It’s clear that Thump doesn’t understand that Separation of Powers is the reason why he’s not supposed to interfere. And he’s whining about it.
Were they 12 months before the election? I don’t read the Washington Post, but IIRC the NYTimes announced they would start calling bullshit on Trump and stop giving false equivalency the light of day about 1 month before the election. Ted Cruz comment was “where the fuck were you 12 months ago during the primary???”
I’m asking you how Separation of Powers as stated in the Constitution applies to the President not interfering with a Department of the Executive Branch. Can you answer that?
An AP report on how Guccifer and Russia hacked the DNC.
What are you saying re: “a Department of the Executive Branch?”
If I may - Trump want’s to interfere with the Judicial Branch, which would violate the separation of powers between the branches.
It’s late, I’m tired, and I’m not looking up shit on this handheld, so correct me if I’m wrong, but — the Justice Department is under the Executive Branch, not the Judicial.
The original post that started the “separation of powers” part of this thread cited an article about Trump wanting to influence the Justice Department. The poster then opined that Trump couldn’t because of Separation of Powers. I wanted to know how that involves Separation of Powers.
Department of Justice (part of the Executive Branch of the US Government) and the Judicial Branch seem to be conflated quite often.
Still though, a president (mis)using the DOJ is extremely disturbing - and certainly didn’t help Nixon…
Thanks. Miss interpreted Justice as Judicial.
Trump himself may learn more about the Department of Justice. Hopefully sooner than later.
I guess I’m guilty of that. My bad. Sorry.
@manson1972: Why didn’t you come right out and tell me clearly that I was making that mistake instead of repeating your oblique question over and over?
Because maybe you knew something I didn’t. I’m not in the habit of telling someone they are wrong about things I am not 100 percent sure about. I would rather them tell me what they are thinking.
Heck, I just thought you were being sarcastic. Or ironic. Or quoting damning stuff from a news source that regularly skewers our god-emperor as a counterpoint to how so much of the media gives Himself all those get out of jail free cards. Or…
Ah, the hell with it. Bottom line, I got it and chuckled.
As I pointed out in another thread, the cabinet is not enumerated in the Constitution. The DoJ headed by the AG, as a cabinet position, was established by act of Congress about a century and a half ago. Since the Constitution would not have to be amended to change the dynamic of the DoJ, a Congress could, in theory, wrest control, or just gain due oversight, through a Bill for an Act. They would, probably, have to have a two-thirds majority to do so, though, because your average president would surely use the red stamp.
Tommy Vietor Tweeted it best: “If the press uncovered secret conversations between Trump and DOJ where he pushed the FBI to investigate Hillary, it would be a massive scandal. Watergate-level. But when he tweets it repeatedly, it gets brushed off.”
The purpose is to make the abnormal seem normal. Condition people to accept outrage as not so outrageous. We’re being perpetually gas-lighted to accept that this is a new understanding of what it means to be “presidential”. Indeed, Americans have been voting increasingly and purposely against “professional” presidents or expert presidents. A lot of people either enjoy the fact that Trump is behaving in this manner, or more likely, aren’t concerned because they operate and live under the assumption that what happens in Washington is theater and doesn’t really affect their lives anyway. As we will all eventually realize, these assumptions are fatal to a democracy, but there’s no convincing anyone of that now. Things for the time being seem otherwise normal. They will continue to seem normal - until they aren’t.
I’ve come to an unsettling realization, or maybe more accurately, been forced to admit the existence of something that’s been in plain sight for a long time. Namely, that many of our norms, values, customs, laws— ideals that are supposed to define and bind us together, as Americans— are still in place due to inertia, and not because they are something everyone wants. As you say, a frighteningly large portion of the population doesn’t care about, or want these things, and never has. They want to see Hillary Clinton arrested and imprisoned, whether or not she broke any laws. The rule of law and due process are distractions, if not impediments. They wholeheartedly support vigilantism. They would be fine with Trump commanding the DOJ, or even the military, against his enemies because they share those enemies. They would be thrilled to see Trump remove “activist judges,” or even have them arrested, if they rule in ways deemed unacceptable.
These are not fringe notions anymore— and it’s misguided, even dangerous, to assume they are.
You know…[esp. since this is the Pit and all, and have been meaning to say this for awhile]
Are you just the most whiny pessimistic waste of space on this board? I swear, if I hear just one more rancid Chicken Little hunk of spew from you, I am going to personally upchuck all of my meals from the last week. There simply isn’t a single ray of optimism anywhere in your worldview or psyche, is there? I’d conclude that you are a reverse concern troll, but even that is probably giving you more credit for self-introspection than you fucking deserve.
[back a bit on topic again] I think this is the death knell of the GOP. The landscape post 2020 (and I do admit that much depends on whom the Dems put up as their candidate) will likely look vastly different than today’s. Trump is currently destroying the Repub Party from the inside out, and it won’t be pretty, but I think it will lead to something better arising from the ashes.
“AFAIK the Justice Dept IS part of the Executive Branch. Someone correct me if I’m wrong” would have done it. Repeating the same question over and over when someone (ME) clearly isn’t getting it does not facilitate communication.
How does attacking the messenger invalidate the message? Please, I really want to know. I desperately want someone to invalidate the message.
I WISH **asahi **was just being a mopey, sad sack, Chicken Little. I WISH I could see some hope. Too much optimism and a naive *hope *that “Trump won’t be all that bad–no one could be all that bad” kept some people from going to the polls (no cite, just my gut feeling). I hope something better indeed rises from the ashes, as you put it, but in the meantime, somebody needs to keep pounding in this message even if it’s unpleasant to hear.
