Nixon said "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. Was he right?

[Billy_Kinetta]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Within the legal and practical terms of his constitutional authority, as Trump has? Of course.

Trump's lawyers said he should be allowed to do Anything with the exception of doing things for personal financial gain. Do you agree with that?

You people need to grow up.

Answer the question.

The question was answered.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans had more integrity back then

 

[DGS49]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

 

[BULLDOG]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

You must first present valid evidence before they can find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

 

[basquebromance]

Richard Nixon...that glorious destroyer of Democracy!

 

[lennypartiv]

I'm betting if tRump loses in November(pretty safe bet right now) the senate will spend the last few weeks voting to limit executive powers.

The president's powers should be limited if it's a Democrat.

 

[basquebromance]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

You do realize that he retracted that in the Frost interview, right?

you're for Nixon now?

 

[lennypartiv]

Republicans had more integrity back then

Trump is paying for Nixon's mistake. Nixon never should have resigned. Dems got away with their coup in 1974, now they think they can get away with it again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

No, I do not believe corrupt people should be able to do whatever they want.

That's why I oppose the Stalinist actions of the Democratic party trying to overturn an election by any corrupt means necessary.

 

[playtime]

The age of presidential oversight is coming to an end. We are entering a new phase in American history.

make that 'amerikan' history.

 

[playtime]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Why are you always such a friggin imbecile? Trump broke no law, he did nothing wrong, and pieces of shit like you just keep pushing a fake narrative. Your kind of stupid shit is pissing people off bad, and thats why Trump is going to win in a fucking landslide, and then I am going to laugh in your stupid face

Clearly the answer should be no but apparently the president can do anything he wants if he happens to lead a party that wants to serve a king.

And you're another dumb fuck, spewing out your school yard crap. Grow the fuck up.

do you suffer from tourettes?

 

[playtime]

Did Nixon really say that?

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Nixon's Views on Presidential Power: Excerpts from a 1977 Interview with David Frost

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

We are defining the president's powers right now. Future presidents of both parties will be able to do what ever Trump is allowed to do right now, and will be restrained no more than he is tight now. Do you think a president should be free to do anything he wants? Why?

Ask Obama. The SCOTUS smacked him down enough.

 

[playtime]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

You must first present valid evidence before they can find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

bolton can do that. why are (R)s afraid? why won't donny allow anybody that could exonerate him to testify?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The age of presidential oversight is coming to an end. We are entering a new phase in American history.

True.

Or more to the point – the codification of the Imperial Presidency.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

You must first present valid evidence before they can find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

bolton can do that. why are (R)s afraid? why won't donny allow anybody that could exonerate him to testify?

He requires no exoneration in the face of such prosecutorial failure. More of nothing is still nothing.

 

[Crepitus]

Can we stop with the obscenity please? This is a family friendly site.

 

[playtime]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

You must first present valid evidence before they can find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

bolton can do that. why are (R)s afraid? why won't donny allow anybody that could exonerate him to testify?

He requires no exoneration in the face of such prosecutorial failure. More of nothing is still nothing.

knowing how donny operates & has operated the last 40 years... he's all about showmanship. if he knew he had people & docs that would shirley put them thar evil dems 'in their place', practically ensuring another election win, he would put it on TV with lots of build up; & complete with a red carpet 'search light' ratings event. not to mention great campaign ads for him too.

that ain't happening for a reason.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This line of inquiry is rather neurotic and presumes that because this President rejects Congress' self-declared (and unconstitutional) assertion of a power to "oversee" the President's execution of the powers of his office, that he is acting as a dictator (or something). I have many times in this forum asked for the words in the Constitution that codify this bizarre right, to no avail. The three branches of the Federal Government are co-equal, and Congress has no such right.

To those who maintain the Imperial Presidency fiction I point out the following. This President has been abused violently by leftist Jurists in the various Federal District Courts (mainly on the Left coast), who issue orders that purport to bind the entire Executive Branch throughout the entire country, based on utterly specious readings of law and the Constitution. In every single case where these rulings have made it to the USSC, they have been shot down, utterly. And yet this President/Dictator can do NOTHING ABOUT IT, other than complain to Congress, which ironically has the power to curtail the jurisdiction and power of the Federal courts, but declines to do so.

Eventually, my position will be vindicated. Congress has no general power to "oversee" the President or his activities. OTOH, there is an implicit power to query the Executive Departments on their implementation of laws. For example, if Congress were to pass a law ratcheting up the CAFE standards, they could drag in the Administrator of the EPA and demand to know how this goal will be achieved. But this is NOT demanding to know about conversations, policy discussions, etc., within the President's inner circle. These are none of Congress' business.

Sadly, the probable final outcome is that when the dust on this impeachment settles, the President will be "cleared," but that essential question will not be challenged/resolved in court, as it should be. The fact is that the Democrats DON'T WANT IT TO GO TO COURT, because as it stands now, they can continue to claim that this President has "obstructed" Congress.

The president will not be "cleared". His party members will find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says, and they will probably save him from removal from office for now, but the country knows he did what he is accused of, and will not excuse his behavior.

You must first present valid evidence before they can find him not guilty no matter what the evidence says.

bolton can do that. why are (R)s afraid? why won't donny allow anybody that could exonerate him to testify?

He requires no exoneration in the face of such prosecutorial failure. More of nothing is still nothing.

knowing how donny operates & has operated the last 40 years... he's all about showmanship. if he knew he had people & docs that would shirley put them thar evil dems 'in their place', practically ensuring another election win, he would put it on TV with lots of build up; & complete with a red carpet 'search light' ratings event. not to mention great campaign ads for him too.

that ain't happening for a reason.

Yes. Schiff writes lousy fiction.