[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #649 TRUTH IS A FORCE OF NATURE

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 19:18 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Dit?

twitter:

jonathanweisman twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:18:33 In a huge escalation, the House Judiciary Committee will sue for Mueller grand jury documents, explicitly citing its efforts to decide whether to impeach President Trump. https://t.co/kFmSB3Myiw reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 19:05 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:32:42 France just put a digital tax on our great American technology companies. If anybody taxes them, it should be their home Country, the USA. We will announce a substantial reciprocal action on Macron’s foolishness shortly. I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine! reageer retweet

Trump drinkt niet.

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 19:05 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

realDonaldTrump twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:32:42 France just put a digital tax on our great American technology companies. If anybody taxes them, it should be their home Country, the USA. We will announce a substantial reciprocal action on Macron’s foolishness shortly. I’ve always said American wine is better than French wine! reageer retweet

Trump drinkt niet.

quote:

Jaarlijks worden ongeveer 300.000 flessen Franse topwijn geproduceerd. Door de strenge Franse wijnwetten kan de productie amper worden opgevoerd, terwijl elk jaar ook nog een deel wordt opgedronken.

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:00:32 BREAKING: Rep. Mike Levin, a swing-district Democrat from California, announced support for an impeachment inquiry.This puts our count at 99 Dems who would vote for an inquiry if it comes to the floor. https://t.co/TWhA9boiFC reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:03:36 JUST IN: Rep. Ann Kuster, a New Hampshire Dem, announces support for an impeachment inquiry. This puts my count at 100 members (99 Ds plus Amash) who would vote for an inquiry if it comes to the floor. https://t.co/IVHzCpWP7N reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 20:21 schreef Ulx het volgende:
100 nu....

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:00:32 BREAKING: Rep. Mike Levin, a swing-district Democrat from California, announced support for an impeachment inquiry.This puts our count at 99 Dems who would vote for an inquiry if it comes to the floor. https://t.co/TWhA9boiFC reageer retweet

twitter:

kyledcheney twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 18:03:36 JUST IN: Rep. Ann Kuster, a New Hampshire Dem, announces support for an impeachment inquiry. This puts my count at 100 members (99 Ds plus Amash) who would vote for an inquiry if it comes to the floor. https://t.co/IVHzCpWP7N reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 19:56 schreef Tijger_m het volgende:

[..]

Dus, even samenvatten, als Tech bedrijven winst maken in Frankrijk dan behoort dat toe aan de VS en niet aan Frankrijk.

Dat lijkt mij dan een casus om deze bedrijven dan te weren uit Frankrijk.

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 20:42 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

En hoeveel hebben ze nodig? 218?

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 19:50 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Bezit wél wijngaarden in Ca.
Althans de Organisatie, de kindertjes beheren dat.

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 20:45 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

If it comes to the floor.

..“There are 235 Democrats in the House. When the number supporting impeachment reaches the 50% threshold, Pelosi will have to make a decision...”

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 21:06 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

Maar daarna komt het natuurlijk nooit door de Senaat. Toch?

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 21:06 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

Maar daarna komt het natuurlijk nooit door de Senaat. Toch?

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 21:20 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt mij ook.
Ms. daarom dat Pelosi niet positief is over de impeach procedure.

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 21:20 schreef AnneX het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt mij ook.
Ms. daarom dat Pelosi niet positief is over de impeach procedure.

Er gebeurt zó veel slechts op zó veel fronten, dat ik “schrok” van oh ja, toen ik onderstaande las.
..”Absolutely absurd that Trump has reacted more angrily to the Prime Minister of Sweden over the arrest of a rapper than to Saudi Arabia over the vicious killing of U.S. resident and @:washingtonpost writer Jamal #Khashoggi.

Signed, A Member of the "African American Community"...”

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 20:42 schreef Arcee het volgende:

[..]

En hoeveel hebben ze nodig? 218?

quote:

“There’s no formal or statutory or House rule for how an impeachment inquiry is to begin,” Rep. Jamie Raskin said. “A lot of people believe we’ve been in an impeachment inquiry since we started looking into high crimes and misdemeanors. Other people think an impeachment inquiry doesn’t begin until you have articles of impeachment. I would say we’re in an impeachment investigation.”

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 juli 2019 21:54 schreef Ulx het volgende:

[..]

Niet per se volgens mij. Het kan ook in een comité worden gestart.

https://www.buzzfeednews.(...)donald-trump-mueller
[..]

quote:

Congress does not necessarily have to open a formal impeachment inquiry to exercise and obtain the benefits of its impeachment power. That proposition should inform the debate raging within the halls of Congress and elsewhere about whether to formally initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Donald J. Trump. There may be ample justification to do so in light of President Trump’s actions, but there’s reason to doubt that this step is necessary procedurally to enhance the investigatory powers that Congress is now seeking to vindicate through the courts.

A court petition brought by the House Judiciary Committee on Friday—to obtain grand jury material from the Mueller investigation—brings these issues to the fore.

The claim, advanced by some commentators, that Congress must take the step of a formal impeachment inquiry to acquire greater investigatory powers may have the unintended consequence of weakening Congress’s hand. Commentators, Congress, the Executive Branch, and, in particular, the courts, should instead recognize that the House has a strong claim that it is already operating in the zone of its impeachment authority.

The key argument that has been put forward in favor of opening an impeachment inquiry is that Congress would be able to claim much greater investigatory powers compared to regular oversight hearings. More specifically, this step would strengthen Congress’s hand against the administration’s efforts to withhold grand jury material in the Mueller investigation and against the administration’s invocation of executive privilege and absolute immunity. Mike Stern’s influential essay at Just Security (“How Impeachment Proceedings Would Strengthen Congress’s Investigatory Powers”) makes those points.

We agree that when Congress exercises its impeachment power, it strengthens Congress’s investigatory powers versus the Executive Branch. And we acknowledge that formally opening an impeachment inquiry would have that effect. We also note that every step the House takes toward considering impeachment enhances that effect as well. What we emphasize here is that the House does not necessarily have to formally open an impeachment inquiry to obtain some of those advantages, and courts should not require Congress to do so to claim that its powers of impeachment are at stake. Indeed, as a leading impeachment scholar, professor Michael Gerhardt recently told Congress in testimony, the Constitution has no prescribed rules for how the House should consider impeachment and there is a rich history of Committees considering impeachment without a vote to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry. Our point is that when the House operates within this zone of the exercise of its impeachment authority, it may already obtain extra powers of investigation that come with that authority.

In short, the impeachment power is not triggered by an on-off switch of opening an impeachment inquiry. Rather it is a continuum, and in some cases the House may be even more clearly along that continuum—for example if the House Judiciary Committee formally considers drafting Articles of Impeachment (see Greg Sargent’s analysis). This does not necessarily entail a sliding scale such that the greater degree to which the House has proceeded down the continuum, the greater investigatory authorities it obtains. Rather, the greater degree to which the House shows evidence that it has proceeded down that continuum, the more likely it is that courts will recognize the House is acting pursuant to Congress’s impeachment authority and recognize those powerful interests.

[..]

twitter:

tribelaw twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 20:16:42 The House has informed the federal court that it is now “conducting an investigation whose purposes include determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” As the petition says, “that is more than sufficient for purposes of Rule 6(e)’s ‘judicial proceeding’ exception.” reageer retweet

twitter:

JakeSherman twitterde op vrijdag 26-07-2019 om 21:01:10 BREAKING NEWS... @RepMarthaRoby is retiring. Roby, an Alabama Republican, was elected in 2010. This is the third house gop retirement this week. reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:07 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Iedereen zegt nu dat er in feite aan een impeachment procedure is begonnen maar het heet alleen officieel niet zo

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:23 schreef ExtraWaskracht het volgende:

[..]

In zekere zin klopt dat ook wel toch? Althans, procedure... inquiry?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:07 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:
Iedereen zegt nu dat er in feite aan een impeachment procedure is begonnen maar het heet alleen officieel niet zo

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Jazeker, ik moet er alleen om lachen. En hoe moeten we het dit onderzoek nou noemen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:28 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Jazeker, ik moet er alleen om lachen. En hoe moeten we het dit onderzoek nou noemen?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:31 schreef Bernhard.von.Galen het volgende:

[..]

100 angry democrates. Lijkt me wel een mooie werktitel.

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 juli 2019 00:30 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Lijkt me heel sterk.

Iedere volwassene die 5 maanden geleden z'n riedeltje deed bij de GOP om alle troep van Trump te verdedigen en onderbouwde punten naast zich neer heeft gelegd, zal dit tot het einde blijven doen.

Bovendien weten de democraten dat je in een hypothetische situatie in welke het zou lukken je aan POTUS Pence zo ongeveer van hetzelfde laken een pak hebt met z'n snoeiharde rechtse opvattingen.

quote:

Supreme Court Clears Trump to Build 100 Miles of Border Fencing

The U.S. Supreme Court cleared President Donald Trump’s administration to start using disputed funds to construct more than 100 miles of fencing along the Mexican border, letting him take his biggest step yet toward erecting his long-promised wall.

With four justices at least partially dissenting, the justices lifted a lower court freeze that was designed to block the spending while a lawsuit by the Sierra Club and another advocacy group went forward.

The Supreme Court’s order marks the first time it’s acted in the dispute over the national-emergency declaration Trump issued in February in a bid to free up federal money for the wall.

The wall segments in Arizona, New Mexico and California will give Trump a tangible achievement to tout in his campaign for re-election. Until now, congressional and court resistance had thwarted significant progress toward a stronger barrier on the almost 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) frontier. During his first campaign, Trump said Mexico would pay for the wall.

The 30-foot steel bollard fencing will replace barriers that the Trump administration says are dilapidated and ineffective. Some of those existing barriers are designed only to prevent vehicles from crossing and don’t stop pedestrians.

A federal trial judge in Oakland, California, blocked the Defense Department from diverting $2.5 billion originally appropriated for other purposes. The Pentagon sought to transfer the money into its counter-narcotics fund, saying it would build barriers in stretches of the border used heavily by drug smugglers.

A San Francisco-based federal appeals court agreed that the spending should be blocked while the litigation went forward.

Trump declared the emergency after Congress approved only $1.4 billion of the $5.7 billion he sought for the wall this fiscal year. The House and Senate both voted to cancel Trump’s plan but weren’t able to override his veto.

The $2.5 billion is the first chunk of almost $7 billion in Pentagon and Treasury Department funds that the emergency declaration was designed to tap.

Risk of Delay
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the Supreme Court that the administration risked not being able to use the money at all if the order wasn’t lifted with enough time before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

“If the injunction remains in place, it may foreclose DOD’s ability to obligate the funds,” Francisco wrote. “If so, it may effectively operate as a final judgment.”

The solicitor general said the order “frustrates the government’s ability to stop the flow of drugs across the border in known drug smuggling corridors.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, said allowing the spending now would damage the environment, “dramatically upend the status quo,” and let the administration “irretrievably commit taxpayer funds in contravention of Congress’s considered spending judgment.”

The groups said the administration was seeking to “construct a permanent wall this summer -- before Congress has a chance to consider and pass another budget.”

The case is Trump v. Sierra Club, 19A60.