Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree35Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 19th, 2018, 10:59 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Trump has clearly failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, a violation of his oath of office, and all by itself an impeachable offense.

Failing to act adequately to protect the national security of the United States allows for his removal under the 25th Amendment.
BULLSHIT !!You got nothing here....move on....
Thanks from Mythbuster

Last edited by Jimgorn; February 19th, 2018 at 11:02 AM.
Jimgorn is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 11:14 AM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Web
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Trump has clearly failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, a violation of his oath of office, and all by itself an impeachable offense.

POTUS has discretion to impose sanctions, you should look before you leap.

Quote:
Yet Congress wrote into the law a provision granting the president discretion in its enforcement. The president may waive sanctions if he determines that it is in the United States’ national security interests to do so. And, indeed, the State Department offered such a justification yesterday.

So Trump isn’t breaking the law by declining to enforce sanctions against Russia. He’s within his rights to do so.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...utional-crisis


Quote:
Failing to act adequately to protect the national security of the United States allows for his removal under the 25th Amendment.

No it is not.
Mythbuster is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 11:29 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 9,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mythbuster View Post
POTUS has discretion to impose sanctions, you should look before you leap.



https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...utional-crisis





No it is not.

Actually he doesn't have discretion. You are a Constitutional illiterate.

Article 1 Section 1:

All legislative powers herein are vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

What part of ALL legislative powers are you fuzzy about there sunshine?

The President has to faithfully execute those laws after they are passed by Congress.

Congress voted in the Senate, and the House of Representatives by veto proof numbers on those sanctions.

The President is now obligated, without discretion, to impose those sanctions.

Because he has not done so is a violation of his oath of office, as well as his obligation tasked to him by the Constitution by not doing so.

Hopefully when the Democrats win back the House in November they will add that charge to the list of offenses to impeach him, which they are obligated to do for that reason alone.
Thanks from RNG and AlyCat
skews13 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 11:31 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Actually he doesn't have discretion. You are a Constitutional illiterate.

Article 1 Section 1:

All legislative powers herein are vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

What part of ALL legislative powers are you fuzzy about there sunshine?

The President has to faithfully execute those laws after they are passed by Congress.

Congress voted in the Senate, and the House of Representatives by veto proof numbers on those sanctions.

The President is now obligated, without discretion, to impose those sanctions.

Because he has not done so is a violation of his oath of office, as well as his obligation tasked to him by the Constitution by not doing so.

Hopefully when the Democrats win back the House in November they will add that charge to the list of offenses to impeach him, which they are obligated to do for that reason alone.
Yeah because President Obama never failed to enforce certain parts of law. Especially the ACA
guy39 is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 11:33 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 7,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Clinton had 4 chances to off bin Laden....and the Taliban offered bin Laden up to Clinton....Not Bush
The Taliban offered up bin Laden AFTER 9/11 and before we invaded Afghanistan. U.S. Troops in the country was what the Taliban hoped to avoid.
Thanks from imaginethat
BubbaJones is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 11:59 AM   #16
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
The Taliban offered up bin Laden AFTER 9/11 and before we invaded Afghanistan. U.S. Troops in the country was what the Taliban hoped to avoid.
They do like to revise history, don't they.
Thanks from imaginethat and AlyCat
RNG is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 01:58 PM   #17
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Web
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
Actually he doesn't have discretion. You are a Constitutional illiterate.

Article 1 Section 1:

All legislative powers herein are vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

What part of ALL legislative powers are you fuzzy about there sunshine?

The President has to faithfully execute those laws after they are passed by Congress.

...

Please read.

Quote:
Yet Congress wrote into the law a provision granting the president discretion in its enforcement. The president may waive sanctions if he determines that it is in the United States’ national security interests to do so. And, indeed, the State Department offered such a justification yesterday.

So Trump isn’t breaking the law by declining to enforce sanctions against Russia. He’s within his rights to do so.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-fac...utional-crisis

And why did President Obama wait until after Hillary lost to do anything, even though he was aware back in 2014?

Last edited by Mythbuster; February 19th, 2018 at 02:05 PM.
Mythbuster is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 02:04 PM   #18
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Web
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
The Taliban offered up bin Laden AFTER 9/11 and before we invaded Afghanistan. U.S. Troops in the country was what the Taliban hoped to avoid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
They do like to revise history, don't they.

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c16fa1581c62

Also see: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...801-story.html
Thanks from Jimgorn

Last edited by Mythbuster; February 19th, 2018 at 02:08 PM.
Mythbuster is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 02:13 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
The Taliban offered up bin Laden AFTER 9/11 and before we invaded Afghanistan. U.S. Troops in the country was what the Taliban hoped to avoid.
Yes revisionist history....
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...5oByXNl1RN_Fk-


President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

The offer came a day after the Taliban's supreme leader rebuffed Bush's "second chance" for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to "hand anyone over".

The real history is that the Taliban had conditions attached to turning over bin Laden...We had to prove UBL planned the attack on the twin towers and then they would hand UBL over to an unnamed 3rd party.... A non-deal
Jimgorn is offline  
Old February 19th, 2018, 02:19 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 11,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgorn View Post
Clinton had 4 chances to off bin Laden....and the Taliban offered bin Laden up to Clinton....Not Bush
That's right wing mythology.
There was always a cost, the guy who let Bin Laden go, after he was the WTC Bin Laden, was his old business partner...
goober is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
dereliction, duty, staggering, trump



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Staggering stat that no one talks about coke Current Events 0 November 12th, 2016 08:53 AM
Even in Government*-Run Prisons, the Profiteering off of Human Lives Is Staggering LongWinded Current Events 0 November 4th, 2015 01:21 PM
Dick Cheney’s staggering Iran hypocrisy: LongWinded Current Events 2 August 28th, 2015 01:25 PM
The Staggering Cost of Gun Violence LongWinded Gun Control 20 April 20th, 2015 09:55 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.