Are Presidents not allowed to investigate past Admins?

Irish said:
Asking a real question, not just trolling JPP leftists.

Let's say Obama is in his 1st term and he learns Cheney had some shady doings in Iraq. So he leans on the Iraqi govt to investigate what happened. And let's say Cheney decides to run in 2012. Does this mean Obama admin MUST halt all investigations and ask Iraq to back off, because he is now a "domestic rival?"

What if a former VP has committed murder. The current admin has to stop because he/she decided to run for potus? This argument makes no sense, and is weak.

On the other foot. I could see Trump trying to use this to his advantage for sure, and his China threat was just as dumb. But again don't admins have the right to investigate? They are the executive branch.

-Irish
Click to expand...

Democrats are allowed to investigate whoever they want, whenever they want. Republicans are not allowed to investigate Democrats under any circumstance.
 
Irish said:
Asking a real question, not just trolling JPP leftists.

Let's say Obama is in his 1st term and he learns Cheney had some shady doings in Iraq. So he leans on the Iraqi govt to investigate what happened. And let's say Cheney decides to run in 2012. Does this mean Obama admin MUST halt all investigations and ask Iraq to back off, because he is now a "domestic rival?"

What if a former VP has committed murder. The current admin has to stop because he/she decided to run for potus? This argument makes no sense, and is weak.

On the other foot. I could see Trump trying to use this to his advantage for sure, and his China threat was just as dumb. But again don't admins have the right to investigate? They are the executive branch.

-Irish
Click to expand...


investigators investigate and presidents do presidential shit
 
Irish said:
Asking a real question, not just trolling JPP leftists.

Let's say Obama is in his 1st term and he learns Cheney had some shady doings in Iraq. So he leans on the Iraqi govt to investigate what happened. And let's say Cheney decides to run in 2012. Does this mean Obama admin MUST halt all investigations and ask Iraq to back off, because he is now a "domestic rival?"

What if a former VP has committed murder. The current admin has to stop because he/she decided to run for potus? This argument makes no sense, and is weak.

On the other foot. I could see Trump trying to use this to his advantage for sure, and his China threat was just as dumb. But again don't admins have the right to investigate? They are the executive branch.

-Irish
Click to expand...

The president does have the right to investigate and, of course, collaborate with other countries to do so. The reason people are saying what Trump did was just using the office for personal gain is for the following reasons.

He withheld money that was promised to Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to investigate Biden.
After the agreement, Trump tacked on a few extra million.
Trump encouraged Zelensky to work with his personal lawyer. Giuliani isn't an elected official, so his inclusion further makes it look like this is a personal request.
What Trump is accusing Biden of is a debunked conspiracy theory. He wasn't asking for an investigation as much as he was asking Zelensky to find something, anything, to make Biden look bad.
Trump didn't go through the proper channels. He didn't go through congress, like Obama did when he got Ukraine to crack down on corruption.

Even if you don't think that is enough to say Trump committed a crime, remember that Trump himself had this "perfect" phone call hidden in a private server. He knew he broke the rules. If he didn't, he wouldn't have tried to cover the call up.

I can understand saying you don't care, you don't want Trump impeached because you like him. But the thing is, if Trump doesn't get impeached, we're setting a dangerous lowering of standards. We're basically saying the president only has to follow the law if we don't like him. You like Trump, but you might hate the next president. It's in your interest for Trump to be punished, so that the president is held to high standards, so that the next president doesn't freely break laws.
 
The powers of the president are in article II. It does not list the power to investigate prior administrations.

Next thread please.

:pleasedramsay:
 
StoneByStone said:
The president does have the right to investigate and, of course, collaborate with other countries to do so. The reason people are saying what Trump did was just using the office for personal gain is for the following reasons.

He withheld money that was promised to Ukraine until Zelensky agreed to investigate Biden.
After the agreement, Trump tacked on a few extra million.
Trump encouraged Zelensky to work with his personal lawyer. Giuliani isn't an elected official, so his inclusion further makes it look like this is a personal request.
What Trump is accusing Biden of is a debunked conspiracy theory. He wasn't asking for an investigation as much as he was asking Zelensky to find something, anything, to make Biden look bad.
Trump didn't go through the proper channels. He didn't go through congress, like Obama did when he got Ukraine to crack down on corruption.

Even if you don't think that is enough to say Trump committed a crime, remember that Trump himself had this "perfect" phone call hidden in a private server. He knew he broke the rules. If he didn't, he wouldn't have tried to cover the call up.

I can understand saying you don't care, you don't want Trump impeached because you like him. But the thing is, if Trump doesn't get impeached, we're setting a dangerous lowering of standards. We're basically saying the president only has to follow the law if we don't like him. You like Trump, but you might hate the next president. It's in your interest for Trump to be punished, so that the president is held to high standards, so that the next president doesn't freely break laws.
Click to expand...

Yeah but there is a reason that Trump "hides" things on private servers. Not just this phone calls. He has leakers at the WH, that are constantly trying to down his admin. So everything that can be, is hidden from the staffers, to prevent leaks. So you can't really use that as an argument of "shadyness."

How do you go through congress to investigate a past admin crimes? Are you sure its Debunked? Because Hunter Biden was paid millions in consulting in the oil business for doing nothing. Why? Because his daddy was VP of the US.

I get what you are saying about Precedent. I don't want Trump or any future pres violating the law. But I also don't want partisans in congress to have the ability to remove a pres, just because they don't like him. Isn't that what elections are for? If he's bad, let the voters get rid of him.
 
Micawber said:
The powers of the president are in article II. It does not list the power to investigate prior administrations.

Next thread please.
Click to expand...

But it does say they can investigate since that is a power of the Executive branch. IE Enforce laws. Can't enforce without investigation. Why would prior admins be off limits to that power?
 
StoneByStone said:
Source?
Click to expand...

Don't do that. You know he is nuts when he says things like that. Do not encourage him. The Red house investigated Hillary over and over, about a dozen times... McCarthy who was in charge said he did it to hurt her polling and was happy it was working. He had another one teed off if she won.
 
TTQ64 said:
Cheney and bush did shady shit......they murdered millions based on a lie, they stole billions of dollars from Americans and Iraqies and NOTHING happened to them.

We didn't need Iraq to look into ANYTHING........WHITE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNEW WHAT HAPPENED AND LET IT SLIDE...………...BUSH, CHENEY AND THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIN SHOULD BE LOCKED UP ALONG WITH ANY DEMOCRAT WHO WENT ALONG WITH THE CROOKS.
Click to expand...

:laugh: Looks like I triggered someone.
 
Irish said:
Yeah but there is a reason that Trump "hides" things on private servers. Not just this phone calls. He has leakers at the WH, that are constantly trying to down his admin. So everything that can be, is hidden from the staffers, to prevent leaks. So you can't really use that as an argument of "shadyness."
Click to expand...

I disagree that people are constantly trying to take him down, but let's just assume that's true. If the phone call wasn't incriminating, why try to hide it? Had Trump believed what he did was ok, he wouldn't care about it getting leaked

How do you go through congress to investigate a past admin crimes?
Click to expand...

You hold a meeting, get your party to write up a bill, get congress to vote on it.
TBH, the president probably could investigate a past admin's crimes without congress, and nobody would kick up much of a fuss about it. I wouldn't see it as a problem, as long as it wasn't obviously for personal gain.

Are you sure its Debunked? Because Hunter Biden was paid millions in consulting in the oil business for doing nothing. Why? Because his daddy was VP of the US.
Click to expand...

What exactly is the scandal there? Yeah, the company probably just wanted to say the veep's son worked for them. It was nepotism. But how is that corruption? We're talking about a private company here, not a position in the Ukrainian government.

I get what you are saying about Precedent. I don't want Trump or any future pres violating the law. But I also don't want partisans in congress to have the ability to remove a pres, just because they don't like him. Isn't that what elections are for? If he's bad, let the voters get rid of him.
Click to expand...

But this isn't happening because they don't like Trump. He very obviously broke the rules here.
The point of having laws is to keep people from doing things that harm society. If our attitude is that the voters will get rid of a corrupt president, then the president is basically free to break all the laws he wants until he's not president anymore.
 
Gonzomin said:
Don't do that. You know he is nuts when he says things like that. Do not encourage him. The Red house investigated Hillary over and over, about a dozen times... McCarthy who was in charge said he did it to hurt her polling and was happy it was working. He had another one teed off if she won.
Click to expand...

I know, but when I ask conspiracy nuts for a source, they get mad, and that amuses me.
 
StoneByStone said:
I disagree that people are constantly trying to take him down, but let's just assume that's true. If the phone call wasn't incriminating, why try to hide it? Had Trump believed what he did was ok, he wouldn't care about it getting leaked



You hold a meeting, get your party to write up a bill, get congress to vote on it.
TBH, the president probably could investigate a past admin's crimes without congress, and nobody would kick up much of a fuss about it. I wouldn't see it as a problem, as long as it wasn't obviously for personal gain.



What exactly is the scandal there? Yeah, the company probably just wanted to say the veep's son worked for them. It was nepotism. But how is that corruption? We're talking about a private company here, not a position in the Ukrainian government.



But this isn't happening because they don't like Trump. He very obviously broke the rules here.
The point of having laws is to keep people from doing things that harm society. If our attitude is that the voters will get rid of a corrupt president, then the president is basically free to break all the laws he wants until he's not president anymore.
Click to expand...

Be honest with that last part. They DON'T like Trump.

So you are opposed to elections deciding who leads what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top