America Moves Into Constitutional Crisis

[DanS]

We're into constitutional crises now, are we?

Go away for a few days and this is what shows up...

[Kuciwalker]

btw, che, Wiki agrees with me completely:

A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the smooth operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments). Low-level disputes of this nature are commonplace in everyday government operation, and the point at which such a dispute becomes a constitutional crisis is difficult to define precisely. However, a good guideline is that a crisis occurs when one or more parties to the dispute refuses to recognize the right or power of another constitutional body to resolve or arbitrate the dispute.

i.e. if the President refused to recognize authority of SCOTUS to enforce the subpeona

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Remind me again what crime the senate is investigating here?

[SlowwHand]

All I know is I've decided to vote democrat even if Satan is running as their candidate.
I'm sick of seeing this horse beat.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Remind me again what crime the senate is investigating here?

Firing people for political reasons. It's a Federal crime.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nope. Try again. Prosecutors being political appointees can be fired for practically any reason including politics. Aint pretty but thems the breaks. Unless the Dems have some clear indication that the firings were done explicitly to deter a given investigation (ala they got reason to think obstruction of justice) then they got nothin'. No crime nada.

[Berzerker]

Congress can subpoena whatever it wants. When the executive refuses to comply it is disobeying the Constitution.

Can the Prez and WH subpoena members of Congress?

I dont know that the Prez can fire attys for political reasons, or for not prosecuting cases against Democrats right before an election. Certainly WE should know if thats going on because its corrupt regardless of whats legal.

[Jon Miller]

Republicans and their supporters seem to glorify in being lawful evil. (in teh NERD speak)

JM

[PLATO]

Executive Priviledge is a well established precedent in the discussion of political appointees. Congress has no legal leg to stand on. Purely political posturing.

Additionally, no federal law has been broken because the federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President.

Finally, lest we forget...Bill Clinton fired them all when he took office.

Let's talk about something that is a real issue...like how the White House will respond to the wiretapping subpoenas. Congress actually has a dog in that race. This one is a none issue political hack job.

[snoopy369]

The firings are technically legal. The main question is whether various people lied under oath to conceal the reason for their firing being political, I believe.

Same as Watergate; Nixon probably broke no law (at least directly) except for lying about things to cover up what others did on his behalf (illegally). But the lying is something one can be rung up for no matter the case...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The firings are technically legal. The main question is whether various people lied under oath to conceal the reason for their firing being political, I believe.

Same as Watergate; Nixon probably broke no law (at least directly) except for lying about things to cover up what others did on his behalf (illegally). But the lying is something one can be rung up for no matter the case...

Exactly. The picture is being missed here. This is about lying under oath, which is what ALL prosecuted scandels in Washington ultimately lead to. Because if they lie about it to Congress or in a court, they can easily get slammed.

The reason the investigation began is because there are charges that the prosecutors were dismissed because they failed to initiate investigations that would hamper Democrats running for office. Not necessarily a crime, but an abuse of power, which can concievably be added to an impeachment proceeding (not that impeachment is going to happen, but they have the power).

[DinoDoc]

What's the rent like there?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Exactly. The picture is being missed here. This is about lying under oath, which is what ALL prosecuted scandels in Washington ultimately lead to. Because if they lie about it to Congress or in a court, they can easily get slammed.

The reason the investigation began is because there are charges that the prosecutors were dismissed because they failed to initiate investigations that would hamper Democrats running for office. Not necessarily a crime, but an abuse of power, which can concievably be added to an impeachment proceeding (not that impeachment is going to happen, but they have the power).

So in essence while Watergate was a fishing expedition on the pretext of investigating a known out and out crime, this is simply a fishing expedition with no criminal fig leaf cover.

God is it any wonder why the approval rating is sitting at 14% for these asshats?

[Ramo]

There are likely obstruction of justice charges out there...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes and there are likely 535 cases of corruption that need to be investigated as well.

Likely= fishing expedition