HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump is already cutting ...

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:07 PM

Trump is already cutting Congress out of any oversight on the COVID Bill via his signing statement



Matt Stoller

@matthewstoller

Us dumbass weirdos against the bailouts have never been proved right quicker.

Tim Mak
@timkmak
NPR's Washington Investigative Correspondent.
Covering politics, with an interest in natsec/tech/disinfo.
Also an EMT.

@KlasfeldReports
read Trump's signing statement for the $2 trillion package and notes that the president is already trying to cut Congress out of oversight.

See here that the WH considers Congressional input into $$$ oversight cmte as a suggestion not law

17 replies, 977 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:10 PM

1. I'm sure Pelosi saw this coming. Wonder

what she’ll do about it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:11 PM

2. Who wrote this?

Because you know Spanky doesn't know what hortatory means. And, if the "president" doesn't understand his own signing statement how can it possible mean anything?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:23 PM

10. probably Barr or one of his junior henchmen/henchwomen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #2)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:25 PM

13. Trump probably thinks horatory is a book you read to a prozzie after they have serviced the mushroom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:13 PM

3. It's not congress he is cutting out.

Its the inspector general. Congress can still and likely will setup oversight via a committee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:20 PM

5. And then, the orange virus will refuse to provide any document.

Then, the committee on oversight will be forced to send subpoenas for the documents.

And then, the orange virus will order every WH aide not to respond to the subpoenas.

Haven't we seen that bad play before?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lock him up. (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:22 PM

7. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lock him up. (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:22 PM

8. Oh it will come out.

Companies are not stupid. They know they will have to account for it. Especially when Trump loses reelection. Trump may ask his aides to withdraw the info, companies will comply to subpoenas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:24 PM

12. Not if those companies are the drumph org. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:21 PM

6. they will set a committee and Trump will ignore it, just like he did with all the subpoenas

Trump Suggests He Can Gag Inspector General for Stimulus Bailout Program

In a signing statement, the president undermined a key safeguard Democrats had insisted upon as a condition of approving $500 billion in corporate relief in the $2 trillion law.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/27/us/trump-signing-statement-coronavirus.html

snip

The signing statement also challenged several other provisions in the bill, including one requiring consultation with Congress about who should be the staff leaders of a newly formed executive branch committee charged with conducting oversight of the government’s response to the pandemic. Citing his understanding of his power to supervise executive branch staff positions, Mr. Trump said he would not interpret that as mandatory although he anticipated that they would be consulted anyway.

Mr. Trump’s legal team is led by Attorney General William P. Barr, who is known for his embrace of a maximalist interpretation of presidential power, including the so-called unitary executive theory. Under that doctrine, laws that bestow independent decision-making authority on subordinate executive branch officials are unconstitutional because the president wields total control over deciding how to exercise executive power over the government.

Presidential signing statements are official documents issued by presidents when they sign new legislation into law. They leave a record of the president’s understanding of the meaning of newly created statutes and essentially instruct the rest of the executive branch to interpret the laws in the same way. Congress has no opportunity to veto them. The device becomes subject to dispute when presidents use it to mount a constitutional challenge to a new law that imposes some requirement or limitation on their power, essentially nullifying the new limit in the eyes of the executive branch. Often such disputes center on matters for which there is scant likelihood that the matter will come before a court for judicial judgment, giving the executive branch final say as a practical matter.

snip

But executive branch legal teams in administrations of both parties have maintained that the device is legitimate and useful. Some veterans of Democratic administrations that used signing statements — as Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did, albeit less aggressively — have argued that it is impractical to veto important bills over minor flaws and that the focus should instead be on the legitimacy of the theories of executive power that presidents invoke as the basis for their challenges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #6)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:24 PM

11. Trump and his administration might ignore it.

Companies which are subpoenaed wont. They have to live with the next administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #11)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:28 PM

14. after the 2007-09 crisis I trust nothing in terms of any true,hardcore corporate/bankster oversight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 28, 2020, 12:39 AM

16. Oh that's exactly what Speaker Pelosi said on RMS tonight.

In case anyone missed it, find the video, it was a great interview and made me feel a little better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drray23 (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 28, 2020, 01:00 AM

17. The word "estoppal" comes to mind.

You defend a principle by saying you know a requirement's there and it intrudes on your rights, but you'll do it voluntarily. Then nobody can come back later and say you didn't defend you rights so you yielded them and can't reclaim them.

It's standing signing statements. At various points, for kicks, I've read scores of the (damnably boring) things. Just because context is needed to understand the few that only actually exist according to the media and many readers. It's like a lot of things--3 are pointed out, only three exist; ignore the scores of others because nobody's pointed them out.

Obama did this a lot (as did Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, etc.). And Obama even turned it against Congress with a pipeline. The Constitution says international trade deals are Congress' thing, but for decades Congress has silently let the president approve a lot of trivial ones. Congress wanted to take it back, and Obama responded saying that other presidents did it, and he was pissed when they passed a bill. He vetoed it, but it wasn't just a veto--he was pissed off that they wanted to take back a power ceded to the executive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:18 PM

4. Nancy already said the House will do it's oversight responsibilities. We will see where this $$ is

going & what it's used for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 27, 2020, 11:22 PM

9. Problem is trump always gets away with breaking the law

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 28, 2020, 12:19 AM

15. True, but Nancy will make sure everybody knows what he does. SOME will abandon his support

because she makes it know that while YOU struggle, DT's padding the profits of his hotels! THAT will bother him much more than being accused of breaking the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread