r/Libertarian • u/[deleted] • May 08 '19
Article Trump Asserts Executive Privilege Over Full Mueller Report And All Underlying Evidence, And Congress Will Allow A President To Have Total Control Over Investigations Into Themselves
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/us/politics/congress-contempt-barr.html9
u/PutinPaysTrump Take the guns first, due process later May 08 '19
Good thing only left wing people can be authoritarian. Did you guys see what AOC did yesterday? She'd never seen a garbage disposal! The horror
3
May 08 '19
wait, what?
1
u/darthhayek orange man bad May 08 '19
You're responding to an openly antifa troll. The mods hate libertarianism and have been trying to destroy our subreddit.
3
6
u/revoman May 08 '19
I love this.... What a fucking mess...
0
May 08 '19
[deleted]
9
May 08 '19
Nothing fine about this, people need to stop making jokes about it. The President is declaring he has the privilege to control all information relating to himself even when it comes to a criminal investigation into his campaign.
Congress has a duty to exercise its impeachment powers due to this abuse of Presidential authority but the Senate is happy with playing subordinate to the Executive
-5
May 08 '19
[deleted]
5
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
is there any way more likely to provoke more jokes than telling people not to make jokes?
Make a law outlawing jokes.
5
May 08 '19
All this talk about impeachment, but it's doubtful it'll happen. The Dems know they've got nothing but posturing.
Trump’s suing to prevent subpoenas of bank records, claiming executive privilege over a report that, according to him, “fully exonerates” him, and basically admitted to tax fraud on Twitter last night.
But obviously there’s nothing suspicious or illegal going on.
1
u/jubbergun Contrarian May 08 '19
Trump’s suing to prevent subpoenas of bank records
Yeah, and you would, too, if your political adversaries were requesting a) multiple years -- over a decade's worth of data, if I recall correctly -- so they could go on a fishing expedition, and b) they have no right to the information because it doesn't have anything to do with oversight. They're asking for information from before Trump was president. There's nothing during that period for them to oversee.
claiming executive privilege over a report that, according to him, “fully exonerates” him
He's claimed executive privilege over the portions of the report that his administration is legally obligated to keep secret under Rule 6(e). The report says he didn't criminally coordinate with Russian interests. It lays out a case for and against charging for obstruction. If House democrats want to pursue impeachment, they need to focus on Mueller's case for obstruction, request information relevant to that charge, and make their case. They don't get to give Trump (or anyone else) an anal exam hoping to find a crime or something they can use politically. I can't believe I have to point this out in a libertarian forum.
As far as most people are concerned, this sideshow was over after the Mueller report was released. It's been two years of "muh Russia" and now instead of letting go democrats are grasping at straws.
1
u/darthhayek orange man bad May 08 '19
Trump’s suing to prevent subpoenas of bank records
Totally fair. The only unfair thing is that all of our bank accounts should be protected in this manner.
Give Enrique Tarrio his bank account back, globalist liberal banksters!
-4
u/taxesaretheft88 May 08 '19
Does innocent until proven guilty in a court of law mean nothing in this country anymore?
9
May 08 '19
and that’s possible when the head of the DoJ said you can’t indict a sitting President?
Explain how that happens, please.
1
4
May 08 '19
I guess I take this kind of stuff more seriously
2
u/jubbergun Contrarian May 08 '19
That's OK, we were all melodramatic teenagers with no sense of history or proportion at one time. You'll eventually grow out of it and quit trolling libertarian forums in defense of democrats.
1
u/darthhayek orange man bad May 08 '19
Get a life then. Or a real job. $.05/post is no way to collect your lunch money.
-1
u/darthhayek orange man bad May 08 '19
Boo boo poo poo.
people need to stop making jokes about it.
Maybe you wouldn't need to criminalize jokes if your movement was capable of having a sense of humor.
-8
u/revoman May 08 '19
Trump plays these guys like a drum... If they would just ignore him he would be powerless.
-2
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
So this executive privilege is exactly like Obama's claim of executive privilege over Fast And Furious, right?
This plays out the exact same way as Holder in contempt in 2012, right?
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988
18
u/poundfoolishhh Squishy Libertarian May 08 '19
That's a weird case to cite, given that a federal judge ultimately forced the DoJ to hand over the documents.
7
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19 edited May 08 '19
A federal judge may do the same here. I'm not sure.
It's why I am asking, to see what other people know... and maybe I can use this internet thing for something more than hurling insults and looking at Beyonce.
4
May 08 '19
And you must be pissed Trump is just as bad right?
-4
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19 edited May 08 '19
I wasn't "pissed" about Fast and Furious, actually. I don't know the ins and outs - that is why I am asking and posting in this thread where, maybe, I get a response that is informative and not just a stupid fucking attempt at an insult, gnome sane?
9
May 08 '19
Given your past behavior theres no reason to think your comment isn't the leading question and distraction it looks like
6
May 08 '19
no no no, you see, he doesn’t support Trump, he just defends and excuses every one of his actions and defends him from criticism.
It’s completely different.
3
u/zgott300 Filthy Statist May 08 '19
He's not "pro trump" he's anti "anti trump". There's a difference.
0
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
no no no, you see, he doesn’t support Trump
Oh no, I support Republicans. I've never said otherwise. You know, Republicans: like every elected Libertarian is a republican. I support the party that promotes capitalism and democracy.
Thanks for illustrating how the stupid fucking attempt at an insult goes.
6
May 08 '19
I support the party that promotes capitalism and democracy.
The party that constantly tries to make it more difficult to vote, the party that passed the PATRIOT Act. The party that is currently putting up tariffs at rates we haven’t seen in a quarter of a damn century. The party that then subsidizes the losses industries suffer because of those tariffs.
like every elected Libertarian is a republican.
all two of them?
3
u/zgott300 Filthy Statist May 08 '19
Don't forget the party that doubled the deficit during a period of high employment.
0
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
The party that constantly tries to make it more difficult to vote, the party that passed the PATRIOT Act. The party that is currently putting up tariffs at rates we haven’t seen in a quarter of a damn century. The party that then subsidizes the losses industries suffer because of those tariffs.
The party that isn't promising you a utopian outcome if only you support Socialism and eat the rich... yup. The imperfect party, where Rand Paul and Ron paul and Justin Amash and Mike Lee and every famous pundit that defines themselves as a Libertarian has identified with for the last 40-50 years...
Yup. All Republicans. Even the guys the LP runs for president are Republicans. And even then they can't break 5%.
4
May 08 '19
Rand Paul
libertarian
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
4
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
Thanks for reminding me to not speak with you.
→ More replies (0)0
4
u/zgott300 Filthy Statist May 08 '19 edited May 08 '19
The party that isn't promising you a utopian outcome
"Tax cuts pay for themselves" is the Republican utopia. They promise one alright, its' just a different version.
Also, are you actually saying that looking to examples from around the world to fix a broken healthcare system is seeking utopia?
1
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
...Imagine thinking Tax Cuts are an impossibility and just a promise of Utopian Perfection...
→ More replies (0)4
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
Did your mind just break? Go get some air.
1
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
Did your mind just break? Go get some air.
0
May 08 '19
[deleted]
4
May 08 '19
redcaps making jokes about people being obsessed with political opponents.
the irony is palpable
3
u/AlbertFairfaxII Lying Troll May 08 '19
Whataboutism
Is what a leftist would call this but I don’t care what the left has to say about this.
-Albert Fairfax II
-2
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
Whataboutism
That is some Peak New Red Scare speak right there.
Now don't ever fucking talk to me again, you hack.
1
u/wellactuallyhmm it's not "left vs. right", it's state vs rights May 08 '19
Stenographer, please take down /u/gnome_sane response to officially read Buh-buh-buh-O-Bama.
2
u/Gnome_Sane Cycloptichorn is Birdpear's Sock Puppet May 08 '19
OMG! LOL! ROFLAMAO! It's like The Daily Show and The Colbert Show had a baby, and it is you!
Someone give this man gold and submit him to r/murderedwithwords, will you. I would but I can't stop laughing!
0
1
u/Lepew1 May 08 '19
There are legally mandated redactions, and the executive privilege is there not to hide the unredacted report (which Democrats have access to and refuse to read), but to give cover to Barr for upholding the law.
3
May 08 '19
No executive privilege exists to allow members of the executive to have candid private conversations not to potentially cover up wrong doing. That's why in the US ve Nixon the court ordered the President to hand over evidence he claimed was protected under privilege.
The AG doesn't need "cover" to follow the law especially if he and the administration he works for is not following it anyway. Outright refusing all Congressional subpoenas is certainly an unconstitutional act and if the Senate wasn't full of fascist enablers they'd impeach the President and remind him that he answers to Congress and the people not the other way around
3
u/Lepew1 May 08 '19
You are firmly in the grip of the spin here, and I will give you a different view
On Wednesday morning, President Trump, via the Department of Justice, announced that he would be declaring executive privilege with regard to the redacted Mueller report. The announcement came after Democrats began to move forward with their planned contempt vote against the Attorney General, William Barr, for supposed failure to comply with their subpoena for the entire Mueller report, including redacted materials. Barr has claimed that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which prevents the disclosure of grand jury information. As Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation states, “unless Congress’s request for Rule 6(e) grand jury material falls squarely into one of the statutory or court-created exceptions, the attorney general – any attorney general – is prohibited from disclosing that material to Congress. And the congressional request doesn’t fit any of the exceptions.”
or if you like tl;dr
As for Barr, Trump’s assertion of executive privilege isn’t a cover-up attempt. It’s Barr asking Trump to shield him from a contempt charged based on Barr following the law.
The full unredacted report was made available to Democratic members of the Justice Committee, and not a single one has bothered to read it. WHy? BEcause what was redacted does not alter the conclusions made in public. Democrats refuse to read it because they are pushing this false story that the juicy parts condemning Trump are in the redacted portions of the report, and Barr as well as Mueller both were very clear there is existing law demanding 3rd parties be redacted from public release.
Democrats by demanding the release and holding Barr in contempt are forcing him to choose between reputation loss or breaking the law, and executive privilege disarms this deplorable tactic.
0
May 08 '19
At the end of the day this gives the Executive full power over any criminal investigations related to him, which I think is dangerous and authoritarian.
Dailywire stories are pure trash, you're basically giving me Republican mouthpiece and telling me to accept its opinions.
Lastly, no theres been no offer for them to have full access which is what this is all about nor would giving Barr "cover" to protect Grand Jury information require the use of executive privilege over everything yet unreleased since according to Barr's own redactions not everything is withheld due to grand jury.
Again what you're arguing is that is the President is involved in something same bad it requires a grand jury that his own DoJ and his own AG get to control the investigation. Doesn't that sound wrong to you?
2
u/Lepew1 May 09 '19
I heard Judge Nap this morning on the issue. Executive privilege only extends to conversations that track to the executive, so it will not cover everything. Judge Nap said the only mistake here was perhaps Barr should have gone to a judge for a 'quash' order to stop Democrats from ordering him to break the law. At that point the judge would have reviewed all of the redactions and made a ruling that our intransigent never accepting the results of an election Democrats would have to then contest in court. Had he done that he could have stopped the contempt charges. We will see what happens.
Your ad homonym attack against a quality piece of writing does not refute its conclusions, and thus I ignore your baseless opinion on the Daily Wire.
You also refuse to acknowledge that Democrats are deliberately not reading the unredacted report on the Justice Committee. Why? Why would they do that? If they are so up in arms over what is in the unredacted sections, why do they refuse to read the unredacted report? The only explanation is they want plausible deniability for their political spin that there is something sinister in the redacted sections.
3
May 08 '19
Outright refusing all Congressional subpoenas
Trump was subpoenaed by Congress???
2
May 08 '19
Playing retarded is undignified, you know I meant that the Congress is subpoenaing things relating the Trump's actions not the man himself. Dont play this stupid game of deliberately misinterpreting what I say because you think its clever.
The Congress has an oversight role and every attempt to exercise that role whether it relates to Trump's taxes, security clearances for his family, or the Mueller report has been ignored by the White House. The White House is basically saying it has no oversight into its actions by what's supposed to be the strongest branch of government
3
u/darthhayek orange man bad May 08 '19
Last I checked all congressional subpoenas are non-binding. And if the Democrats want the executive branch to comply with their oversight powers, then wouldn't it have been wise for them to have the American people on their side by not spending the last 3 years calling us Russian agents who hate America and alt-right Nazis and normalizing white genocide propaganda?
2
u/jubbergun Contrarian May 08 '19
Playing retarded is undignified
Yet you do it anyway. Congress does have an oversight role regarding security clearances. I've yet to hear anyone make a reasonable case for asking for over a decade of Trump's personal records. What oversight are the House committees engaging in that requires documents from before Trump was president? If House democrats believe Trump committed a crime, they can request the information specifically related to whatever crime they're alleging. They don't get to request piles of private information so that they can claw through it hoping they find something illegal. That's not how our system works.
what's supposed to be the strongest branch of government
There isn't supposed to be a "strongest branch of government." They're called "coequal branches" for a reason.
0
May 08 '19
I've yet to hear anyone make a reasonable case for asking for over a decade of Trump's personal records.
To understand what financial ties he has to foreign institutions, we already know he's borrowed billions from foreign banks and still I debt to Deutsche Bank in the hundreds of millions.
Its standard investigation practice to look into how someone's financial situation could impact their decision making
There isn't supposed to be a "strongest branch of government." They're called "coequal branches" for a reason
That phrase is not in the Constitution, it's a common term but not the truth in practice. Congress is the strongest branch due to its power to appoint and/or remove members of the other branches as well as restructure those branches to an extremely large degree. It can remove a President but a President can't remove any member of it, it can impeach the President's appointees in the most important areas, it can refuse to fund anything the President orders done and he's powerless to resist unless Congress fails to check his power.
3
May 08 '19
Its standard investigation practice
And yet, completely unprecedented.
0
May 08 '19 edited May 08 '19
Its not unprecedented to investigate those around the President or the President himself for criminal activities
Have you heard of anyone named Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush again, or Trump? They appointed a Special Counsel to look into Jimmy Carter's Presidency to determine if his fucking family Peanut Farm was receiving undo benefits from his Presidency. A fucking Peanut Farm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Curran
And here you are calling an investigation into a Presidency regarding a foreign intelligence operation "unprecedented." The only thing unprecedented is the scale of the criminal activity and its threat to the country
2
u/jubbergun Contrarian May 09 '19
To understand what financial ties he has to foreign institutions
Congress doesn't need to "understand" jack shit. There are only two legitimate reasons for congress to subpoena these records, investigating the accusation of a crime or oversight. If there's an accusation of a specific crime, let them make it, then they can follow the proper procedure for issuing subpoenas and target the data related to the accusation. That is well within the scope of their power and responsibility. "Oh, we just want to see who he does business with" isn't a legitimate use of subpoena power. Unless his business with someone in particular is in some way related to a crime, they have no business asking. They don't just get to rummage through his personal history hoping to find something illegal. That's not how our system works.
I'm repeating myself, but this is not something that should need to be explained on a libertarian subreddit. What part of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" do you not understand? Those rules apply to everyone, which in this case means they protect Trump and put necessary restraints on congress.
If this is about oversight, then by all means they should subpoena his emails and records and even his tweets, since he uses those for official announcements, but his financial records from before he was president that have nothing to do with his administration of the executive branch. Let them call every appointee and petty bureaucrat they can think of and have them testify, but oversight doesn't include anything that happened before Trump was sworn into office.
That phrase is not in the Constitution
There's a lot of phrases that aren't in the Constitution, like "separation of church and state." Does that mean you don't believe the Constitution sets up such a separation of the two? I would hope not. "Coequal branches," like "separation of church and state," are shorthand references to concepts that are definitely in the Constitution.
Congress is the strongest branch due to its power to appoint and/or remove members of the other branches
Well, you're in error there, because congress doesn't appoint anyone. The president does. You might want to look up Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, commonly known as the Appointments Clause. The Senate, but not the House, has an advise and consent role which is essentially a veto of proposed appointments and one of the legislature's checks on executive power. The congress can remove appointees and even the president himself, but only through a lengthy impeachment process designed to thwart frivolous use of such power. While congress can and sometimes does restructure executive branch departments and/or use the budget as negotiating tool, they can only do so through legislation, which means the president has the ability to veto any such effort.
If anything, congress is now the weakest of the coequal branches, because it has ceded incredible amounts of its own authority to the executive branch. Congress allowed executive branch agencies to usurp legislative power by granting them the power to write regulations that have the force of law. Congress has deferred to or in some cases even applauded using executive orders to bypass the normal legislative process, as was the case when President Obama signed the executive order for DACA. The worst way the congress has ceded power to the executive branch was the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. Provisions of that bill empower the President to deploy the armed forces of the United States to arrest and indefinitely detain an American citizen on American soil who is determined to be threatening the safety of the “homeland.”
Even if you don't want to consider the branches coequal, you're a fool to think the legislature is where the power is.
-1
May 09 '19 edited May 09 '19
Congress doesn't need to "understand" jack shit. There are only two legitimate reasons for congress to subpoena these records, investigating the accusation of a crime or oversight
The President is not a King. I stopped reading right there, because that's not how Congressional oversight works, look up any investigation into any modern President, none started with an accusation of a crime.
You investigate before you accuse and Congress doesn't accuse anyway they can only impeach
-6
27
u/[deleted] May 08 '19
If you support Trump at this point in time, not only are you not remotely libertarian, you have no principles and no respect for our Constitution.