What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[HVC]

Is launching an investigation of something illegal? I also don't get how that would be a Constitutional issue, where in the Constitution does it talk about investigations?

If the Constitution doesn't grant the power to investigate then you can't. It's the same reason a sitting President cannot go to the bathroom.

A President should go to the bathroom standing, like God and the Constitution intended.

 

With enough conviction a woman can pee standing up too

[Grey Fox]

or the help of a tool, like the Gogirl.

[Eddie Teach]

Is launching an investigation of something illegal? I also don't get how that would be a Constitutional issue, where in the Constitution does it talk about investigations?

If the Constitution doesn't grant the power to investigate then you can't. It's the same reason a sitting President cannot go to the bathroom.

A President should go to the bathroom standing, like God and the Constitution intended.

 

With enough conviction a woman can pee standing up too

Shouldn't be any harder than shitting standing up.

[Syt]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-patriot-act-renewal-fbi-web-browsing-history-2020-5?r=DE&IR=T

Mitch McConnell is pushing the Senate to pass a measure that would let the FBI collect Americans' web-browsing history without a warrant

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is pushing forward with an amendment that would let the FBI collect records on Americans' web-browsing and search histories without a warrant this week.

McConnell proposed the amendment as part of the renewal of the 2001 Patriot Act, The Daily Beast first reported. The Senate is voting on amendments this week.

The McConnell amendment would let Department of Justice officials — overseen by Attorney General Bill Barr — look through anyone's browsing history without the approval of a judge if they deem the browsing history relevant to an investigation. It blocks the FBI from accessing the "content" of people's web-browsing history but would let the FBI access records detailing which sites and search terms people entered.

The proposal has drawn backlash from a bipartisan group of senators, as well as from both liberal and conservative civil-liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans for Prosperity.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and Republican Sen. Steve Daines jointly proposed an amendment that would require the FBI to obtain a warrant before accessing people's web-browsing history — but their amendment failed by just one vote Wednesday, bringing warrantless searches of web-browsing history one step closer to becoming law.

"When you talk about web browsing and searches, you're talking about some of the most sensitive, most personal, and most private details of Americans' lives. Every thought that can come into people's heads can be revealed in an internet search or a visit to a website," Wyden said in a statement to Business Insider.

McConnell's press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a joint op-ed, ACLU counsel Neema Singh Guliani and Americans for Prosperity analyst Billy Easley decried warrantless web-browsing searches as "secret spying" and "unjust."

As it weighs the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the Senate is also considering amendments that would give the attorney general more oversight of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which handles investigations into political candidates.

The Senate is voting on the amendments Wednesday and Thursday.

[garbon]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/13/judge-appoints-retired-judge-to-represent-flynn-prosecution-256509

Federal judge mulls contempt charge against Michael Flynn

A federal judge is signaling that he might pursue perjury or contempt charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn over his effort to abandon a guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI.

The Justice Department moved last week to drop the prosecution of Flynn launched by special counsel Robert Mueller, but U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan slammed the brakes on that effort by announcing Wednesday evening that he is appointing a former federal judge to argue against the government's unusual bid to dismiss the case against an ally of President Donald Trump.

Sullivan's order also directed the retired judge, John Gleeson, to recommend whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury — apparently for declaring under oath at two different court proceedings that he was guilty of lying to the FBI, before he reversed course in January and claimed he had never lied.

Sullivan's announcement appears to shatter the hopes of Flynn's defense team that the court case will quickly fade away. Instead, the retired general who spent a little more than three weeks as national security adviser before being fired by Trump faces a legal brawl that could drag on for months.

...

[Barrister]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

[Razgovory]

FBI just ceased Richard Burr's phone.  I fully expect Trump to name the agents involved to encourage nationwide harassment.

[The Larch]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

Has he even said out loud what he should be investigated for?

[merithyn]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

Has he even said out loud what he should be investigated for?

If we count Twitter as "out loud", it's treason.

[The Larch]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

Has he even said out loud what he should be investigated for?

If we count Twitter as "out loud", it's treason.

For doing what exactly?

[merithyn]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

Has he even said out loud what he should be investigated for?

If we count Twitter as "out loud", it's treason.

For doing what exactly?

Wait. He needs a reason? Well fuck....



No, he's claiming that Obama and his administration interferred with the lawful transition of power from his term to Trump's by using the investigations against Trump. It was, in Trumpland, intended to undermine Trump's legal rights as the elected President of the United States.

[Barrister]

It's also the pre-election stuff.  The Russia collusion "hoax", wiretapping his campaign, that kind of thing.

[The Minsky Moment]

As it weighs the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the Senate is also considering amendments that would give the attorney general more oversight of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which handles investigations into political candidates.

First of all the FISA court isn't there to handle "investigations into political candidates". The FISA court handles requests by US law enforcement for search warrants on persons in the US connection with counterintelligence investigations.

Second, the criticism of the FISA court is that it is too deferential to the government in granting applications, so more AG "oversight" would be moving in precisely the wrong direction. It would also raise unsolvable separation of powers issue because the FISA court is an Article III court and thus can't be supervised by the Executive Branch.

It is a naked power grab that if successful will make things much worse.

[The Minsky Moment]

You really get the feeling that Trump, with all his calls to have Obama investigated, has not really thought through what that kind of precedent could mean...

you think?

Trump does not think in terms of neutral rules that apply equally to everyone.  He simply does not grasp the concept. 

[Oexmelin]

Trump does not think in terms of neutral rules that apply equally to everyone.

Neither do Republicans.