Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Stanislav, Oct 10, 2018.
Maybe. But not while Trump is in the White House.
We are talking about two different things. I was idly speculating about how I thought the general concept of a special counsel as it has been practiced is not in keeping with the Constitution, both as applied to Clinton and Trump, but that was an aside.
What I have been talking about ever since and thought I was debating you about was the turning over of tax returns. Wasn't that clear in context when I referenced the IRS repeatedly? It's the tax retunrs that I've been telling you all along are the subject of controversy and a split in the legal community about the right of Congress to demand them based on a 1924 law and a 1957 case.
Again, Kizmet, the TAX RETURNS. There are a lot of legal scholars split on that. That is the issue that relates to the Harding Era legislation. Go back and read my last few posts. It will become clear to you. Either you're being coy and trying to save face or not playing too close attention to everything I've posted since my first post.
Legal scholars can continue to be split. It changes nothing that they have these debates. If it comes down to it the courts will decide it. If the Trump administration chooses to defy the court then we will see a spectacle that I believe is unprecedented. You may be an attorney and so it won't be hard for you to throw out a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that I can't counter but your position is weak. If there really were "legal scholars" debating the constitutionality of investigation then it would be in the courts. Oh and by the way, I think that you should go back and read your own posts because in post #30 you said "Personally, I think the idea of an unelected general counsel with vague and far-reaching powers performing two years of investigation into the Executive Branch is arguably the unconstitutional issue here, whether it be Mueller or Starr. " Remember?
Kizmet, obviously I do remember the comment I made in the first post inasmuch as I SPECIFICALLY JUST REFERENCED IT.
But then, as I clearly said, I have been contending all along regarding tax returns. Ever since that first post. I made this absolutely clear in my most recent post and have been making it clear that was my context throughout.
Of course it will be up to the courts, AS I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG. That has been my point, the constitutionality of the 1924 law as applied to this particular situation. I have merely tried to tell you throughout that what Bill said about the "plain language" of the statute is not the final word, even though it may seem to be to the layperson. It is a matter for the courts, judicial review, as to the application. My point is that it is not a done deal that the SCOTUS will say Congress has this power. That is the whole pojnt I've been making. And it is NOT a point just made by a few oddball academics. You will find those best and brightest in the Beltway you cite all over the board on this issue. As I have told you repeatedly. This is not a done deal by a long shot once it gets to the SCOTUS.
If perhaps you were as invested in learning from someone who actually has devoted the last three decades to learning this stuff as you are apparently moving the goalposts and straw manning an argument so you can, in your own imagination, safe face, you might actyally learn something from this conversation. I am forever learning from my more experienced colleagues and from lawyers, accountant and fraud experts far smarter than me. I also learn from students. But of course, that requires a modicum of humility.
But do as you will, it's your life.
Thanks, but I already knew that. Here's another thing I know. I could sue you. I could sue you for wearing socks that disturb me. They disturb me deeply and so I'm planning on suing you. I've consulted legal scholars on this issue and there is presently a vigorous debate in process as to the various legal elements involved. So what? you might say. Who cares? You say there's some serious debate going on but just like the debate about the socks, I don't think that's really a serious debate at all. Here's what really happened. Donald Trump decided to defy the law just because he doesn't want people to know what's really going on. He's not defying the law because he believes there's some intrinsic flaw in the legal argument. He just decided to have a tantrum and defy the law in order to protect himself and then, after the fact, a bunch of people began to scramble around to find some sort (anything will do) of justification for defying the law. They don't really have any substantial argument, it's just a sham. This idea that the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional is just a part of that sham. It's smoke and mirrors. It's bullshit and if it ever gets forced into the courts it will be shown to be so.
I don't care why he's defying anything. I am not talking about Trump. Don't you understand? I did not vote for him. I'm talking about the law and the Constitution. Those do matter to me and will be here long after Trump and whoever comes after him and whoever comes after that have left office. Also, your analogy is a complete non sequitur. You have no basis for suing over socks, there is no tort recognized in the law covering that. The case is not justiciable (look it up). I would immediately get your case dismissed and might get attorney's fees and costs for vexatious litigation (look it up). There is no debate on that point. But again, let me reiterate, there is debate on the applicability of the 1924 law to this situation, whether it be Trump of Hillary or the Man on the Moon. The legal scholars and practicing hotshots are not united on this. There is a real case/controversy there, on that point.
I can only interpret your behavior as coming from one who simply cannot maintain dignity or rationality with regard to any matter related to Donald Trump. While I did not vote for the guy, I'm not deluded and irrational about it. I will thank you for one thing, while you cannot veritably slap both your butt cheeks when it comes to legal knowledge and are profoundly ignorant there, I did learn something about the 1924 law after getting into this, and I have learned something about the psychology of humankind dealing with you. All the best, I'm out of this Alice in Wonderland conversation. I guess joke's on me wasting 10 seconds arguing with you. Bye.
Smell ya later. I guess my parting shot would be to point out that you didn't present a single piece of evidence to support your position. Oh well
I was mostly reacting to this:
It is the "far left" (meaningless phrase as it could be, considering that it includes Schumer) that needs to learn fair play. Presumably, including dictating false statements for one's son from aboard Air Force One, appointing one's own prosecutor to make decisions on one's own potential indictments, or, closer to your home - becoming Governor as a result of elections one runs oneself (ignoring multiple calls for recusal). Or, let's not forget, "lock her up" and "Russia, if you're listening...". This kind of fair play. To me, the quote above looks like a rationalization, fishing for reasons not to oppose an "ultimate ugly American".
Let me throw some bait: things Senators do professionally is getting elected and gaining name recognition. On this, AOC is more competent by far than just about anyone in that chamber. Can't really argue the rest, but my bet would be on a former science geek (AOC) over sneering Fox News kommentariat.
Well, he's no moderate: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Charles_Schumer.htm
Which of this indicates "far left"?
some new stuff out of California
My guess is that the law will be struck down as unconstitutional? I amusingly approve of the attempt though.
the cat is emerging from the bag
one step closer
The noose is tightening!!!
Separate names with a comma.