legal immigrants?

Undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, for one. Immigrants legally claiming asylum but are unable due to Immigration inefficiency at points of entry, for another. Fix the system, don't punish innocent people fleeing intolerable conditions in their home countries. And most certainly don't use them as pawns in an attempt to punish political opponents. That's immoral.

[oxmixmudd]

I see, so you're just going to ignore Barr explicitly saying that Congress has broad political and legal power to hold the president accountable, and you're going to push ahead with your conspiracy theory ravings.

And are going to continue not listening and attacking the person rather than discussing.


The issue is that his position gives the president too much power and thus undermines the effectiveness of the safeguards found in the separation of powers. It is an academic issue UNLESS the president is one who is likely to abuse that additional power. But that IS the situation we find ourselves in. And as such it as an issue of concern.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

The issue is that his position gives the president too much power and thus undermines the effectiveness of the safeguards found in the separation of powers.

Not really. And it's not like Barr has sole discretion to enforce whatever legal opinion he wants without oversight (not that you are accurately characterizing his position). You're acting paranoid.

[NorrinRadd]

..."It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, 'I’m not going to give you the report.' What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do."

I may have misunderstood one of the talking heads on TV, but I think I heard that the statute does not even *require* that he present the report at all in cases that conclude no evidence of criminality.

It would be funny if he said, "Hey, be glad you're getting ANYTHING!"

[NorrinRadd]

...

In summary, unitary executive theory holds that the president is in control of the entire executive branch and thus has the right to populate and fire any office of that branch. Strong unitary executive theory:

Source: wikipedia

Proponents of a strongly unitary theory argue that the president possesses all of the executive power and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of the executive branch. This implies that the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control is limited. Thus, under the strongly unitary executive theory, independent agencies and counsels are unconstitutional to the extent that they exercise discretionary executive power not controlled by the president

© Copyright Original Source

...

Honestly, this seems completely normal to me. I had always understood this was the way it was set up, and wondered what right Congress had to poke around as much as they do. Certainly some things are spelled out in the Constitution -- Senate approval of nominees, for instance. And some measure of oversight is implied. But I see nothing in the text that even hints at "the power of Congress to remove executive agencies or officers from Presidential control."

[Tassman]

Investigating the hostile power is an entirely separate thing than spying on a presidential campaign.

What was being “investigated”, as even staunch Trump ally Devin Nunes acknowledged in the “Nunes memo,” was that the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign was triggered by evidence presented to American officials about Papadopoulos having secretive contacts with Kremlin agents. US intelligence officials have always maintained they were "spying" on the Russians, not the Trump campaign.

[JimL]

Whatever you say, NAMBLA boy.

Did you know that kind of thing is most prevelant among church leaders, pastor CP?