Back to Comey v. Trump: Can the President legally give an Executive Order to someone to not testify before Congress? Would it be binding?
An executive order would be, at most, binding on people presently employed in an executive department. (In that context, they have the force of law as expressions of power Congress has delegated to the president.) Comey has ceased to be an employee of an executive department. Neither he nor Congress would be under any obligation to respect such an order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neither he nor Congress would be under any obligation to respect such an order.
Trump has operated so long in an environment where his employees have signed lifetime non-disclosure agreements, that I suspect he is incapable of considering the damage that people can do when they aren't fettered by such agreements.
Listen, the only elected office I ever held was Vice President of the Student Body my senior year of high school, but are we sure it isn't rocket science?Yes, I'm sure. I'm qualified to do rocket science, so I can speak with some degree of authority that governing is not it.....
Brain surgery isn't rocket science either.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
And the fact that you're good at one complicated thing doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good at another. *Glances at Ben Carson*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the fact that you're good at one complicated thing doesn't necessarily mean you'll be good at another. *Glances at Ben Carson*
Now that's unfair Rednal. We all know the reason why Ben Carson is a horrible politician is because the real Ben Carson is trapped in the sunken place while a rich white man controls his body.
To be fair, Ben Carson isn't all that great a doctor either.
No. Executive orders have little if any legal force of their own, and even an act of congress couldn't violate the first amendment like that.
No. Executive orders have little if any legal force of their own, and even an act of congress couldn't violate the first amendment like that.
I don't know, executive orders can do some f~$!ed up stuff!
EDIT: Although it does seem that 'Public Law 503' was needed to give the executive order fangs.
On March 21, 1942, Roosevelt signed Public Law 503 (approved after only an hour of discussion in the Senate and thirty minutes in the House) in order to provide for the enforcement of his executive order. Authored by War Department official Karl Bendetsen—who would later be promoted to Director of the Wartime Civilian Control Administration and oversee the incarceration of Japanese Americans—the law made violations of military orders a misdemeanor punishable by up to $5,000 in fines and one year in prison.
In either case, the Constitution doesn't mean anything if they choose to ignore it.
And on slightly more topical news, the 'person of interest' in the White House that the investigation is focusing on seems to be Jared Kushner. ...Yeah, this is definitely gonna be interesting.
|
I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?
I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?
Well, he did outmanoeuvre Bannon, so he could actually be a person to watch out for.
Neither he nor Congress would be under any obligation to respect such an order.Trump has operated so long in an environment where his employees have signed lifetime non-disclosure agreements, that I suspect he is incapable of considering the damage that people can do when they aren't fettered by such agreements.
I think, more importantly, that as what he's done has been a matter of business. The people he's done it to have been business people, ie, people there for the money. Which means that as long as it's in their best interests to keep quiet, they kept quiet.
I don't think he understands any different kind of motivation or moral imperatives: people that will try to do something different even if it costs them money or even jail time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say it again: Don't underestimate him. Everyone did, and he became president. The game isn't over until it's over. The only one who wins from a casual, dismissive attitude to him is Trump himself.
Take the problem seriously. Mock the hell out of him as well.
I will say it again: Don't underestimate him. Everyone did, and he became president. The game isn't over until it's over. The only one who wins from a casual, dismissive attitude to him is Trump himself.
Take the problem seriously. Mock the hell out of him as well.
I don't think their is much of a chance of that stopping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of purpose or method of origin, the more laws the exist the more laws get ignored. Enforcement is a much varied point of focus, pushed by the attentions and agitations of the public and the training of officials. Trump's presidency is a signpost that might makes right, rich people are good people, and wealth trumps (heh) politics (and religion).
Trump seems to operate as dirty opportunistic business man. So if he gives secrets to the Russians, he's just paying a debt. His vision is that of world oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy. Religion, politics, and race are just tokens to play in pursuit of this goal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not much more trouble. He was accused of using undue influence to get his brother out of his father's will, and then withdrew medical benefits for his nephew's kid after promising to pay them because he was angry at their family (said kid had developed seizures leading to cerebral palsy when born and apparently needed said benefits).
I... honestly don't think he truly cares for anyone besides himself. He likes those who are loyal to him, but in the past few weeks alone has been constantly making his closest supporters look like fools with all the changing stories. Loyalty is a one-way street in that administration.
I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?
I have to admit that I have seen very little about him outside of work stuff (he's been put in charge of this, that, and the other thing...).
I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?Well, he did outmanoeuvre Bannon, so he could actually be a person to watch out for.He's family, which gave him a big advantage in the court politics.
That also means Trump will have more trouble throwing him under the bus to save he own skin.
I don't know if Trump considers in-laws to be family. He doesn't seem to hold to any other traditional standards of loyalty, so I wouldn't assume.
I don't know if Trump considers in-laws to be family. He doesn't seem to hold to any other traditional standards of loyalty, so I wouldn't assume.I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?Well, he did outmanoeuvre Bannon, so he could actually be a person to watch out for.He's family, which gave him a big advantage in the court politics.
That also means Trump will have more trouble throwing him under the bus to save he own skin.
Trump's Son-in-Law seems to have become well entrenched and well insulated compared to the rest of the WH staffers. Given how very fond he is of his daughter, Jared is probably in as safe a position as possible save for Ivanka and Trump himself.
Trump's Son-in-Law seems to have become well entrenched and well insulated compared to the rest of the WH staffers. Given how very fond he is of his daughter, Jared is probably in as safe a position as possible save for Ivanka and Trump himself.I don't know if Trump considers in-laws to be family. He doesn't seem to hold to any other traditional standards of loyalty, so I wouldn't assume.I was going to make a joke about Kushner sharing a cell with his old man but then realized I have no idea if hes worthy of jail or not. I mean does anybody know anything about him?Well, he did outmanoeuvre Bannon, so he could actually be a person to watch out for.He's family, which gave him a big advantage in the court politics.
That also means Trump will have more trouble throwing him under the bus to save he own skin.
He's probably the second most secure person in the WH (after Ivanka), but he's not immune. There's a potential he's taken Russian or Chinese money, if the FBI can trace it directly and tie it to a specific WH decision, he'll become a liability.
Interestingly, Reince Prebus might actually have a lot of job security. Even though he's barely influential in the building, and there are constant rumors of him being fired, if they do fire him he'll be impossible to replace. Normally the Chief of Staff job is something coveted by hundreds of qualified individuals. Right now it's largely seen as a career ending position. No one wants to take his job. If he's fired someone would fill his office, but it would end up being a serious downgrade from Prebus... which is saying something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Irontruth: Kushner is also, apparently, one of the people being specifically investigated. If he is dirty - and given how much Trump uses him for stuff, that wouldn't surprise me at all, but I'm holding to our principle of innocent until proven guilty - they'll probably find something they can pin on him.
...
If nothing else, they could just ask Trump to tweet about the things Kushner totally didn't do.
"I never asked Kushner to go get some money laundered through Mobster A! Fake news!"
"Oh, good, now we know what to investigate. All right, boys, let's go trace this money...."
|
Chaffetz says that he is going to talk to Comey some time today and ask if he has copies of the memos. So maybe we'll hear an update on that, but more likely there won't be anything new until Comey testifies... possibly some time next week.
Or... maybe Trump will step in to make things worse for himself again. You never know.
I dunno if Trump WOULD throw Kushner under the bus. From what I understand if Trump likes someone, he kind of develops an irrational loyalty to them. Sources in the White House say that he still regrets having to let go Flynn, and even called him a few times post resignation.
I think its far far far more likely that his staff will throw HIM under the bus if more actionable material is discovered. Flynn already wanted immunity to testify. And leakiness of the White House is in part a result of factional infighting with team Trump ranks, with different factions leaking information to make another faction look bad.
One wonders if there's a structure for door prizes for White House staff in this term in 30-day increments with bonuses accruing every 6th month...
@thejeff: I think Chaffetz is quitting at the end of June or something. It's soon, but not QUITE yet.
Apparently Flynn has announced he will not be responding to the Subpoena and will instead be pleading the 5th.
Actually I assume with all the traveling and such we might have a light week regarding tweets.
Trump: 'I never mentioned the word or the name Israel' to Russians
... i just said that he emailed me the information from his sons bar mitzvah, at 2 in the morning. That could have been any jewish country in that time zone...how could i know they'd figure out the right one? If they had. Which i definitely didn't say just now that they did...