Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "PBS NewsHour" channel.

Brian Haskings Do you understand why? Apparently not. Sometimes Congress passes laws that are not obviously unconstitutional but in the end the conflicts between legitimate foreign policy decisions from the President end up ensnaring people that are faithfully defending the Constitution and lawful orders. If government actors are caught in between Congress and the Executive Branch you can't necessarily criminalize that. That conflict should be resolved with impeachment proceedings, not punishing underlings that followed lawful orders. This is the implication of what is known as "political question" doctrine or conflicts with Congress that are "nonjusticiable." Put another way, they could have been lawfully pardoned or otherwise protected at any time by the President. The President can "break" the law because the President has prerogatives that allow him to interpret it. Sometimes Congress is just dead wrong or they are only setting up parameters as "law" that can then be used in impeachment proceedings against EB actions. The same language can also lawfully restrict everyone else just as the plain language would lead you to believe. The President's prerogatives come directly from the Constitution and can't be impeded by Congress or the courts. Those prerogatives have the most legitimacy in areas of foreign policy and national defense. There is no conflict with those powers and the doctrines of divided government and checks and balances. That is explicitly how we organize "government" powers under those doctrines.
5
@Cavallaro2376 How is that? Evidently you think "American greatness" is all about outsourcing manufacturing and national sovereignty to China and the UN.
3
@Cavallaro2376 Eric Holder doesn't even know how to be honest. He was raised on Critical Legal Theory, which posits that all "status quo political institutions" are inherently corrupt because they evolved from societies with de facto elite classes that are incapable of creating "egalitarian" rule of law. He was also taught that these de facto institutions are inherently about Gaslighting in order to preserve "cultural hegemony" to (fraudulently) obtain "democratic consent" and that therefore the only remedy to bring on "arc of history social justice" is to subversively lie for the sake of the "woke" parties and factions. In other words, he's a Critical Theory cultist. He's a lawyer that can't even debate the problems caused by FDR's New Deal framework. He thinks it's part of some "arc of history" thing and to even question it as inherently "progressive" is "racist" (which means opposing their Utopian views of equality and End of History social conditions. If you've read any of the "Democrat peace theory" discourses, you'll see that Holder is still stuck on Marx and Gramsci. You're apparently the same kind of victim.
3
@Cavallaro2376 You have no idea what you're talking about.
3
US AG works for POTUS. There's no way around that. You must Amend the US Constitution to make work differently.
3
@carlosjaramillo9702 They did bust the Clintons. Their constituents just don't care. "And before you say retarded shit about a deep state, the FBI, particularly James Comey, helped tank Clintons chances by revealing in the weeks before election day that they were reopening the investigation of her while simultaneously not saying shit that the Trump campaign was also under investigation." That's idiotic. He unlawfully defused the situation politically. We already had the IG report and FOIA evidence. Every halfway intelligent person understood already that she was a criminal. Comey tried to walk the tight rope of apparently "exonerating" her while making the DOJ seem less corrupt. The talking point that Clinton was a victim of Comey is just part of the scam. The DOJ had levers over Comey the entire time. They knew what he would say because it took him 6 months just to compose his summary letter and we know what the edits were. I'm not saying that he lied, but by the FBI's standards he could be charged with lying. Among other problems he has right now. LOL. You "Democrats" are so ignorant.
3
The law is already clear. The hearing is a mere formality.
3
@Cavallaro2376 My God you are such a loser. I already explained that all of leftism is predicated on the libel that "conservatives" are "Gaslighting" with "establishment institution." The US Constitution, according to that theory, is a product of Gaslighting. Etc. Therefore, disrupting the Gaslighting by any means is a legitimate form of "social justice." Irrelevant gibberish: "CBS News, ABC News, NBC News were around for half a century before Fox "News"...Republicans grew despondent about hearing the facts from what was then called "The Big Three", so Rupert Murdock, an Australian immigrant, created Fox "News"...Fox "News", a station that presents the conservative version of the "truth" including alternative-"facts", false accusations, conspiracy theories, fiction and fabrication." Leftwing "gaslighting" theories are rooted in 18th century pseudosciences and philosophies. It has nothing to do with "television" or any of the dumb factions memes that you were inculcated use to try to understand the world.
2
@Cavallaro2376 Brian Haskins : @Indonesia America Indonesia America "From 2009 until 2017, Democrats attempted to pass multiple anti-outsourcing bills and Republicans blocked each one. " So? Everything that you think you know about the world and your "political enemies" you learned from leftwing morons. All of your dialectics are inherently mendacious because you don't know what your thought leaders are actually trying to accomplish and you have no idea what the range of dissenting points might be. Republicans are generally against interventionism other than policies that clearly support the rule of law, including legitimate national defense needs. Being pro or against "outsourcing" as controlled by DC must follow that framework. But because of the New Deal interventionist state everyone like you thinks that DC politicians must choose from this menu of fake choices that are designed to point to the supposed "wisdom" of FDR's "Brain Trusts" governing paradigms. I'm not "for" or "against" outsourcing. The rule of law protects freedom to enter in to relationships with anyone in the world. I'm for those freedoms until they erode the rule of law and national security. And then I'm about taking a minimalist approach (with respect to the protected liberties of free people) that actually solves the problem. Therefore I am against, for example, all importation of manufactured products from nations that don't have legitimate elections. And I am also against importing manufactured or high value products from nations that don't control their criminal gangs such that it negatively affects our national security and or the rule of law. Given that elections are a key component of the rule of law, I am basically suggesting that we do not trade with nations that do not also have their own legitimate rule of law government paradigms unless they are our allies and that trade supports their efforts to establish peaceful rule of law governing paradigms. When it comes right down to it that makes for some hard questions to ask. But there are clearly mistakes being made since WWII ended. Thinking is so hard for you lunatics.
2
@Cavallaro2376 Moron, No court has direct or indirect power over POTUS. POTUS must agree. In order to force Presidential action you must remove him and then have a subsequent President act. Just as POTUS cooperation/approval is required to use EB resources for Special Counsel investigations. You should learn to read a lot better. Courts can in some cases intervene on behalf of petitioners to protect and compensate those legitimate petitioners, but not to force Presidential action.
2
@bubbahogg-buga4613 You're obviously a true believer in global Communism. Because that is exactly what you'd have without the USA today.
2
@Cavallaro2376 Your rhetoric is so blatantly inane and you're so completely incapable of doing any better that it should be embarrassing for you. But obviously it's not. Welcome to Dunning Kruger world, brought to you by "socialized" education.
2
@tonytony8747 Can't you come up with anything to say that doesn't make you look like an incorrigible idiot?
2
@Cavallaro2376 You're an idiot. No choice means no choice. It was a political decision to cooperate at that stage. It was a political decision to remove himself from office. Get it? He was not impeached. Impeachment is the only Constitutional, coercive option. Get it? Impeachment and removal is the only legitimate use of government force to use against a sitting POTUS. Who would have enforced that ruling if Nixon had still refused? Do you think no President has ever defied SCOTUS? Whatever gave you the idea that you know what you're talking about?
2
@Cavallaro2376 http://www.ushistory.org/gov/9e.asp "For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision." You should have learned that in high school.
2
OSKA LOL. What do you expect to learn? There's nothing at all stopping Mueller from going to Congress on his own accord. He arguably already has a sworn duty to do so if he has anything at all to report that he obtained lawfully. And Trump's administration already gave him those investigative powers. You people don't know how to parse fact from fiction. At all.
2
@Cavallaro2376 Brian Haskins 7 minutes ago @Indonesia America "The president of the United States is NOT above the law." You're hopeless. Who said anything about "above the law"? The police are not "above the law" eitehr but have special prerogatives need for law enforcement. Idiot. "Nixon thought he was above the law until he was forced to release tapes proving that he was aware of the Watergate cover-up. Then reality hit home and he was forced to resign from office." Nixon understood the US Constitution far better than you. Nixon in fact did not have to turn over anything. He chose to go along with an advisory ruling. The only way to force POTUS to do anything is to remove him and swear in the new POTUS that then orders whatever it is deemed as the lawful resolution/action. You don't even know how to cite historical precedents to make your points because you don't even understand your own...doctrines...or thoughts I guess we should call them. Richard Dawkins would call them "leftwing agitprop memes." "Above the law" is a meaningless term when I clearly already discussed prerogative that pertain to executive actions and any agent or office's specific legal prerogatives. PREROGATIVE, civil law. The privilege, preeminence, or advantage which one person has over another; thus a person vested with an office, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, prerogatives, &c. which belong to it. PREROGATIVE, English law. The royal prerogative is an arbitrary power vested in the executive to do good and not evil. Rutherf. Inst. 279; Co. Litt. 90; Chit. on Prerog.; Bac. Ab. h.t.
1
@Cavallaro2376 LOL. You're so clueless.
1
@Cavallaro2376 You didn't respond to what I wrote as though you understood it. This is, at this point, precisely as expected. Checks and balances in the US Constitution means that they each have powers to check, not that A is "over" B or vice versa. And there's nothing in the US Constitution at all that says any court is over the office of the President. The President is checked by Congress and requires quorums to act. The only actions they can take that have "force" over POTUS is to remove him from office and ask the replacement President to execute on whatever it is that they wish. They have no executive power of their own except for running Congress itself. Likewise, Congress can not order the arrest of say, a judge. They can impeach judges. And if they think they can have a Federal judge arrested they have to persuade the EB (not to mention at least one other judge).
1
@Cavallaro2376 You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea why "outsourcing" can be a problem. Most of the time it's not. You have no idea what sovereignty means. The UN is a place for multilateral diplomacy. Nothing more. To the extent that any free person thinks that it's anything more than that, like where tyrants go to "enter their vote" for "international democracy" or "international rule of law" it has a deleterious effect on prospects for peace and progress through Westphalian sovereignty and each nation developing its own "democratic rule of law." You clowns can't even handle the Electoral College and yet you think the UN is a great thing. Because you're told that that is "Progressive." You don't have any of your own opinions because you don't understand anything being discussed here.
1
@vincef7487 A noose for what? Is that a threat?
1
@vincef7487 Clown, the report contains information obtained about private citizens other than Trump and they have due process rights. Should we investigate you and then hold Congressional hearings just from lack of anything better to do? I'll pass on that one.
1
@Esignn It helps to understand what Russian gains from. They'd like to recover "lost" Soviet territories. They'd like to manipulate global energy markets to increase their revenues and also help their strategic ally to get the USA to stop producing anything. Trump is not helping China or Russia in any way at all. Seducing North Korea to unite with the "democratic" and open market South Korea is totally contrary to Russian and Chinese (perceived, zero-sum) interests. The list could go on but you get the idea. Trump's doctrines and policies are good for all free people of the world, even if they don't know it. Unless they think that "capitalists" are "hoarding the wealth" and all of that BS.
1
Louise Dean Ask yourself the same essential question. Do you have any of your own thoughts?
1
@pogo1140 They already took oaths before they were made part of the team(s). What "oath" do you want them under now? Do you know what you're talking about? No, I think not.
1
@pogo1140 You have a need to explain context you're referring to, not me. You want them to testify in public, obviously. Which is stupid. That was my point. I gave you a chance to back carefully away from your stupidity. All of their lawful actions were already done under oath. They've already lawfully contributed to the investigations. You have no rational reason to suppose, that on top of all that has already been done, they need to testify "under oath" or otherwise in public Congressional hearings.
1
@Frenzy2409 You seem to also be assuming that it's wrong that information can be withheld. And that you're oblivious to the fact that SCOTUS probably doesn't agree with your views and wishes. "His puppet AG will do as he is told" You people are pathetic. All of the relevant "collusion" or "treason" evidence would have been gathered before Trump was sworn in. If those lunatics had been able to make their case they would have done it already. You people are just so clueless. It's so sad. It's been over 2 used and you not only have failed to learn even a little bit about the topics that have aroused you so much but you're all getting stupider.
1
@Frenzy2409 Coming to YouTube to bloviate about your purely subjective feelings isn't helping anyone. It isn't helping you.
1
@vincef7487 You're now a certified moron. You are unskilled and unaware of it. Good luck with that.
1
@vincef7487 is a genuine Dunning Kruger "unskilled and unaware of it" victim of "socialized education" doctrines, not to mention pseudo-scientific "psychology" studies.
1
@pogo1140 And what do you hope to accomplish with your wishes?
1
@pogo1140 In proper order. Or does that matter to you?
1
@pogo1140 "Proper order would require that the full and unredacted Mueller Report along with all supporting documents be turned over to the 6 House committees that have jurisdiction. This would be followed by hearings with the principals who conducted the investigation." LMAO. Where did you get that idea? "Proper order requires the IRS chairman having received the letter from the House Committee Chairman turn over the Tax Returns and supporting documentation per section 6103." Wrong again. The EB can ALWAYS say no to Congress. The ultimate remedy is impeachment (or possibly partial revenge on spending bills). That's it. The rest is power-wrangling and in your party's case it's all in bad faith as well. The lies are so thick and numerous that you're totally overwhelmed and you think that their stupid decrees have merit just because you like the sound of it.
1
Jelly Belly You have the mind of a child, if that.
1
Jelly Belly Learn to read properly. My arguments are all over the page, placed appropriately. There's no arguing the fact that you are unskilled and unaware. The only debate is how to remedy it.
1
Jelly Belly You're just embarrassing yourself. You don't even know what argument means.
1
@hygfjhghbnjuuhhfffhnd4176 What do you call it when partisan leftist hacks bloviate massive word salads with inane, circular talking points?
1
Jelly Belly Pointing out that you are an incorrigible idiot isn't whining nor is it fallacious. Your inane and confused Victicrat deflections are precisely as expected, so it's perfectly fine with me.
1