Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(15,948 posts)
Sun Sep 22, 2019, 09:03 AM Sep 2019

The U.S. has no rules for when the president is a national security threat

On the surface, the latest confrontation between Congress and the White House involves the Trump administration’s refusal to hand over to the House Intelligence Committee a whistleblower complaint deemed an “urgent concern” by the inspector general for the U.S. intelligence community.

But the showdown is really about the government’s inability to cope with an unprecedented problem: what to do when the president of the United States poses a national security threat.

The case involves a complaint by an intelligence official about communications between President Trump and a foreign leader and a “promise” Trump made, which the intelligence official found alarming enough to notify the inspector general about it. People familiar with the case told The Washington Post that it centers on Ukraine, whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, spoke with Trump two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed. Trump, reportedly, pressed Zelensky to investigate former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, at a time when the U.S. was weighing whether to send millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, though the aid allegedly didn’t come up on the call.

Presidents have, of course, acted inappropriately in the past, and our constitutional system has a framework in place for addressing misconduct by the chief executive. But it’s designed to deal with straightforward criminal activity, not national security threats. The special counsel regulations, for example, were created to deal with a Watergate-like situation as a worst-case scenario. So they take into account the need for an investigation insulated from political influence and give special counsels the ability to make prosecutorial decisions independently of the rest of the Justice Department or the attorney general. The rules even envision a report that might be made public.


2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The U.S. has no rules for when the president is a national security threat (Original Post) Zorro Sep 2019 OP
They took Al Capone of the streets for tax fraud amcgrath Sep 2019 #1
When this incompetent and dangerous snizzwad Haggis for Breakfast Sep 2019 #2

Haggis for Breakfast

(6,831 posts)
2. When this incompetent and dangerous snizzwad
Sun Sep 22, 2019, 06:47 PM
Sep 2019

is finally out of office - however that comes to pass - I expect to see AN AVALANCHE of new rules signed into law. Maybe even a constitutional amendment or two.

We can NEVER allow this kind of threat to our values, our markets (Look at how many times some unhinged comment from him has caused the markets to plunge.), our environment (clean water, air, safety standards) our national security, our people or our nation to occur again.

This type of paralyzing stupidity and arrogance cannot be tolerated. If we fail to take steps to prevent such, I don't think we could survive a second assault of this magnitude.

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»The U.S. has no rules for...