Trump

[ShockingButTrue]

Indeed the memo is the most laughable garbage ever. Why if it was so damning of the DOJ and FBI wouldn't the party who is in power and the subject of the investigation just release it? Maybe because it's just speculative nonsense and really contains no real revelations...

Ditto.

Probably nothing in the memo all of us didn't know anyway... Unless it details the machinations of green lighting secret surveillance operations. Other than that, yes, it's old news. It's why Trump won. Ray Charles saw it:



This whole Russian farce is was just plan B. Nothing there. Now it's... obstruction (Plan C)? Hysterics.

He'll get impeached for bad manners before he's impeached for being a Russian spy, including obstruction. It's too obvious by now what's gone on since he won the Republican primary, and then intensified, on Jan. 20 of 2017. But hey, keep hope alive!

Trump won when The Witch wasn't put under oath. But it's conspicuous to say they would love to get him under oath. Think he'll do it?

[jdshock]

Do you all remember when the senate passed Russia sanctions 98-2? http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...to-trumps-desk

And then Trump reluctantly signed that bill because, of course, vetoing a bill like that would look incredibly bad? https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/polit...ill/index.html

Well, the Trump administration has now decided not to enact that bill... despite no veto... despite passing congress 98-2.... despite the optics of Trump's refusal to be firm even a little bit with Russia. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FI2V7

That's just not how the government is supposed to work. If you thought Obama was bad for executive power, you should be losing your mind over this.

[ShockCrazy]

You forgot! 419-3 in the house.

[ShockCrazy]

Do you all remember when the senate passed Russia sanctions 98-2? http://thehill.com/policy/internatio...to-trumps-desk

And then Trump reluctantly signed that bill because, of course, vetoing a bill like that would look incredibly bad? https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/02/polit...ill/index.html

Well, the Trump administration has now decided not to enact that bill... despite no veto... despite passing congress 98-2.... despite the optics of Trump's refusal to be firm even a little bit with Russia. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FI2V7

That's just not how the government is supposed to work. If you thought Obama was bad for executive power, you should be losing your mind over this.

And before people begin parroting that' the President has the power to waive the sanctions here is the text directly from the bill:

(b) Implementation.--The President may exercise all authorities
provided under sections 203 and 205 of the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702 and 1704) to carry out this Act.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
limit the authority of the President under the International Emergency
Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity'' has the meaning given that term in section 102 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
(2) Good.--The term ``good'' has the meaning given that term
in section 16 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. 4618) (as continued in effect pursuant to the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
seq.)).
(3) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the
meaning given the term ``device'' in section 201 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
(4) Medicine.--The term ``medicine'' has the meaning given
the term ``drug'' in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
SEC. 112. <<NOTE: 22 USC 9411.>> PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER AUTHORITY.

(a) <<NOTE: Time periods. Determinations.>> Case-by-Case Waiver
Authority.--
(1) <<NOTE: Reports.>> In general.--The President may waive,
on a case-by-case basis and for a period of not more than 180
days, a requirement under section 104, 105, 106, 107, or 108 to
impose or maintain sanctions with respect to a person, and may
waive the continued imposition of such sanctions, not less than
30 days after the President determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that it is vital to the
national security interests of the United States to waive such
sanctions.
(2) <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Renewal of waivers.--The President
may, on a case-by-case basis, renew a waiver under paragraph (1)
for an additional period of not more than 180 days if, not later
than 15 days before that waiver expires, the President makes the
determination and submits to the appropriate congressional
committees a report described in paragraph (1).
(3) Successive renewal.--The renewal authority provided
under paragraph (2) may be exercised for additional successive
periods of not more than 180 days if the President follows the
procedures set forth in paragraph (2), and submits the report
described in paragraph (1), for each such renewal.

(b) Contents of Waiver Reports.--Each report submitted under
subsection (a) in connection with a waiver of sanctions under section
104, 105, 106, 107, or 108 with respect to a person, or the renewal of
such a waiver, shall include--
(1) a specific and detailed rationale for the determination
that the waiver is vital to the national security interests of
the United States;
(2) a description of the activity that resulted in the
person being subject to sanctions;
(3) an explanation of any efforts made by the United States,
as applicable, to secure the cooperation of the government with
primary jurisdiction over the person or the location where
the activity described in paragraph (2) occurred in terminating
or, as appropriate, penalizing the activity; and
(4) <<NOTE: Assessment.>> an assessment of the significance
of the activity described in paragraph (2) in contributing to
the ability of Iran to threaten the interests of the United
States or allies of the United States, develop systems capable
of delivering weapons of mass destruction, support acts of
international terrorism, or violate the human rights of any
person in Iran.


As you can tell above, he can waive sanctions but only for a specific individual, and reports must be provided.

[ShockCrazy]

And the format is garbage... It will be fixed later.

[Kung Wu]

Well, the Trump administration has now decided not to enact that bill... despite no veto... despite passing congress 98-2.... despite the optics of Trump's refusal to be firm even a little bit with Russia. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1FI2V7

That's just not how the government is supposed to work. If you thought Obama was bad for executive power, you should be losing your mind over this.

Not exactly. Trump is so pissed at the Russians he's giving them the silent treatment!

[wufan]

The over reach of the powers of the federal government are abhorrent. The power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should all be scaled back.

[ShockCrazy]

The over reach of the powers of the federal government are abhorrent. The power of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government should all be scaled back.

I would like to point out in no way could the bill that Donald Trump is ignoring be construed as an example of overreach(there is some out there). It is a bill that's focus is among the explicit powers granted to the federal government in the US Constitution.

[ShockingButTrue]

[wufan]

I would like to point out in no way could the bill that Donald Trump is ignoring be construed as an example of overreach(there is some out there). It is a bill that's focus is among the explicit powers granted to the federal government in the US Constitution.

Not at all what I was trying to imply.

[jdshock]

Then it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Does overreach by Congress and the Supreme Court justify Trump's actions? There is no way to "scale back" the power Trump used. Because it's not a power he actually has. He didn't do anything but refuse to enact a law passed by Congress and signed himself. But the reaction by conservatives is never "Trump really should've done what the law required him to do." Why?

[wufan]

Nope. Not justified at all. All rightfully legislated laws should be enforced. All laws legislated should be judicial. All judgements should be constitutional. We should strive for that.

[Kung Wu]

He killed it!

[pinstripers]

He really did

[WuDrWu]

He's certainly not a great orator, but when the opposition's best comeback is "well it was just rhetoric and he didn't mean most of what he said because he's a bigot and a racist" then you've got a pretty good idea the speech was solid.

Anyone that didn't cry at the North Korean defector and his crutches is a liar or you have no heart.

[ShockingButTrue]

For the Dreamers everywhere in this beautiful nation...

[WstateU]

He killed it!

[jdshock]

I do love that the defector was honored, but none of you all have even a little cognitive dissonance over that story in the same speech as the illegal immigration/wall rhetoric?

Let me get this straight:

- Trump wants to limit immigration from "s***hole countries."
- Trump wants to build a wall along our southern border to limit illegal immigration.
- Trump has regularly talked about limiting the number of refugees we allow.
- I hate the terminology because I think it is racist/offensive/whatever else, but North Korea almost certainly qualifies as a "s***hole country" by any measure, right?
- China wants to/has wanted to limit illegal immigration from North Korea - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-18208831

This North Korean defector illegally crossed into China, attempting to escape a terrible situation, and he gets proudly displayed by Trump? That's my side! We're the ones who want to accept immigrants. We're the ones who want to accept refugees. We're the ones who don't want to split up families, and we're the ones opposed to the wall. What kind of bizarro world is this?

[wufan]

I do love that the defector was honored, but none of you all have even a little cognitive dissonance over that story in the same speech as the illegal immigration/wall rhetoric?

Let me get this straight:

- Trump wants to limit immigration from "s***hole countries."
- Trump wants to build a wall along our southern border to limit illegal immigration.
- Trump has regularly talked about limiting the number of refugees we allow.
- I hate the terminology because I think it is racist/offensive/whatever else, but North Korea almost certainly qualifies as a "s***hole country" by any measure, right?
- China wants to/has wanted to limit illegal immigration from North Korea - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-18208831

This North Korean defector illegally crossed into China, attempting to escape a terrible situation, and he gets proudly displayed by Trump? That's my side! We're the ones who want to accept immigrants. We're the ones who want to accept refugees. We're the ones who don't want to split up families, and we're the ones opposed to the wall. What kind of bizarro world is this?

Trump has been rather ambiguous on his proposal, so it’s not completely clear what his vision is for immigration other than less illeagal immigration.

Since there will still be legal immigration, I would hope that what he (and everyone) wants is merit based immigration. Those individuals that are most deserving based on accomplishment or based on political persecution should be the people we are inviting over, regardless of their ethnic or geographic identity. Under that policy, an escaped North Korean would be allowed into the US as an Asylum seeker. Currently that same individual would be allowed in.

Alternatively, and a distant second to the above, if we are going to have a visa lottery system that favors certain countries over others, then I would recommend that we award more individuals from democratic capitalistic societies, or again, those countries where political persecution is known.

The key to both of the above scenarios is that we are helping individuals that deserve it and helping individuals that will help the US. By bringing over the best and brightest, perhaps we will be able to help yet more immigrants and citizens alike! I dont believe that secure borders and restrictions on immigration are mutually exclusive to protection of asylum seekers even if China does.

[jdshock]

You don't think Trump would classify North Korea as a s***hole country? Because either (a) it is, and he wouldn't want the defector in the US or (b) it isn't a s***hole country, but the only difference is the skin color of the residents.

[wufan]

What’s the problem with B? It isn’t a shithole country and they are a different color, but so what.

How about C. If you are going to have a lottery system, then put the lottery in favor of countries where the citizens are most likely to hold similar values to Americans?