This interview tonight is a complete trainwreck for her.
NC Republican Congressman sets the record straight
- Thread starter Double Bogey Dawg
- Start date
Discussing potential post-election violence:"Anyone who does not support him or bend to his will, an enemy of our country..." Her mischaracterization of his quotes and the message she is sending is exactly what you have said in this thread is something that can lead to action.
Please provide Trump's exact quote on that, which Harris bases the rest of her comments on. I'll wait.
“We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by the National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”
Here is Trump promising to "root out the vermin", that he accuses of cheating in elections (irony is, in fact, dead) and working to destroy the country. The word "vermin", like the phrase "poisoning the blood of our country", is very specific verbiage that calls back to a certain German dictator.
Here is Trump, who even acknowledges that talking about the "blood of the country" was referenced in Mein Kampf, but doubles down anyway.
Dehumanizing and creating a class of "others" is a very well establish move in the authoritarian/fascist playbook. Vermin deserve no rights, no considerations, they are like rodents. A population "poisoning the blood" of a country is an existential threat, which justifies any action, legal or otherwise, to address the threat.
You honestly believe Trump would just take the military and order them to attack peaceful protestors? Honestly. I understand the "look at what he said!" shit....do you honestly believe his intent is to say that he will use the military to eff up peaceful left-leaning people? If that were the case, why didn't he call down the Navy Seals to keep him in office on Jan 6?
Nothing to see here. I'll chalk it up to even more evidence that no one on the left can seem to point to anything in the way of record, or things that have actually happened beyond J6, as a basis to vote for Harris. The fear prognostications are all they have when the peace and prosperity experienced in the Trump years versus the Biden / Harris years are what they are.
Ok. Don't listen to me. Listen to Trump's own former Secretary of Defense, who was asked about the topic directly by Trump.
I'll look forward to hearing why this first-hand conversation with a senior cabinet member and an expectation for worse in the future given the SCOTUS immunity decision should be dismissed as "nothing to see here". I assume we can agree that Trump is now entirely legally unconstrained from doing what he wanted to do last time, right?
Thankfully we will both be able to find out. You can bump this the day that as commander in chief he directs the military against peaceful protestors with opposing political views. I won't be holding my breath. Even if you believe he is a selfish asshole, doing things that would turn every American against him would not be in his best interests.
No way this happens, and I think you know that, notwithstanding the statements of a former cabinet member with a financial interest to make anti-Trump headlines.
His comments are no more trustworthy than judge Joe brown’s. Will is good at following the ads and working the talking points. He hadn’t mentioned former Trump employees recently. The ad comes out and he continues to post the same thing about former Trump cabinet members. lol. He was on the age thing for a while. It was the only thing he posted about.
Notice how he has left out the appeal court message to letits and her cronies. Be ready for sanctions. I can’t imagine why Trump would be pissed at his political opponents. Sheesh. I don’t even think dirty is the right word. Probably hurt his marriage. Hurt his children. And hurt his bank account and ability to do business in New York.
I do feel sorry for him. It is hard to find anything positive to hold on to. Plus he is in a lose- lose situation. Trump wins. He loses. If Kamala wins. He still loses. Because he will have to defend the stupid shit she will do and say over the next four years. Not to mention her idiotic policy ideas. It does suck to be a democrat. For us if Trump loses, we can finally turn the page. If he wins, we have a finite four year window with him. And things likely will get better with change.
Trump wins and Vance succeeds him. Honestly wish Vance was running for President. The criticism of him was never warranted....it was literally a campaign strategy to paint him as "weird" and the media jumped on it with no basis to do it. It never made any sense. Dude is very sharp and very talented. And the least "weird" to typical Americans of anyone running. And given the chance would make big fans out of a lot of middle / independent / centrist democrats.
Interesting response, in that you asked for a shred of proof that Trump would seriously consider using the US military on our own citizens and I believe I provided that and more.
Kudos for fully delivering on my prediction of why Esper’s detailed, first person account should be entirely disregarded. Inconvenient facts from credible people are inconvenient.
And as I said, the SCOTUS has now removed any legal guardrails for a sitting president and ordering the military to attack citizens would unquestionably be considered an official act. Thanks, Justice Roberts.
I think your confidence about the election is misplaced, but we will see soon enough.
Zinger, honestly you are too far gone at this point to bother trying to engage with. It’s all circular arguments and moving goalposts.
I’d still like to have that long discussed beer at some point, but only if we agree to avoid the topic of politics.
Cheers.
You just put the same stuff out over and over again will. And you don’t respond to anything in the posts I put out there anyway. I didn’t respond to you because you can’t meet in the middle if your life depended on it in regards to trump. Too far gone is you brother. Everyone keeps telling you this in posts. You should look in the mirror. You used to discuss things. You never acknowledge anything the left does as incorrect or wrong. How many times have I said to you, see, this is acknowledging what you are saying may have some truth to it. Sick of doing that and getting nothing in return. So I don’t respond to you directly.
How many posts about his age or slips ups have you made in the last 30 days. 100. How many this week about milley and others. I see you have moved on from milley because you silently agree his planning of the Afghan pullout is freaking horrendous. Funny how no one from the left mentions that. Why? Nevermind you won’t answer it anyway unless you try to blame Trump for it.
Last edited:
That's completely false and I can only assume you're clinging to Sotomayor's feverish dissent (which is ultimately meaningless) which was an embarrassment. The majority actually made it pretty clear that things like a President assassinating political rivals is not an act that would be covered by immunity, but Sotomayor decided to go off with all the intelligence of a Facebook rant.
Roberts explicitly writes "the President is not above the law," including in part of his opinion which mentions, "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law."
Sotomayor's position boils down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongers on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”
Sorry, you are dead wrong about this.
While the court (intentionally, I would argue) left much unclear regarding their ruling, they actual did provide a definition of what is considered immune.
The Court recognized absolute immunity for certain "core" official acts, meaning that actions directly tied to the president's constitutional authority cannot be prosecuted. For example, Trump's alleged attempts to leverage the Justice Department to influence election results fall under this category of absolute immunity
Additionally, the Court established a presumptive immunity for all official acts, which means that there is a general presumption that actions taken in an official capacity are immune from prosecution unless proven otherwise.
The SCOTUS ruling specifically identified Trump's efforts to pressure the DOJ into launching an investigation despite the total absence of evidence of voter fraud was determined to be immune because of Trump's constitutionally granted authority over the DOJ. Jack Smith removed those documented efforts from his updated indictment based on the SCOTUS ruling.
Guess what else Trump has constitutionally granted authority over? Article II, Section 2 grants that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;.."
Add to that the fact that Trump has already suggested he may invoke the Alien and Sedition Act of 1789. This is the law that allowed for the internment of US Citizens of Japanese origin, and it curtails the right of citizens to criticize the government (Trump) during times of chaos.
So, Roberts can say what he wants. The issue that so many legal scholars have with the immunity ruling is that, despite Robert's protests as to potential applications, the ruling makes it clear that official acts specifically identified in the Constitution are absolutely immune and that there is a presumption of immunity and for anything that could be considered an official act.
Given how Trump has lied about election fraud, how he talks about "vermin" and how he has said that enemies within like Schiff and the Pelosi's (identified by name) are a greater threat than Putin or Xi, and how he has already inquired about using the Armed Forces to shoot protestors, explain to me again how I've mischaracterized the situation?
So, I provide a portion of the actual opinion and words of Roberts and you provide a link to the ACLU. Liberal "political scholars" wailing and gnashing of teeth mean nothing. Those without a political axe to grind don't come to the same conclusions. It's clear (as I stated above) "not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law"
But, I get it. Your entire post is scare tactics based on nothing but innuendo and misrepresentations.
The link was inadvertently added and has been removed.So, I provide a portion of the actual opinion and words of Roberts and you provide a link to the ACLU. Liberal "political scholars" wailing and gnashing of teeth mean nothing. Those without a political axe to grind don't come to the same conclusions. It's clear (as I stated above) "not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law"
But, I get it. Your entire post is scare tactics based on nothing but innuendo and misrepresentations.
The rest of my post stands on its own. I don't care what Robert's color commentary is, I care about a reasonable analysis of the impact of the ruling. Robert's credibility, like the credibility of SCOTUS in general, is not strong these days.
Care to respond to what I wrote and explain what I got wrong, or would you like to take the tried-and-true approach of just dismissing it out of hand? That's certainly much easier.
All is forgiven 😘
Well, that's the big point of contention here, right? I think most of what you're referencing is breathless, over-the-top analysis based on politics & politics alone. It's unreasonable to reject the Court's own words and take someone else's biased opinion, I think.
Sure, to the same people with the breathless unreasonable interpretation that rejects all common sense.
Sure, but that's a lot to respond to which I'll counterpoint and say is your tried-and-true approach I've noticed: You throw a lot out there in the hope that it's too exhausting or time consuming to address.
I'll get back to you. My Lava-Lady has made some delicious baked calcite for dinner (is that technically cannabalism? Maybe, but I don't care. Mmmmmm)
Lava-Lady always takes priority. I prefer dolomite to calcite, for obvious reasons, but a home cooked meal is to be cherished and appreciated.
Regarding filibuster posts, you are obviously
confusing me with @Zonadog and @Moosefish. I am Flannery O'Connor to their James Joyce and Herman Melville, which I say with only the highest respect and appreciation.
Last edited:
I have melted 7 keyboards trying to type all this, so consider this my first and last attempt at a long response.
I think your mistake here is viewing all of this through the lens of Trump. But, my attempt to address your points:
- Investigations and bigger picture: POTUS asking the DOJ to investigate anything isn't illegal. That's an inherent power. An investigation is just that...an investigation. That would be like Lava-Man suing Congress because I don't like their new tax on bornite.
As the court said, attempting to imply motivation, whether illegal or political or any other motivation is ripe for problems. It's a core constitutional power, as head of the executive branch. Failure to provide this immunity is necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise paralyze governance.
It reinforces the separation of powers between the branches of government. The judiciary should not easily interfere with the executive branch's ability to perform its duties. Allowing lawsuits against a sitting or former president could lead to a scenario where the judiciary might unduly influence executive decision-making.
For a POTUS to execute their duties effectively, they must have the freedom to make decisions without fearing personal legal repercussions. This autonomy is crucial for national security, foreign policy, and emergency situations where immediate action is necessary.
Immunity ensures that the president can focus on governance rather than defending against legal challenges. The US benefits from an executive focused on policy, legislation, and crises rather than one engaged in legal battles.
The Constitution provides impeachment as the primary check against presidential misconduct. A president can be removed from office, so concerns about unchecked power are addressed by political rather than judicial means.
- Use of the Military: Soldiers are only obligated to follow lawful orders, no matter who is giving them, POTUS or not. They are not mindless automatons, who do whatever the master commands. That's why the "Seal Team Six" killing anybody fantasy is so stupid. It's blatantly and obviously an illegal order. Soldiers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution any anything clearly illegal or unconstitutional would be refused.
Article II, Section 2 does not grant any POTUS the authority to command the Army to engage in actions that violate law. It gives broad but not unlimited military command powers.
The scenarios floated as scare tactics for an "immune" POTUS would be a clear overstep of presidential authority under both law and precedent. While there are mechanisms like the Insurrection Act for domestic military use, using these in a targeted manner as has been floated would be unconstitutional, unethical, and practically unenforceable due to both military and public resistance, in addition to facing court challenges.
- Alien and Sedition Act: So, a POTUS using powers granted by Congress is illegal? If worried about abuse of this act by any POTUS is a true worry, then Congress should revoke the act or limit it. I am not sure what your argument here is other than you wouldn't like its use, which is valid. But, the presidential immunity decision has nothing to do with this.
/fin
I forgot to add:
Dolomite? Are you serious? Your taste is worse than your politics! CaMg₂ me with a spoon!
(I made a rock joke)
Gneiss joke.I forgot to add:
Dolomite? Are you serious? Your taste is worse than your politics! CaMg₂ me with a spoon!
(I made a rock joke)
I'm trying to get to a beer so will keep this as short as I can.I have melted 7 keyboards trying to type all this, so consider this my first and last attempt at a long response.
I think your mistake here is viewing all of this through the lens of Trump. But, my attempt to address your points:
- Investigations and bigger picture: POTUS asking the DOJ to investigate anything isn't illegal. That's an inherent power. An investigation is just that...an investigation. That would be like Lava-Man suing Congress because I don't like their new tax on bornite.
As the court said, attempting to imply motivation, whether illegal or political or any other motivation is ripe for problems. It's a core constitutional power, as head of the executive branch. Failure to provide this immunity is necessary to prevent frivolous lawsuits that could otherwise paralyze governance.
It reinforces the separation of powers between the branches of government. The judiciary should not easily interfere with the executive branch's ability to perform its duties. Allowing lawsuits against a sitting or former president could lead to a scenario where the judiciary might unduly influence executive decision-making.
For a POTUS to execute their duties effectively, they must have the freedom to make decisions without fearing personal legal repercussions. This autonomy is crucial for national security, foreign policy, and emergency situations where immediate action is necessary.
Immunity ensures that the president can focus on governance rather than defending against legal challenges. The US benefits from an executive focused on policy, legislation, and crises rather than one engaged in legal battles.
The Constitution provides impeachment as the primary check against presidential misconduct. A president can be removed from office, so concerns about unchecked power are addressed by political rather than judicial means.
- Use of the Military: Soldiers are only obligated to follow lawful orders, no matter who is giving them, POTUS or not. They are not mindless automatons, who do whatever the master commands. That's why the "Seal Team Six" killing anybody fantasy is so stupid. It's blatantly and obviously an illegal order. Soldiers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution any anything clearly illegal or unconstitutional would be refused.
Article II, Section 2 does not grant any POTUS the authority to command the Army to engage in actions that violate law. It gives broad but not unlimited military command powers.
The scenarios floated as scare tactics for an "immune" POTUS would be a clear overstep of presidential authority under both law and precedent. While there are mechanisms like the Insurrection Act for domestic military use, using these in a targeted manner as has been floated would be unconstitutional, unethical, and practically unenforceable due to both military and public resistance, in addition to facing court challenges.
- Alien and Sedition Act: So, a POTUS using powers granted by Congress is illegal? If worried about abuse of this act by any POTUS is a true worry, then Congress should revoke the act or limit it. I am not sure what your argument here is other than you wouldn't like its use, which is valid. But, the presidential immunity decision has nothing to do with this.
/fin
The DOJ had already looked into allegations of fraud and found nothing worth investigating. Trump had heard that from the DOJ and other sources and expressly wanted the DOJ to announce an investigation to create aircover for the fake-electors plot.
EDIT: Decided I need a cold beer more than I need to respond to this right now. However, using the magic of AI, I was quickly able to craft a solid response. I maintain the right to edit later.
Investigations and Presidential Immunity
- Limits of Executive Power: While it is true that the President has the authority to request investigations, this power is not absolute. The potential for abuse exists when a president can use this authority to target political opponents or dissenters. The argument that immunity prevents frivolous lawsuits overlooks the necessity of accountability for actions that may misuse this power. Historical precedents show that unchecked executive power can lead to significant abuses, as seen in cases like Watergate and Iran-Contra.
- Judicial Oversight: The assertion that courts should not interfere with executive actions fails to recognize the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. The Constitution provides mechanisms for judicial review to prevent overreach. The Supreme Court has historically ruled against presidential actions that exceed constitutional boundaries, emphasizing that no one is above the law, including the President
2
4
. - Impeachment as a Check: While impeachment is a constitutional remedy for presidential misconduct, it is not a practical solution for immediate issues of legality or ethics in governance. Impeachment is a lengthy and politically charged process that may not effectively deter or address urgent abuses of power, especially if the political climate does not support bipartisan cooperation.
Use of Military Orders
- Legal Obligations of Military Personnel: The claim that soldiers will refuse illegal orders does not account for the complexities and pressures they face in real-world scenarios. The Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity raises concerns about soldiers being compelled to follow potentially unlawful orders, creating ethical dilemmas for service members who may feel obligated to obey their commander-in-chief despite legal ambiguities
2
3
. This could lead to a dangerous precedent where military actions are taken without proper legal scrutiny. - Historical Misuse of Military Power: Historical examples demonstrate that presidents have misused their military command powers, often with devastating consequences. The Insurrection Act, for instance, has been invoked inappropriately in various contexts, leading to civil rights violations and public unrest. A president's broad military authority must be checked by Congress to prevent unilateral decisions that could harm citizens or undermine democratic principles
4
6
. - Separation of Powers: The argument for broad presidential command over military forces undermines the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Congress has the authority to declare war and regulate military operations, ensuring that military action reflects the will of the people through their elected representatives. Allowing a president unchecked military authority risks eroding this fundamental democratic principle
1
4
.
Alien and Sedition Acts
- Historical Context and Abuse: Citing historical acts like the Alien and Sedition Acts as justification for current presidential powers fails to acknowledge their controversial nature and the backlash they received at the time. These acts were seen as overreaches of federal power and led to significant public outcry against governmental abuse of authority. History teaches us that such powers can be misused, often targeting political adversaries rather than serving legitimate national interests
4
5
. - Legislative Safeguards: Rather than relying on historical precedents to justify current practices, Congress should actively engage in limiting executive power where necessary. This proactive approach would help ensure that no single branch can wield excessive control without accountability or oversight.
OK, that ended my day with a laugh so loud my kids asked me what's up. Thank you.
I will go back to my point I made above: Those that Trump would give orders to (within any part of the Executive Branch) are not automatons. Anything obviously whack would result in push-back and legal decisions. I would argue that anything so borderline that it's not obviously illegal would either not ultimately be a big deal or is probably being done for a presumptively good reason (i.e. legit national emergency).
This manufactured fear that he will unleash the powers of his office without the checks & balances of the other branches is ridiculous. As I said: Stop viewing this through a lens of Trump. There was a far-greater chance that a future POTUS would be burdened by lawfare & unable to do the job than Trump would ever do what is being suggested.
