Are Presidents not allowed to investigate past Admins?

[Irish]

incorrect information from his own staff?

didn't Trump say he hires only the best people?

wtf?

Clearly not, since he's kicked out a bunch of them, and has called them morons.

[Irish]

The powers of the president are in article II. It does not list the power to investigate prior administrations.

Next thread please.

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?

[Irish]

What does "leverage" mean?

Perhaps Ukraine didn't need money until now. And now that they need it (considering Obama gave them nothing) Trump used the opportunity to push for corruption clean up. It would be smart to do.

[Gonzomin]

Source?

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.

[Irish]

So, he needs to tell them what testimony to give?

Not necessarily. But if you think the investigation is unjust, why would you cooperate?

[Irish]

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.

Looks like I triggered someone.

[Irish]

Presidents do not have that power. The power of investigation resides in the house.
It is different now. If Trump thought Obama did something illegal, he could get Russia or the Ukraine to investigate.,

Wrong.

[StoneByStone]

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

[StoneByStone]

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.

I know, but when I ask conspiracy nuts for a source, they get mad, and that amuses me.

[Irish]

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.

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

So you are opposed to elections deciding who leads what?

[StoneByStone]

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

I'm sure they don't like him as a person because he's horrible, but they like his policies. Why else do Republicans defend him when he's objectively terrible?

So you are opposed to elections deciding who leads what?

No, but I expect presidents to have to obey the law. If they break the law, they should be held accountable like anyone else.

[canceled.2021.2]

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.

Boo fucking hoo

[Gonzomin]

Not necessarily. But if you think the investigation is unjust, why would you cooperate?

You could prove they are just investigating for political reasons and rally the people in back of you. Trump cannot do that because he is guilty. Hillary answered every subpoena and testified under oath. I think that Trump should do the same thing. He is doing what a guilty person would do. Hillary did what an innocent person would.

[Damocles]

One thing that I heard is that they avoid it like the plague because they don't want the US to look like some third world country where they toss everybody in jail after a coup.

Though, actually showing that nobody is above the law would go a long way towards fixing some of the frickin' corruption.

[rjhenn]

Make sure he/she has all the facts to give a full account. Not just part of the story.

You mean make sure that he/she has a consistent story that will protect El Presidente.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk