Russian Sanction Deadline

[Belsnickel]

So, today is the deadline for the Trump administration to put sanctions in place against Russia. These sanctions are law, passed in a bipartisan manner with an overwhelming majority, and signed into law by Trump himself.

How do you all feel if he fails to put these sanctions in place, thus failing to uphold the law?

[GMDino]

(01-29-2018, 05:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, today is the deadline for the Trump administration to put sanctions in place against Russia. These sanctions are law, passed in a bipartisan manner with an overwhelming majority, and signed into law by Trump himself.

How do you all feel if he fails to put these sanctions in place, thus failing to uphold the law?

Trump supporters will spin and make excuses and support him.

Sane people will see right through him and his actions.

Nothing will change.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 06:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump supporters will spin and make excuses and support him.

Sane people will see right through him and his actions.

Nothing will change.

Would not having the law carried out mean he is not faithfully executing the office?

[GMDino]

(01-29-2018, 06:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would not having the law carried out mean he is not faithfully executing the office?

It would make for an interesting discussion.

Would the republicans in charge hold him to it?

[Belsnickel]

Well, the White House is going to not uphold the law. Meanwhile, Nunes' committee voted along party lines to release their partisan memo, not release the Dems' partisan memo, and also not to be briefed on the actual intelligence by the FBI director.

Business as usual.

[BmorePat87]

(01-29-2018, 08:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the White House is going to not uphold the law. Meanwhile, Nunes' committee voted along party lines to release their partisan memo, not release the Dems' partisan memo, and also not to be briefed on the actual intelligence by the FBI director.

Business as usual.

and despite all of that, their base will eat it up. 

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2018, 06:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: It would make for an interesting discussion.

Would the republicans in charge hold him to it?

How do you go about that? Presidents consistently choose not to enforce laws. I’m not saying this in defense, I just don’t know what you can actually do.

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 09:29 PM)michaelsean Wrote: How do you go about that? Presidents consistently choose not to enforce laws. I’m not saying this in defense, I just don’t know what you can actually do.

Honestly, the only recourse is impeachment. Though there is a ton of precedent for presidents to not defend or not enforce laws in history that neither party will do anything. I feel like unless the administration has a position that a law is unconstitutional, then it should be enforced. Even that, though, is iffy and a bit of a slipper slope.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-29-2018, 09:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, the only recourse is impeachment. Though there is a ton of precedent for presidents to not defend or not enforce laws in history that neither party will do anything. I feel like unless the administration has a position that a law is unconstitutional, then it should be enforced. Even that, though, is iffy and a bit of a slipper slope.

Well yeah presidents constantly ignore things. I mean look at the states that legalized marijuana.

Question, the article talks about congress giving him the power to implement sanctions. Is it a requirement to do so or does the deadline just mean he no longer has the power?

[Belsnickel]

(01-29-2018, 09:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well yeah presidents constantly ignore things. I mean look at the states that legalized marijuana.

Question, the article talks about congress giving him the power to implement sanctions. Is it a requirement to do so or does the deadline just mean he no longer has the power?

It means he no longer has the power to impose sanctions for their election meddling. I believe there is still authority to do so related to the Ukraine/Crimea fun. I think this was just a rather unprecedented situation given the large majorities that voted for the bill. He pretty much had to sign it because it was veto proof.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 09:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, the only recourse is impeachment. Though there is a ton of precedent for presidents to not defend or not enforce laws in history that neither party will do anything. I feel like unless the administration has a position that a law is unconstitutional, then it should be enforced. Even that, though, is iffy and a bit of a slipper slope.

If we were impeaching over not enforcing laws then we would have impeached repeated presidents for not enforcing immigration laws.

I agree laws should be enforced but I also think the Russia sanctions are over the top. But that doesn’t excuse not enforcing it imo.

What we don’t know is if trump has a deal cooking with the Russians and need to not enforce it while negotiating. This would be a positive step.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-29-2018, 08:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the White House is going to not uphold the law. Meanwhile, Nunes' committee voted along party lines to release their partisan memo, not release the Dems' partisan memo, and also not to be briefed on the actual intelligence by the FBI director.

Business as usual.

The Schiff memo just sounds like it’s a talking points handout to distract from the real one. I look forward to reading the memo. We need some transparency.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 01:44 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Schiff memo just sounds like it’s a talking points handout to distract from the real one. I look forward to reading the memo. We need some transparency.

From accounts not trying to defend Trump, the Nunes memo is nothing more than talking points to attempt to discredit Mueller's investigation. If we're going to release one wildly misleading partisan memo, why not both?

[StLucieBengal]

(01-30-2018, 09:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: From accounts not trying to defend Trump, the Nunes memo is nothing more than talking points to attempt to discredit Mueller's investigation. If we're going to release one wildly misleading partisan memo, why not both?

Hey I am for releasing it all. Plus the underlying data. It just feels to me that the Schiff memo is more about spinning the nunes memo.

My feeling of how this went down was since Nunes is the committee chair he wrote a memo breaking down what is going on because he felt it was a bit crazy. Once the Memel was out and others started reacting schiff decided they needed a political response so wrote his. I do not doubt that FISA warrants were gotten on shaky information. Whether it’s fusion gps ..... idk. But without a doubt I believe this has been abused. And the obama administration has shown they will use the government as a weapon against citizens when needed politically.

[GMDino]

(01-30-2018, 10:33 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey I am for releasing it all.  Plus the underlying data.   It just feels to me that the Schiff memo is more about spinning the nunes memo.  

My feeling of how this went down was since  Nunes is the committee chair he wrote a memo breaking down what is going on because he felt it was a bit crazy.   Once the Memel was out and others started reacting schiff decided they needed a political response so wrote his.     I do not doubt that FISA warrants were gotten on shaky information.   Whether it’s fusion gps ..... idk.   But without a doubt I believe this has been abused.   And the obama administration has shown they will use the government as a weapon against citizens when needed politically.

Literally I read the above and heard this:

Quote:Republicans good...honest...never lie.  Yay Trump.  Give me good feelings!  Like Mother Russia! 

Obama bad! Democrats evil!  Booo. Make me angry. Make me turn to Mother Russia for comfort.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-30-2018, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Literally I read the above and heard this:

Then you have a reading comprehension problem. Since I literally stated in the first line of the post that I wanted it all released.

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 10:33 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hey I am for releasing it all. Plus the underlying data. It just feels to me that the Schiff memo is more about spinning the nunes memo.

My feeling of how this went down was since Nunes is the committee chair he wrote a memo breaking down what is going on because he felt it was a bit crazy. Once the Memel was out and others started reacting schiff decided they needed a political response so wrote his. I do not doubt that FISA warrants were gotten on shaky information. Whether it’s fusion gps ..... idk. But without a doubt I believe this has been abused. And the obama administration has shown they will use the government as a weapon against citizens when needed politically.

I have a problem with releasing classified information that could be damaging to our intelligence operations, which is something that Trump's DOJ has said the memo could be. Intelligence personnel that could be exposed are likely people working within Russia, and they could be killed. This will burn them if they release it all.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-30-2018, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a problem with releasing classified information that could be damaging to our intelligence operations, which is something that Trump's DOJ has said the memo could be. Intelligence personnel that could be exposed are likely people working within Russia, and they could be killed. This will burn them if they release it all.

Well then I go back to the original releasing of the original memo. I understand why Schiff wrote his but it just feels like it was written to explain away the original Memo because the obama administration did something it wasn’t supposed. And really would that be surprising to anyone?

[Belsnickel]

(01-30-2018, 11:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Well then I go back to the original releasing of the original memo. I understand why Schiff wrote his but it just feels like it was written to explain away the original Memo because the obama administration did something it wasn’t supposed. And really would that be surprising to anyone?

Well, the original memo could also be damaging to the intelligence community. Aside from that, though, I still say that if we are going to release one partisan hack job, we should release both. Especially when one was written by someone who has supposedly recused himself because of being to close to the investigation topic.

[Belsnickel]

So we leave them unpunished for what they did, but we are well aware they are ramping things up for 2018?