It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump declares national emergency over wall

page: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

The 25th was seiously envisioned


Andrew McCabe says officials discussed removing Trump after Comey firing

According to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, who appeared on CBS This Morning on Thursday to discuss his interview with McCabe, the talks happened in the eight days between Comey’s firing in 2017 and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate Russian election interference and links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

The highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president,” Pelley said. “They were counting noses. They were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating this person would be with us, that person would not, and they were counting noses in that effort.”
...snip...

McCabe said he ordered the inquiry to protect the investigation into Russian election interference after meeting Trump, because he feared he would be fired and the investigation would end.

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency, and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage,” he said in a portion of the 60 Minutes interview released Thursday.

McCabe said he ordered the inquiry to protect the investigation into Russian election interference after meeting Trump, because he feared he would be fired and the investigation would end.

.. snip ...


Nohhhh!!!




posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

abcnews.go.com...
not unheard of here
well within his constitutionally appointed powers as POTUS
who doesn't want the usa to be safe and secure? bet we find out soon.


Yeah am aware of that but from the limited stuff I have read regarding reaction to this it looks like it could be controversial.


Of course it will be controversial...at least to Democrats.
In reality, taking executive action to save thousands of women, hundreds of thousands of Amercians (if not millions) and hundreds of thousands of children from crime is a pretty great thing to do.



Happy days for the next Democrat President. Climate Change? Gun Violence?

Both have more credibility by far as a National emergency than nonsense campaign rhetoric about an ineffective wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for.

BTW your numbers are bizarre.




The border crisis is about as big a crisis as you can get short of being invaded by a military force.
Climate change is natural and can't be changed. Gun violence pales into insignificance compared to the border crisis.

In addition, Climate change doctrine and the gun grab impinge upon citizens rights. Securing the border does not. It enforces citizens rights.

edit on 14/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The House may be voting tonight 😎

NE come Friday !!!!

PANIC !😎



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh yeah, I forgot, the only other way the right on ATS can communicate with the left is through weak memes. But hey, keep up the lazy non-confrontational approach you all have going here. It's much easier than thinking.

Like I'm shocked by these responses, after all the ATS right-wing-recipe calls for played-out name calling, completely redefining words, & petty memes when someone dares to question Donald "I would give myself an A+" Trump's 'smarts'.

Let me guess, what am I missing... surely you've got a few "NPC", "TDS", "REEEE", "snowflake"s or some other completely robotic low-impact rips still in ya. I'm sure there's a new word being used on reddit that you're missing out on.

While you all pat each other on the back for being good comrades for the team, all I hear is 'I am completely unoriginal, can't discuss a topic, and can't handle Trump being criticized'.

And this, as you all on the right like to say, "is why you will lose".



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Bring it on. Lets play a game Dems. You WILL lose.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

You sound whiny.
Just get over it.. It was over 2 years ago.

edit on 14/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
He should just make a deal with elchapo to pay for it.
Let him go for 5 billion.


Why when we can potentially use all his seized money for that purpose, which might end up at 14 Billion according to some estimates.
El Chappo will have to name who he bribed with evidence to get any sort of leniency.


Tell ted i said hello. Potentially it is a far stretch and trump will be lucky to scrape up a couple billion through emergency funding and that will all be held up in courts and after the first contractor fails to be paid for work then it all goes down the drain.


We will see which of us is correct.


“Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a ‘national emergency’ — a decision that is entirely within his discretion — more than 100 special provisions become available to him,” she wrote last month. “While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power.”

For example, the federal law that applies to the Defense Department includes a special provision on “construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency.” It says that in the event of war or the “declaration by the president of a national emergency … that requires use of the armed forces, the secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects … not otherwise authorized by law.”


Link

And the Kicker is that Congress helped expand the Executive branches Emergency Powers. Pretty Ironic huh?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Nancy Pelosi: "If Trump declares one, we'll do the same for our causes, when a Democrat is President!"

1. Democrats will challenge President Trump's declaration all the way up to the Supreme Court...and LOSE.

2. Republicans will challenge a Democrat President's declaration all the way up to the Supreme Court...and WIN.

By the time a Democrat is President, the Supreme Court will be SOLIDLY Right/Republican-friendly.

Pelosi, Schumer and the small-brained liberal pundits on CNN, MSNBC, are incapable of thinking beyond the next few months, lol.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh right, I forgot, that one too. Good minion. Goooood. You remembered to tell them lefties to 'get over it'.

No crying from me... go ahead Trump, try your highly questionable abuse-of-power "national emergency" ploy. But it's gonna hurt ya buddy. Sorry that Mexico couldn't be there for ya with their checkbook, I know you're all mad and stuff now cause they, the world, and the bulk of the country, see you for the gold-plated used car salesman that you are. No art, no deal. Just Trumpy flailing at this point.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian




Sorry that Mexico couldn't be there for ya with their checkbook,


Keep writing that book o' ignorance.

See, I don't even agree with exercising the national emergency act to accomplish this wall. Problem is, you folks have completely fallen of the logical edge and there is little to talk about. Basic facts are beyond grasping.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

www.vox.com... that is not how it works it takes 2/3rds of EACH senate and house to overrule a national emergency which has never been done

Others say Trump can do it — and it might be harder to stop him than you’d think If Trump does declare a national emergency for the border wall, there will almost certainly be challenges to him in both Congress and the courts. But it’s not entirely obvious they will stick. As we saw with Trump’s travel ban, he’s often willing to do things that go over the legal line, and then leave the courts to figure out where exactly that line lies. The National Emergencies Act contains a mechanism for Congress to overrule the president by passing a joint resolution out of the House and Senate. With Democrats in control of the House, it would presumably pass there easily, and Ackerman, the Yale professor, says he believes it could pass the Senate too. “Mitch McConnell does not have the power to bottle this up,” he said. “So that means that there would be a moment of truth for the Republican Party.” But thanks to a 35-year-old court case, Congress might not be able to override the president that easily. In the 1983 case Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, the Supreme Court decided that a one-house legislative veto violated the Constitution. After that, the National Emergencies Act was amended to require the joint resolution to override the president’s declaration — like a typical law, it requires a simple majority in the House and Senate and the president’s signature. Trump would probably not be willing to sign a joint resolution to reject his own emergency declaration, so that means that Congress would need to override him with a two-thirds majority in each chamber. “The safeguard you think is there in the National Emergencies Act turns out not to be there, or at least most constitutional scholars who have looked at that question closely think that the Supreme Court would never go for it, especially now that we have a Supreme Court with two new members who are unusually deferential to executive power,” Scheppele said. “It could be that actually nobody could tell him no.” McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor on Thursday, said he supports the president’s emergency declaration. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at a press conference on Thursday said congressional Democrats would review their options and are “prepared to respond appropriately” to Trump’s declaration.
they may try to challenge it i guess in court but again two new scotus members seem to put a damper on that option

and the only case law on the subject refered to president forcing steel mills to opperate which this is not same ball park
www.latimes.com...

When President Truman issued an order to seize control of the steel mills, no one questioned that the nation faced a true emergency. American troops had been pushed back in Korea, and a pending strike in the steel industry “would immediately jeopardize and imperil our national defense” and endanger “our soldiers, sailors and airmen engaged in combat in the field,” he declared in 1952. But the high court stood firm and ruled the president did not have the power, acting on his own, to order the steel mills to keep running. “The president’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” said Justice Hugo Black in Youngstown Sheet & Tube vs. Sawyer. No law gave him that authority, he said, nor can it be “sustained as an exercise of the president’s military power as commander in chief of the armed forces.” Justice Robert Jackson, who also served as the U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trial, warned of the danger of putting emergency powers in the hands of the executive. He cited Hitler’s use of a temporary suspension of rights to take full power in Nazi Germany. History “suggests that emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the executive who exercises them,” Jackson wrote. “Such power … has no end. If it exists, it need submit to no legal restraint.”
id reccomend reading the whole article as i posted more then enough of it



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: UKTruth

Oh right, I forgot, that one too. Good minion. Goooood. You remembered to tell them lefties to 'get over it'.
No crying from me... go ahead Trump, try your highly questionable abuse-of-power "national emergency" ploy. But it's gonna hurt ya buddy. Sorry that Mexico couldn't be there for ya with their checkbook, I know you're all mad and stuff now cause they, the world, and the bulk of the country, see you for the gold-plated used car salesman that you are. No art, no deal. Just Trumpy flailing at this point.

It will be interesting who the Democrats put up as their presidencial candidate in 2020; probably the person willing to buy that shiny 'spoofer' car from a shady carnival barker...but they have to get the loan approved first.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian

LOL you are such a cupcake. Go whine somewhere else. No one wants to talk to you because it does no good you will hate Trump no matter what he does. Thread could be labeled Trump cures cancer and you and your far left cupcake crew would be in here whining.

BTW redefining words? Like how the word racist has been redefined by the left so that only whites can be deemed racist?

Its nice to have a president that believes in the right of US sovereignty. Fact is trump is kicking @ss and every time he wins for America it hurts your fragile feelings. WAHHH WAHHH I cant have my open borders, mama mama mean oh Trump wont let hordes of illegals flood our country, leech off the social safety nets, drive wages down, add to the crime statistics, possibly kill American citizens and transform us into Mexico 2.0.

Here is another for you:





edit on 14-2-2019 by ker2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
Trump's crazy, but not stupid....





posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Ah I remember, somehow it's the left's fault that Trump stated over and over that Mexico would pay for the wall (over 200 times during his campaign alone). Or perhaps it's the fault of the big bad media for running clips of Trump stating it in his own words. You're right, there is little to talk about when his own supporters can't hold him to his own promises and have made an art out of deflection and moving the goalposts. But then again, that's what a used car salesman would do. How about that logical edge and basic facts again?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: okrian




Ah I remember, somehow it's the left's fault that Trump stated over and over that Mexico would pay for the wall (over 200 times during his campaign alone).


No. It's each individuals fault who thinks that Mexico would write a check for the wall. For example:



Sorry that Mexico couldn't be there for ya with their checkbook,


I do understand how this statement has to be framed in order to perpetuate the idiocy however.




You're right, there is little to talk about when his own supporters can't hold him to his own promises and have made an art out of deflection and moving the goalposts.


Aren't we discussing the wall? The same wall that he campaigned on and promised? Did we arrive in delusional land?




How about that logical edge and basic facts again?


See above.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

And that's exactly why people should stop electing people like Obama and Bush.

Ya know... Warmongers...



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Trump says he has $8 billion for the wall 😎



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

He's right. Many people will be offended. Simply because the media tells them to be offended.

He is also right that Trump's "approval rate" will drop. Simply because the media makes that number up.

In reality I think a lot of people will approve of his decision for sticking to his promise.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Who is reporting that?




top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join