All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

How much does he need to spend? Fox news is free Twitter is free!

[L'Emmerdeur]

Second veto issued. The US Congress, under the War Powers Resolution and in accordance with the power granted to it under Article I of the US Constitution, passed a resolution to end US involvement in the despicable Saudi war in Yemen. Trump, claiming that the resolution would weaken his 'constitutional authorities,' vetoed it.

Under the Constitution the president is commander in chief of the armed forces, and that position has been interpreted to support presidents taking action to protect the country. What protecting the US has to do with aiding the Saudis in deliberately targetting civilians in Yemen (including bombing hospitals) shall be left as an exercise for the reader.

'President Trump Vetoes Resolution Calling to End U.S. Support in Yemen War'

President Donald Trump on Tuesday vetoed a bill passed by Congress to end U.S. military assistance in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

In a break with the president, Congress voted for the first time earlier this month to invoke the War Powers Resolution to try to stop U.S. involvement in a foreign conflict.

The veto — the second in Trump’s presidency — was expected. Congress lacks the votes to override him.

“This resolution is an unnecessary, dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities, endangering the lives of American citizens and brave service members, both today and in the future,” Trump wrote in explaining his veto.

Congress has grown uneasy with Trump’s close relationship with Saudi Arabia as he tries to further isolate Iran, a regional rival.

[Seabass]

Defend that one, 42. Go ahead. Do what you do best. Defend the indefensible.

[Animavore]

Well there we have it. Trump supports genocide.

[pErvinalia]

Unfortunately Obama supported it too. US hegemony.

[Animavore]

Whataboutism.

[pErvinalia]

Damn. Well, it is, but the point was mostly about US hegemony and how the whole political system there is in it up to their necks.

[Animavore]

Trump doesn't even know what "hegemony" means (does anyone believe they were his words?).

[Scot Dutchy]

[Tero]

In March;
The United States will repeal or deny visas to International Criminal Court staff seeking to investigate Americans in Afghanistan or elsewhere and may take similar action to protect Israelis or other allied forces from prosecution, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday.

"We are determined to protect the American and allied military and civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation," Pompeo said.

Now:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 40052.html

[Brian Peacock]

This administration doesn't seem big on the rule of law.

[Tero]

https://karireport.blogspot.com/2019/04 ... s-out.html

[Cunt]

Orly? As usual? Me?

I'd say your usual, yeah.

[Forty Two]

Defend that one, 42. Go ahead. Do what you do best. Defend the indefensible.

I am not about to defend our involvement in Yemen. It's been a problem for me since day one.

Top Obama administration officials have drafted a letter acknowledging their responsibility for initiating U.S. involvement in Yemen's destructive civil war and calling for the Trump administration to halt America's role in the conflict.

Thirty former senior officials, including former national security adviser Susan Rice and former CIA director John Brennan, said the Obama administration decided in 2015 to provide limited support to a Saudi-led military coalition in an attempt to ensure a prudent operation against Houthi rebels in Yemen and to steer the conflict toward a diplomatic resolution.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nat ... story.html

So, getting us into Yemen was not Trump's problem. It was Obama's problem. And, I don't recall much push-back by Democrats or Obama supporters at the time. However, their hypocrisy on this issue is not relevant to a decision to stay in there now.

I wish he would have pulled the troops out by now. So, if the only import of the bill passed by both houses of Congress is that it gets American military involvement out of Yemen, I would oppose Trump's veto in total.

The difficulty I have here is that I have not yet seen a cohesive defense of the reason for the veto. The reason publicly offered is that it is an attempt to limit Presidential authority and that the US support for the Saudi led war did not rise to the level of "hostilities" within the meaning of the War Powers Act and that it would establish bad precedent for future legislation. He may have some points there on an issue of law and separation of powers. But, before I accept any such points, I think they need to be more explicit. I think the Administration needs to say what part of the text of the bill passed by Congress was infringing on his Presidential powers and white kind of bad precedent does it set.

I read through the version on the Senate website, and there are some things I thought were weird about it ,but the things that jumped out at me were not related to the reasons offered by the Admnistration for the veto.

My understanding is that since February of 2017, there have been no ground actions in Yemen. We are limited only to airstrikes, which are carried out with consent of the Yemeni government.

So, on this one my position is:

A. I want us out of any military involvement in Yemen, as taking military action in Yemen was a mistake in the first place and remains so.
B. It's President Trump's power to stop US airestrikes there and stop support for the Saudi led-war.
C. He should do it.
D. My position on the veto is that I think he should not have vetoed the bill; but, I could be convinced otherwise, if the rationale for vetoing it is made clear and really does operate as limitation on Presidential Power (an unjustified one) - right now, I don't see it.

[Cunt]

Can Yang end Trump's chances? He seems not yet attached to any serious crazy...or IS he going for a Dem ticket?

I'll give him a listen. I heard this discussion was informative.