Discussion: Schiff Teases Using Intel Chiefs’ Hearing To Shoot Down National Emergency

Yes!

I really like this guy.

7 Likes

It’s the two digit half of the curve that’s the problem here.

3 Likes

I do wish they’d address this issue, considering we must suffer from 24/7 news. Has anyone asked Nancy Pelosi about this or checked some rules? Doesn’t seem that hard to find out … . And gee, if indeed everything can stop if members aren’t assigned to a committee, why the hell didn’t the Democrats do that? Oh yeah, they try to keep government functioning. Silly me.

5 Likes

What a moron.

4 Likes

So the legal matter, as I understand it, is this: do the relevant laws about the President’s “national emergency” powers allow the President to define what is and is not an emergency? That is, do they give the President the final word on the subject? Or is there a legal doctrine that somehow constrains that, by saying that the President’s decision must somehow conform to some commonly accepted or acknowledged definition of an emergency? I think what Schiff is doing here is invaluable, but ultimately the legal outcome will probably rotate around the Supreme Court’s decision on this question. If the President can declare pigs unicorns, and that’s his right, then I think we could soon have a situation where lots of things are suddenly emergencies: walls, dreamers, Hilary Clinton’s life outside of incarceration, etc. And yet I’m sure Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch, at a minimum, can find it in their hearts to solemnly call that ball a strike, for the team. Hell, why aren’t recent emolument lawsuits a national emergency? Shouldn’t a businessman be able to use government to help himself out? Isn’t the government about people helping people? If anyone understands this legal situation better than I do, I’d love to hear what it really is. I’m writing this based on my lay person’s sense from reading the coverage.

4 Likes

I think Schmitt is up tRump creek with a lantern.

ETA. He won’t find an honest man but he will get to the truth.

3 Likes

Actually, that might be cool :grinning:

4 Likes

Dems should vote to change the rules and start conducting their business, regardless of any rule that prevents a rule change. Jeebus, I can’t believe I just had to write that.

Let the republicans sue. 1, they’d have to explain in court why they refused to seat any members, and 2, by the time there’s any court ruling, dems might have what they need. As Mittens would say, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

13 Likes

If the definition of an emergency is clear,

An unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action

then there is nothing unforeseen after how many months of the Trump administration creating a problem.

And, if those charged with protecting us from ALL threats ignore the so called ‘emergency’, than what we have is a little boy afraid of what is under his bed. (Psst - It’s name is Robert and he has a Grand Jury)

Be afraid, be very afraid!

5 Likes

No.

This has been another edition of “Simple Answers to Simple Questions”. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

14 Likes

That’s it, Mr. Schiff. Box our Chief Dullard into an even tighter dilemma. I want to see him explode. I want to see him start throwing things at reporters. And then I want to see him in prison.


Everything is a satellite to some other thing.
5 Likes

This wasn’t “tipping his hand”, it’s a shot across the bows of the Trump Scow.

12 Likes

LOL. I really like Schiff. He’s totally pissing on Trump’s leg here and smirking at him as he does it.

14 Likes

My understanding is that there are many different emergency provisions in law and asserted in executive orders that haven’t been challenged in court. So, sure, getting the intel chiefs to testify about the absence of any of the various kinds of emergencies that require an intel agency to certify as actual emergencies, would be pretty effective in keeping Mulvaney from declaring at least those sorts of emergencies. I’m just not clear that there are any emergencies that fit that bill, or, more importantly, that there aren’t many that don’t require an intel agency to certify the existence of emergency conditions. Mulvaney just has to pick a pretend emergency that doesn’t require any certification but the president’s, and they’re past this difficulty.

The thing to look for in these hearings relates to the one type of emergency I do know something about – a state of war. This particular emergency would be the most useful to Mulvaney, because it is the emergency in which the administration’s actions are least liable to successful legal challenge. The courts are unlikely to intervene to stop diversion of funds if the rationale is that they are needed to prosecute a war. They are unlikely to stop the seizure of private land along the border if the border is a combat zone.

Now, if the system wasn’t as metaphorically demented as Trump is literally demented, no president would be able to get us into a war without Congressional approval, which seems quite unlikely in the current circumstances. Fortunately for Mulvaney, the AUMF that became law in the aftermath of 9/11 is still the law of the land. It allows the president to declare that any individual or group, or nation that harbors such, that can be said to have had any part in 9/11, can be targeted for US military action, and the president gets to do the saying without need for anyone to agree with him. AUMFs are what we do lately instead of declarations of war, and they are considered for all purposes to be declarations of war. Basically, Mulvaney can declare war on any individual or group among the border crossers that he can get Trump to claim were in some way tied back to 9/11, and then extend that state of war to any person, group or nation that in any way gives them any sort of aid, or harbors them.

So, pay attention to these hearings for questions about terrorist ties among those trying to enter the US along the border. I don’t think that Mulvaney needs any intel service to make the call on whether there is any 9/11 connection with any of the border crossers, the wording of the statute seems to make that a purely presidential designation, but of course it would make it more difficult to sell this thing if all of the intel chiefs had sworn under oath that there are no such connections

2 Likes

A little OT…but story about McConnell and Rethugs getting millions campaign $$$ from Russia? Here’s the link to that story:

6 Likes

Ted Lieu has been “teasing” too.

37 Likes

I’d be interested to know if any of the ‘Intel Chiefs’ listed the Trump administration as a national threat.

2 Likes
17 Likes

Remember that terrifying caravan last year that was an existential threat to the United States right up to the day after the mid-terms? The one that went right to a major border crossing because they wanted to apply for asylum? A border crossing that ALREADY had “WALL”?

Fun times.

9 Likes