Nadler leading Cold War-style 'inquisition' against Trump

Congress can only exercise its oversight power with a valid legislative purpose in sight. Congress should not — and, according to the Supreme Court, cannot — conduct oversight for the sake of exposure alone. Absent a formal impeachment inquiry — which you have been clear your nascent investigation is not — oversight for the sake of exposure is exactly what your investigation appears to be doing.

Collins cited Watkins v. United States, a 1957 Supreme Court case that held “there is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress.”

I have to wonder why, given that Democrats and the Left seem to have no problem taking the Trump Administration to Court at the drop of a hat - that Republicans are not challenging these Democrat mega-witch-hunt investigations the same way.

Were Congress to usurp the executive function of prosecuting crimes, this government would be on the cusp of a constitutional crisis," Collins concluded.

In other words, this House/Congressional overreach is unconstitutional, in that they are attempting to conduct pseudo-criminal investigations in the hopes of uncovering heretofore undiscovered crimes - that have nothing to do with oversight of the Executive Branch.

Republicans, and other Conservative Groups need to call this out - in the Courts - before it gets completely out of hand.

Nadler and Schiff Appointing Themselves Special Prosecutors

Did either of them serve in the military? If not, I see through their thoughts that they are UN-AMERICAN.

The bottom line....

Trump isn't an outsider, he's an insider.

All of the politicians and private sector NGO's are in the same game. They all play it and have rules. Trump jumped ship, stepped outside of his "approved" roll and ran for potus. He won, and they won't let that indiscretion go unchecked.

You either play the game, within the rules, or fall on the sword of non compliance.

He either cared to much about disrupting the status quo, or wanted to go down as a contrarian. Either way, his "love' of the common man and non alliance with the powers that be will eventually cause him suffering.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Our first Progressive President, Woodrow Wilson wrote extensively on this subject.

To insert the Progressive agenda into American culture and law, it was necessary to subvert the powers of the legislative branch by using the judicial branch to make laws that could not be done in the legislative... because the laws that he wanted passed would not stand the test of the will of the people... the voting process.

All you are seeing now is the same formula being used again, as it has been for about 100 years.

There are more Progressive Republicans then there are conservative ones, unfortunately.

So although this may be brought up (and rightly so) the Republican party doesn't have enough conservatives to actually do anything about it.

So until they do, we are once again faced with battling the forces of By Any Means Necessary.

Which we will lose.

By "we" I mean the citizens of the United States.

They are actually getting sucked into the maelstrom and it is of their own making.

Wait for the Hammer to fall where it may.

Won't be long now, have a little more patience.

P

a reply to: mobiusmale

I've been wondering that myself....where is the Republican outage?
The only thing I come up with is that many Republicans don't like Trump either....he's not an Establishment guy, not a politician, and not part of the "Agenda".

a reply to: Lumenari

Maybe they can make a new party with the Conservative Democrats 🤔

I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. Are Progressive Republicans more conservative than Conservative Democrats? I think so, but the study on the poll in my signature lumps liberals, moderates, and conservatives from voters of both parties who participated as "Americans" which I find odd.

Take the Senate for example. You've got ONE West Virginia Democrat Senator that's known to vote with the Republicans on some issues. The only way he gets away with it is because of the unique demographic of his small, rather isolated state. I don't think I've known or even heard of someone moving to West Virginia by choice and I live in a bordering state. Then there's up to 5 Republican Senators that are known to vote with Democrats on specific things, but ultimately it's uncommon for them to do so and there's always a specific ideological reason.

If there ever is a third major party that even gets 5-10% of the House or Senate, I think the best color for them would be a deep purple. Red and blue combined and it'd fit right in. Libertarians already have yellow don't they? White would also be an obvious choice but who could pull off using white as a party? The idea would be a moderate third party, not a fringe on the left or right. Sorry, I'm daydreaming.

a reply to: r0xor

My father is in his late 70's and is an actual liberal.

An actual liberal is for getting the government out of your business (does anyone understand the 60's?) anti-war, pro-freedom and let's balance the budget and make the middle class bigger because liberals were for the working man.

The only differences between real liberals and real conservatives is how we spend the money that is left to make things better for our population.

That is so far gone now that it's sad...

a reply to: Lumenari

This is so true , it's all about free stuff and making government bigger . The old style liberals and conservatives are almost gone . I hope the masses wake up soon and realise most members of congress and senate do not care about the people at all

a reply to: Lumenari

As dumb as I think this whole Russia collusion/"witch hunt" is I think you could argue that it is shrinking the government.

First off, let's be honest, Trump isn't the first President that has been subject to this treatment. It's just been building to this point. But now that it has reached critical mass this is going to be the norm for every subsequent President.

Which means we're going to be seeing Congresses that oppose the President and Presidents that oppose Congress. Which in turn will limit the power of both branches.

So then all we really have to worry about is the Supreme Court. Which is why I'm confused by people that want the Court to only represent one viewpoint.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

My first post on this thread already answered your question about the Supreme court.

We want originalists on the bench... judges that are interpreting the original intent of the law they are judging.

Not a judge that has no problem making law (legislating) from the bench.

In the case of the Supreme court, there should not be two political sides.

The only side they should be on is the side of the existing law.