One More “National Emergency”

We have an imaginary national emergency on the border and we will throw money at a problem that does not exist only in the mind of a delusional malignant toad.

He, Trump, has even stopped aid to “3 Mexican counties” (as FOX News put it…..”
Sunday morning’s Fox & Friends applauded President Donald Trump’s Saturday directive to cut aid to Central American countries by declaring, “Trump Cuts U.S Aid to 3 Mexican Countries.” )…..he keeps doubling down on this border fantasy that his base laps up like sweet pudding…….

Taking drastic action over illegal immigration, President Trump moved Saturday to cut direct aid to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, whose citizens are fleeing north and overwhelming US resources at the southern border. The State Department notified Congress that it would look to suspend 2017 and 2018 payments to the trio of nations, which have been home to some of the migrant caravans that have marched through Mexico to the US border, reports the AP.

We know there will be a full field of Dem candidates for 2020….so the question is will Trump stand for re-election?

My thought is yes he will because he has not milking all the money he can out of the presidency.

Now let’s say he loses his bid….will he go peacefully from office?

What better way to retain that hold than to use a tactic he, Trump, has used before….declare a “national emergency” and stay in the White House until the legal wrangling is over.

I wrote about that awhile back……https://lobotero.com/2019/03/18/will-he-ever-go/

The below article was printed in Raw Story…..it pertains to the Mueller Report more so than an election but the outcome could be the same…..

But ultimately, politics is not about what is always right and just but rather what is practical and expedient.

Why is impeaching Donald Trump viewed by many people — including prominent Democrats — as a near-term impossibility? Could impeachment succeed, and under what circumstances? Are congressional investigations and hearings a better way of holding Trump and his administration accountable for their misdeeds and general disregard for democracy? What would happen if Donald Trump were to be impeached and convicted, or if he loses the 2020 presidential election? Would he declare a national emergency in an effort to stay in office?

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/03/trump-may-not-leave-office-peacefully-will-declare-national-emergency-loses-2020-harvard-constitution-expert/

I recall there were many that thought GW and Obama would use their executive power to retain office, their hold on the presidency, but Trump strikes me as someone who would want to retain his strangle hold on the country and its policies.

Side Note: This is just an opinion….no one is saying this will happen….just that it could….please do some thought before attacking….works best for everyone.

Then We Have “Executive Privilege”

WE heard the term many many times during Watergate and now with this hearing thing in full swing we are hearing it again……but what is “executive privilege”?  What do they mean?

Let’s go to the definition….

The Constitution does not specifically enumerate the president’s right to executive privilege; rather, the concept has evolved over the years as presidents have claimed it. As the courts have ruled on these claims, their decisions have refined the notion of executive privilege and have clarified the instances in which it can be invoked. The courts have ruled that it is implicit in the constitutional Separation of Powers, which assigns discrete powers and rights to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. In reality, however, the three branches enjoy not separate but shared powers, and thus are occasionally in conflict. When the president’s wish to keep certain information confidential causes such a conflict, the president might claim the right of executive privilege.

The term executive privilege emerged in the 1950s, but presidents since George Washington have claimed the right to withhold information from Congress and the courts. The issue first arose in 1792, when a congressional committee requested information from Washington regarding a disastrous expedition of General Arthur St. Clair against American Indian tribes along the Ohio River, which resulted in the loss of an entire division of the U.S. Army. Washington, concerned about how to respond to this request and about the legal precedent his actions would set, called a cabinet meeting. Although no official record was kept of the proceedings, Thomas Jefferson described the deliberations in his diary. The participants, Jefferson wrote, concluded that Congress had the right to request information from the president and that the president “ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit & ought to refuse those the disclosure of which would injure the public.” In the case at hand, they agreed that “there was not a paper which might not be properly produced,” so Washington provided all the documents that Congress had requested. This event, though notable as the first recorded deliberation concerning executive privilege, did not carry precedential value until after 1957, when Jefferson’s notes were discovered. In 1958, Attorney General William P. Rogers cited Jefferson’s remarks as precedent for an absolute presidential privilege. Legal scholar Raoul Berger declaimed Rogers’s arguments as “at best self serving assertions by one of the claimants in a constitutional boundary dispute.” Instead, Berger argued, Washington’s willingness to turn over the requested documents shows his recognition of Congress’s right to such materials.

In subsequent incidents, however, Washington and his successors did choose to withhold requested information from Congress, citing various reasons. In 1794, for example, the Senate requested from Washington the correspondence of Gouverneur Morris, the U.S. ambassador to France, who was suspected of aiding the French aristocrats against the revolutionaries despite the United States’ official stance of neutrality. Washington provided the letters, but he censored them first, acting on the advice of officials such as Attorney General William Bradford, who said that the president should “communicate to the Senate such parts of the said correspondence as upon examination he shall deem safe and proper to disclose: withholding all such, as any circumstances, may render improper to be communicated.” The following year, Washington refused to provide the House with information relating to Ambassador John Jay’s negotiation of a treaty with Great Britain, arguing that the House had no constitutional right to participate in the treaty making process and so had no right to request materials associated with it.

A short history of the situation and its use and legality……

You now more than you did before you read this piece……you are welcome!

Believe me we will be hearing this term a lot in the coming months and now you can write on the phenom with a bit more knowledge….