What Is This CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS Democrats Are Warning Us About?.

There is not one, not yet... even the fbi doj over reach isn't one.

Those agencies will always over reach and claim it was in the best interest of the country, the job of congress and the president in this case is to put them back into place.

Right now our country is doing what it is supposed to do when things get out of whack.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

But I absolutely do disagree.

BFFTs point was, rather obviously, "Obama and Hillary were criminals, therefore Trump can do it too".

That is not how justice works, its not how criminal justice works, and it is not how the law works. Just because smooth, slick operators fell through the net rather than being caught in it, does not mean blatant thug gangster types like Trump, are not going to be caught, or should not be caught.

Again, just because people have gotten away with murder, does not mean that anyone caught in the act gets a free pass.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

It's a crisis because the democrats got caught prison-raping the Constitution.

So yes, the Constitution is in crisis because the Obama administration and the DNC and Hillary were abusing it.

Then why would firing Rosenstein or Mueller exacerbate the situation?

That's what I want to know too.

I'd do it if I was Prez and I had the legal powers.

I think Trump does have the powers to fire all of them.

He has the Power to tell Sessions to prosecute them also.

The right to a speedy trial would take on new meaning.

Because if Trump exercised his constitutionally granted powers, the dems would freak about abuse of power.

I think I have this straight.; but, in case I don't I am sure someone will correct me.

Even though neither is mentioned in the Constitution, they would seem to be the crux of the problem.
The Justice Department and the F B I are under the Executive branch of the U S government.
The heads of both serve at the discretion and pleasure of the head of the Executive branch, which is the President.
He can hire and fire those people who serve under him as he will. The only problem which could be applied in this case is :

18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

If these current probes and investigations should end without findings or are ended by other means, Trump can do as he wishes with out triggering even this statute. And I will be willing to bet he does just that.

Wait until he and his administration are no longer at any risk and those who have perpetrated this whole affair have exhausted all the "rope" they have been given. Specially since most of what has been shown has been against the D N C and associates. Some of whom may be in a position to be charged under this law. Then have a new head of these departments drop a hammer on everyone.

originally posted by: carewemust
Sunday, Feb 4, 2018

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he has NO plans to fire BOB MUELLER, who is investigating if Russia interfered in our 2016 election, or his boss, Assistant Attorney General ROD ROSENSTEIN. The White House once again confirmed this, 2 days ago.
Source - thehill.com...

But suddenly over the past 2 days, Democrats are hyperventilating, and declaring that if President Trump fires either Rosenstein or Mueller, a "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS" will consume our nation.
Durbin's Warning to DJT - www.realclearpolitics.com...

QUESTION: What is a "Constitutional Crisis"? Would it cause riots, a coup of some type, or the imposition of Martial Law? Senator Dick Durbin makes it sound like a U.S. Civil War would break out.

-CareWeMust

No such thing...President Trump has full Constitutional authority to fire anyone he wants, for any reason he wants...But it sure sounds menacing, doesn't it....

originally posted by: carewemust
Sunday, Feb 4, 2018

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he has NO plans to fire BOB MUELLER, who is investigating if Russia interfered in our 2016 election, or his boss, Assistant Attorney General ROD ROSENSTEIN. The White House once again confirmed this, 2 days ago.

Yes, they say those things repeatedly, but then they repeatedly said that Carter Page was a non-entity, and Trump said he didn't even know him!

Here's the problem.

The constitution is working like it's suppose to.

Separation of powers.

Trump haters lost the election.

Trump haters don't have the votes for impeachment( A GD joke to begin with because the bar is set so low as to PROOF).

So what a good Trump hater suppose to do ?

FRAME Trump and get the FBI and DOJ to do their dirty work.

If people can't see this farce for what it is.

We are INDEED an idiocracy.

a reply to: carewemust


If a civil war does break out, Democrats and their agitators would most likely be driven from this land within 72 hours. IMHO.

Not only does Trump have the full faith of the US military, but he has tens of millions of patriots who would never allow the Constitution to be subverted against him/us.

Patriots stand with the President. Oath keepers stand with the President. 3%ers stand with the President. Citizen militias also stand with the President. The majority of LE stands with the President. The military stands with their CINC, the President.

a reply to: smurfy


He was a volunteer. Wasn't even a real employee.

Furthermore, blaming Trump for Page's crimes is like blaming Hillary Clinton for Weinstein's crimes. Can't be done, not how things work in America.

The fact the investigation was started with no credible evidence/obvious bias/obvious conflicts of interest means anything found as a result of the investigation will be discarded by patriots in making our decision whether to allow action against Trump. And that's just how it is.

a reply to: Iscool


FIRE ROSENCRIME

FIRE BOB FOLLOWER (Mueller) as well

a reply to: tinymind

18 U.S. Code § 595 - Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments

Whoever, being a person employed in any administrative position by the United States, or by any department or agency thereof, or by the District of Columbia or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency thereof, or agency of such political subdivision or municipality (including any corporation owned or controlled by any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States or by any such political subdivision, municipality, or agency), in connection with any activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States, or any department or agency thereof, uses his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

...and FYI, this law doesn't apply to Trump. He isn't a "federal employee" he's the elected Executive, not employed administrative/otherwise.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

But I absolutely do disagree.

BFFTs point was, rather obviously, "Obama and Hillary were criminals, therefore Trump can do it too".

That is not how justice works, its not how criminal justice works, and it is not how the law works. Just because smooth, slick operators fell through the net rather than being caught in it, does not mean blatant thug gangster types like Trump, are not going to be caught, or should not be caught.

Again, just because people have gotten away with murder, does not mean that anyone caught in the act gets a free pass.

Given our justice system is founded on the principles of equal justice and the equal protection and application of the law, it is pretty much how it should work.

Arbitrarily applying the law weaponizes the justice system.

The idea that Obama and Hillary are just better at crime or less obvious doesn't mesh with reality.

Take the 'Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with the election' claim, for instance. Here's the law that's alleged to have been violated:

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

Recall Obama's speech in Berlin, in June 2008:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has signaled unease over the prospect of a possible speech by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Merkel has "only limited understanding for using the Brandenburg Gate as an election campaign backdrop, as it were, and has expressed skepticism about pursuing such plans," Thomas Steg, a spokesman for the chancellor, told reporters.
However, Steg stressed that the chancellor is "very happy" for Obama to visit Germany and meet her and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Berlin city officials said this week that members of the Democratic candidate's campaign had contacted them about what permission and security issues would need to be resolved before Obama could speak in front of the monument.

The Obama campaign has refused to provide specifics on his plans during an upcoming visit to Europe and the Middle East, including the candidate's interest in a possible event at the Brandenburg Gate.

"Senator Obama looks forward to his visit to Germany and his opportunity to meet with the chancellor," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. "He has considered several sites for a possible speech, and he will choose one that makes most sense for him and his German hosts."

The gate stood for 28 years behind the Berlin Wall in communist East Germany's heavily fortified border zone. Probably the capital's best-known monument, it was once a symbol of Germany's Cold War division and now stands for its reunification.

Steg noted that the Brandenburg Gate has become "a place with a particular exclusivity, intensity and symbolism" in view of past speeches by sitting U.S. presidents and events such as a large rally in solidarity with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

As a result, he said Merkel has voiced "great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany but in the United States to the Brandenburg Gate."

Steg said that "no German (chancellor) candidate would think of using (Washington's) National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate."

He stressed that giving permission to use the venue is a matter not for Merkel's government, but for Berlin city authorities. Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit said Tuesday that he would be "delighted" for Obama to appear at the Brandenburg Gate or elsewhere.

Link

So, Obama solicited the use of a venue for a campaign rally that could accommodate 200,000 people, from Merkel, and Berlin city authorities. The historical value of that venue was so great, that the request was denied.

HOWEVER, he did get permission to speak at the Victory Column. So he not only solicited a thing of enormous value from foreign nationals, he also accepted their 'counteroffer.'

This is how the media took him to task:

Barack Obama got rock star treatment from hundreds of thousands of adoring Germans on Thursday, who climbed lamp posts to get a glimpse of the U.S. candidate they would like to vote for but can‘t.

“He’s a pop star politician. Germany doesn’t have any of those,” said student Johannes Ellendorf, one of more than 200,000 people listening to Obama’s speech in the centre of Berlin.

Waves of applause roared through the wide boulevard linking the Brandenburg Gate with the Victory Column, as Obama told Berliners the United States and Europe had to stand together and be partners who listened to each other.

Link

AND

The press loved it. The visuals, with the warm "glow of sunset" were "powerful" and "hard to beat." Some commentators even evoked Ronald Reagan, whose speeches not only sang but were always perfectly staged. Political opponents groused about audacious overreach, but underlying the criticisms was jealousy at a well crafted—and television-dominating—political event.

All of this happened right in front of our faces and no one batted an eye. They celebrated Obama for that speech and speaking in Berlin.

That speech had a significant impact on Obama's 2008 campaign...thanks to the Berlin government's gracious donation of a valuable venue.

The law is being applied arbitrarily and is a weapon of politics. I'd rather the law not be applied at all than arbitrarily.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

But I absolutely do disagree.

BFFTs point was, rather obviously, "Obama and Hillary were criminals, therefore Trump can do it too".

That is not how justice works, its not how criminal justice works, and it is not how the law works. Just because smooth, slick operators fell through the net rather than being caught in it, does not mean blatant thug gangster types like Trump, are not going to be caught, or should not be caught.

Again, just because people have gotten away with murder, does not mean that anyone caught in the act gets a free pass.

I don't even know how to respond to this, because you will obviously misconstrue it as well.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Trump's guilty!

Even though we have more proof of his challenger and her party setting him and his team up.

Than we do of what Trumps been accused of.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

a reply to: Painterz

a reply to: yeahright

...and that is, as you so eloquently stated , is exactly the reason this is such a farce.

Only, by all appearances, the Democrats are allowed, via the bench, to circumvent the Constitution. Not that Trump is, he's doing nothing of the sort.

What does it mean?

Constitutional Crisis = massive triggered snowflake meltdown

This garbage is exactly why Mueller and RR both need to be removed.

originally posted by: yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Wotta crock. Given half of Democrats' raison d'être is to appoint judges to the bench who will circumvent the Constitution, the very idea that they give a full squirt about the Constitution at all is laughable.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.