rofl, no, it derives from implied powers. Congressional oversight isn't specifically mentioned anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Printable View
rofl, no, it derives from implied powers. Congressional oversight isn't specifically mentioned anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
If this were just about financial crimes, candidly, I would agree with you. Do I think that we should let a criminal stay in office? No. Do I think we should remove them before we've proven they're a criminal? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
But a core part of what's going on right now is about figuring out if Trump is a Russian asset. "Wait and see" is a LOT less compelling in that case.
And we have enough publicly available evidence at this point to say that yes, Trump is likely, at best, an unwitting asset and, at worst, very much a willing asset. The lies about the $300m Trump Moscow Tower while the campaign was going on (including the $50m penthouse that was being given to Putin) coupled with the well-documented willingness of the campaign to accept Russian help only has so many explanations.
Couple that with the fact that Trump put an inordinate amount of energy into defending Putin and trying to obscure the fact that Russia had attacked our elections (to the point where he was publicly denouncing our own Intelligence community in favor of Putin's word), and the fact that Trump immediately tried to roll back Russian sanctions (which, by the way, affected Trump Tower Moscow), and there is only one actual explanation for what was going on.
And if anyone wants to posit a reasonable alternative explanation for these things, I'm all ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Androidpk
Though, can we just take a moment to giggle at the entire thing?
Cohen: Trump is a liar, a criminal, corrupt, and a racist.
GOP Reps: WHAT?!? He's not racist!
:rofl:
So funny! Like when everyone says Androidpk has no job and is sleeping on your couch and he says "I have a job!"Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
:rofl:
While it is considered to be an implied power- it's still stemming very clearly and obviously from what's in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Advise and consent, impeachment, and the necessary and proper clauses are all clear examples of Congressional oversight authority. Just because something wasn't explicitly enumerated doesn't mean it's not very clearly in the Constitution.
It's cute you're defending your couch tenant like this, but he literally said: "Congressional oversight, it's right there in the Constitution. You should give it a read."Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
You can read the constitution all you want, it doesn't mention anything about "Congressional oversight." In fact the supreme court had to clarify that congress has this power decades after the constitution was drafted.
Oh, no I feel it is a very important power, just as Judicial Review is. Neither of them are in the Constitution, though. Pk can tell Tgo to go read it all he wants, but he won't find anything talking about Congressional Oversight.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun
I know you're not questioning that part. I'm just pointing out that the reason it's considered to be implied is simply because the phrase "congressional oversight" isn't there. But if you read it, it enumerates concrete, literal examples of Congressional oversight into the Executive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Candidly, PK and Tgo both have the reading comprehension and reasoning skills of a cocker spaniel- so I'm willing to agree that they wouldn't get that Congressional oversight describes the enumerated powers of Congress.
But a normal person would. So basically you and PK are both right
He's a moron. The Trump tower piece is a problem, but the rest of what's known just goes to how big of a moron he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by time4fun