Trump To Meet With Romney, Corker Tomorrow
Donald Trump is meeting with Mitt Romney tomorrow. Oh, and Bob Corker, too.
Mr. Trump is expected to have three meetings on Monday and Tuesday as the secretary of state sweepstakes heats up — retired Gen. David H. Petraeus, Mr. Romney and Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, according to two people briefed on the schedule.
Mr. Romney has been the preferred choice of Vice President-elect Mike Pence and some business leaders from whom Mr. Trump has heard. But contention over him possibly being chosen has led Mr. Trump’s aides to open the process to other options, such as Mr. Corker.
This is such a reality show. The New President meets with the Old Nemesis! Will all be forgiven? Or will Donald refuse to let bygones be bygones? It’s an all-new episode of Trump Transition! Tune in tomorrow at 8!!!
It’s certainly interesting to speculate about what’s going on here.
I lean towards the theory that Trump is doing all of this this to humiliate Romney. I don’t think Kellyanne Conway breathes without instructions — so when she goes on “the shows” and trashes Romney, I believe she is being paid to do so. I think Trump ginned up this controversy 1) as a way to entertain people; and 2) as a way to emphasize that he, and not Romney, is the Big Dog.
What’s that, you say? Isn’t being elected President revenge enough? For Trump, I doubt it. He strikes me as the kind of bully who likes to rub it in. I think Trump wanted a few days of his supporters trashing Romney on “the shows” as a way to salve his ego, and rebuke Romney for the harsh things he said about Trump during the campaign. The demand by Trump’s advisers that Romney apologize, under this view, was just part of the vindictive blowback.
“No apology, no secretareee!”
But my boundless cynicism about Trump leaves room for a different scenario, in which Trump does pick Romney.
Because I also think Trump looks at his cabinet picks as if he’s casting a TV show. Trump has told his aides that Romney “looks the part.” And a desire for a photogenic administration would explain the otherwise perplexing choice of Nikki Haley as the ambassador to the U.N.
Meanwhile, Romney is affecting a studied indifference:
No greater joy than making discoveries together with grandchildren. pic.twitter.com/NxIYsog6lC
— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) November 28, 2016
In other words: “I don’t need this.”
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
P.S. David Petraeus? I thought it was a bad thing when a Secretary of State had a penchant for mishandling classified information! I guess that’s only true for the other side . . .
Ann Romney still bringing it. Now what were saying about some corrupt east Tennessean?
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:38 amI couldn’t have said it better Patterico, especially the bit about Conway’s sickening sycophantism. Since we’re thinking so much alike here lately, I am going to go take my temperature now. (Hmm, I don’t feel sick…)
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 10:52 amI don’t think Kellyanne Conway breathes without instructions.
If this is really true, then the narrative we had a few weeks ago–that Trump is manipulated by his aides, who can take away his Twitter whenever they want–that is busted.
Either the Trump narrative we get is unreliable, or things changes so quickly that what was true three weeks ago is not true now. Either way, making too much out of what we see in the news regarding Trump is probably a mistake.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:23 amThe only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. — Oscar Wilde
People gotta be talking about me. Only me. All the time. Nobody else but me. — Donald Trump
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:32 amYou would think he could sell some commercials. It would be so American. Especially given all the Christmas shopping. Why NOT commercialize the Presidency?!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:39 amThat whole crap story, the “Petraeus betray us” phase of the Benghazi coverup, was designed to throw the stink off of Hillary.
I mean why would the General share stories of his life in a private folder, access reserved only to his biographer, unless he was getting jiggy with it?
Maybe because she was writing his bio?
Oh no. It couldn’t be that. Not when Hillary Clinton has to explain a dead ambassador.
We heard much about the people who died in Libya, barely a word about the embassy personnel who were rescued.
That’s by design, because they were rescued by the CIA working under direction of David Petraeus.
Petraeus’ part of the government is the only part that worked well regarding Benghazi. They responded. They fought back effectively.
The only thing the General failed to do is get the stink off of Hillary.
THat’s because once you rub the stink off her, there’s nothing left.
So what you get is the administration taking out full page ads in the New York Times saying Petraeus betrayed us.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:40 amBecause that’s how Hillary and Obama reward full faith and competence.
that Trump is manipulated by his aides, who can take away his Twitter whenever they want–that is busted.
No one said Kellyanne’s instructions come from Trump.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:41 amClearly if they pick Petraeus they can’t go after Hillary for the email stuff. But the general doesn’t have a foundation, does he?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:42 am@Kevin M:No one said Kellyanne’s instructions come from Trump.
Erm…
Trump is doing all of this this to humiliate Romney. I don’t think Kellyanne Conway breathes without instructions — so when she goes on “the shows” and trashes Romney, I believe she is being paid to do so. I think Trump ginned up this controversy 1) as a way to entertain people; and 2) as a way to emphasize that he, and not Romney, is the Big Dog.
What’s that, you say? Isn’t being elected President revenge enough? For Trump, I doubt it. He strikes me as the kind of bully who likes to rub it in. I think Trump wanted a few days of his supporters trashing Romney on “the shows” as a way to salve his ego, and rebuke Romney for the harsh things he said about Trump during the campaign.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:47 am@Kevin M: So I’m really interested in your thought process here. There is some Eminence Gris who is actually giving the orders and signs the paychecks, and he’s doing things that Trump wants, right now, but at other times doesn’t?
Would really love to see you lay out your evidence.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:49 amRomney, leader of the republican arm of the great American uniparty, one of Obamacares few remaining champions, should go back to Massachusetts to collect starfish with his grandkids.
We don’t need him.
Petraeus taking over Hillary’s old job and succeeding where she left defeat and chaos would be another little bit of justice for the hag.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:53 am@papertiger:Petraeus taking over Hillary’s old job
He might do a great job, but it’s really too bad he broke the law and shared classified information while cheating on his wife, because he simply has no business holding any sort of post of trust at this point.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:56 amthey’re both disgusting choices
but getting that corker p.o.s. out of the senate would be good news for america
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:56 am“Either the Trump narrative we get is unreliable, or things changes so quickly that what was true three weeks ago is not true now. Either way, making too much out of what we see in the news regarding Trump is probably a mistake.”
– Gabriel Hanna
At which point (if any) in Trump’s presidency will you stop making this point, and why?
Leviticus (c33e9e) — 11/28/2016 @ 11:58 am@Leviticus:At which point (if any) in Trump’s presidency will you stop making this point, and why?
After he’s actually been in the job and done some things. Seeing that he’s never held office before, and seeing that the media has reported an enormous amount of false and/or poorly sourced information/speculation, why do you think that is unreasonable?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:03 pmbut it’s really too bad he [Petraeus] broke the law and shared classified information while cheating on his wife,
Except Petraeus didn’t do any of that. What he did do was distinguish himself, the only member of the Obama admin who did, during an incident that Obama needed to sweep under the rug in election season.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:05 pm@Leviticus: Not to mention that for some time now the media has actively tried to deceive everyone for the benefit of the political party they now admit to have favored all along.
All of us here are really good at detecting that when the topic is not Trump, but fewer of us choose to exercise that critical faculty when the topic is Trump. Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:06 pm@papertiger:Except Petraeus didn’t do any of that.
My lying eyes again. I should learn.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:07 pmWould really love to see you lay out your evidence.
NOW you want evidence? You’ve never seemed to before.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:10 pmMy lying eyes again. I should learn.
Well Obama was broadcasting a lot of BS in everybody’s face. Some was bound to get in your eye.
Maybe you should take a shower.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:14 pm@Kevin M:NOW you want evidence? You’ve never seemed to before.
I have no idea what this is intended to mean, but I suspect that you’re probably not going to tell me anything about who is really instructing Conway. But I do hope you prove me wrong, and lay out what you think is going on and what your evidence is.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:15 pm@papertiger:Well Obama was broadcasting a lot of BS in everybody’s face.
Obama is not my source for Petraeus’s affair, nor for his lawbreaking.
After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair,” Mr. Petraeus said in his statement, expressing regret for his abrupt departure. “Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the president graciously accepted my resignation.”
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:17 pmOT:
A refugee from Somalia who had become a Legal Permanent Resident of the US, age 18, died today at the hands of The Ohio State University Police. He had intentionally driven his vehicle up onto the sidewalk and struck students, then climbed out of his vehicle and cut people with a butcher knife. The Officer arrived on scene within 1 minute, engaged with the 18 year old Somali refugee, whereupon the kid refused to obey any orders and was eliminated.
John Hitchcock (3e6e9b) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:18 pmGabriel,
The post speculates between two possible scenarios of what is going on. Why do you make it out to be a factual assertion about one of those scenarios? Do you now serially misrepresent my words for sport?
I am stilll awaiting an apology for your distortion the other day in which you falsely claimed I had said federal conflict of interest laws apply to Trump when I had said the opposite. You used your distortion of my words to make a snide remark and I have seen no apology or correction — and that was the second distortion of my words in that thread alone.
You don’t generally misstate what I say but somehow you tend to do so when the topic is Trump. The emotion might be clouding your reading comprehension.
Patterico (109e14) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:19 pm@Patterico:I am stilll awaiting an apology for your distortion the other day in which you falsely claimed I had said federal conflict of interest laws apply to Trump when I had said the opposite.
I did misunderstood what you said, and I acknowledged that possibility at the time. I did not intentionally misrepresent what you said.
The post speculates between two possible scenarios of what is going on. Why do you make it out to be a factual assertion about one of those scenarios?
I don’t. I’m pointing out inconsistent media narratives.
The emotion might be clouding your reading comprehension.
Could be, it’s been going around.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:25 pmI bitterly oppose Romney for SecState, because he, so far as I’m aware, has no relevant experience and has not displayed any skills for that job. I’d support putting him in a different slot, like Treasury, commerce, etc, where he does have the skillset, but not SecState. Same goes for Giuliani, Christie, Gingrich, etc…
Same goes for Petraeus; I’d be fine with him as head of the VA, but not in any post where access to classified info is part of it.
Arizona CJ (191c8a) — 11/28/2016 @ 12:47 pm“@Leviticus:At which point (if any) in Trump’s presidency will you stop making this point, and why?
After he’s actually been in the job and done some things.”
– Gabriel Hanna
OK, cool. Just wanted some reassurance. Gave yourself a bit wiggle-room, I see, but that’s OK too.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:17 pmYou made it sound as if it were impossible to reconcile two statements, one of which misstated what I had said.
Is this your apology? You were pretty snide.
Patterico (109e14) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:24 pm“Look, children, wet water!’ Such a quaint family photo… right out of 1959. Next image to post, vanilla ice cream cones at the Dairy Queen– one for the pooch strapped to the roof of the station wagon, too.
This is such a reality show. The New President meets with the Old Nemesis! Will all be forgiven? Or will Donald refuse to let bygones be bygones? It’s an all-new episode of Trump Transition! Tune in tomorrow at 8!!!
You’re catching on. ‘Presidential Apprentice’… for Americans don’t want to be governed; they wish to be entertained.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:31 pmHey, who doesn’t want to live in La Jolla?!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:37 pm@30- The niece likes it. College.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:39 pm#3 Gabriel, I don’t see a real contradiction there. It could be that he’s so new to politics proper, that he is easily persuaded, and yet, if you cross him and do not abide by his commands, once he has made them (at least for that day, they might change tomorrow), then he will do his best to destroy you. Heck, Conway herself might have talked him into this game, but once his choice was made, she’d better not dis-obey. (I can’t believe I’m defending Patterico. Something must be froze over.)
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:53 pmThese guys are worth millions and untouchable on contemporary levels.
How else can they one-up each other in that club other than out doing each other in deal-making, humiliation on a golf course– or forcing the other to grovel in the public eye.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 1:55 pm@Patterico:You made it sound as if it were impossible to reconcile two statements, one of which misstated what I had said.
I quoted both your statements exactly, “cited the fact that the laws that apply to everyone else in creation in government do not technically apply to him” and “Show me where I claimed such a law exists”.
I characterized them, in my response, as “You say Trump says that laws that apply to everyone else in creation don’t apply to him”, which is not exactly equivalent to what you said but not a misstatement, “and then you say that you never said any law that applies to Trump in this situation even exists”, again not exactly what you said but not a misstatement. Both of those are true, Trump said that, you said that, you are both correct.
Yes, I did find them difficult to reconcile, because I misunderstood one of them. In my defense, I can only say that it is rare to acknowledge that the law does not apply to someone, and also criticize them for acting as though it doesn’t, within the same sentence. But I should have read it more carefully, I acknowledge. You had already said by then that you were not going to respond to me, and there we were.
Is this your apology?
It was not done willfully, and not done with the intention of deceiving anyone. You accused me of “making things up to win an argument”, which does sound pretty intentional. Plenty of misunderstandings around. Trump does not inspire dispassionate discourse, and it is easy to misunderstand things.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:17 pm#32 Tillman, in order to believe that hell has frozen over, don’t you first have to believe in hell? (LOL)
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:20 pm@Tillman: The phenomenon you are experiencing is strange new respect, which will go away again as soon as Patterico says something you disagree with, which will probably be within days.
I have collected a cadre of leftists who follow me on twitter for the purpose of seeing my law enforcement articles when I tweet them, which they then use to say “See, even REDSTATE agrees,” and when I say things they disagree with, they all want to lecture me at some great length at how I’ve disappointed them. –Leon H. Wolf
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:26 pmAnd still you are relying on unattributed sources, shadows and penumbras
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:27 pm# 36 I have a little respect for anyone who see’s that our Emperor-Elect has no clothes. By the way, if we say his name three times, will he disappear?
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:35 pm@Tillman:Emperor-Elect
To the extent this is accurate, it is due to the chronic, metastasizing abuse of executive power in the hands of one Barack H. Obama. Do you see then the value of limiting the power of the Federal government? Power given to people you think are good, can be be used by people you think are bad.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:40 pmhe better not disappear he’s my everything
happyfeet (a037ad) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:42 pmMr Tillman, we know you love Alinsky and Kimberlin.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:48 pmNonetheless, we are praying that one day you will have an epiphany and be all like, “Hey, I don’t need the government to validate me — I can succeed in the private sector!“
What? No wing tips?
Can’t help but notice in that Twitter pix the wife and kids are all in appropriate beach and water attire– but Sir Willard of Romney Marsh??? Long pants, long sleeve shirt and wristwatch. Only Mitt could make a hermit crab feel uncomfortably overdressed.
“Who let the dogs out?” – BaHa Men, 2000
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 2:58 pm@37.And still you are relying on unattributed sources, shadows and penumbras
Shadows & Penumbras. Like that! Very Cagney & Lacey. Might steal it. Could just be a new detective series next fall on Fox. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:03 pmGabriel, I remember when republicans were arguing that W should have more executive power (as if republicans would henceforth win the White House). So I’m laughing about that now. But no, I don’t really have a firm opinion about where the line should be drawn exactly; I’m not an attorney, so I don’t pretend to understand where that line is (supposedly) drawn in the first place. But I’m all for scaling it back now, given our circumstances.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:03 pmIn general, for example, I get a little nervous that the president can start wars without any kind of restraint (even if it’s not technically supposed to be possible, it can).
@Tillman:In general, for example, I get a little nervous that the president can start wars without any kind of restraint
After 240 years, only now are you worried about that? Obama is committing acts of war in five nations currently (last I checked, perhaps he has added some since then).
And it’s not true about “any kind of restraint”. The military is not made up of killbots.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:07 pm@Tillman:I remember when republicans were arguing that W should have more executive power
Any in particular you would cite? Or did all 60 million of them shout it in unison and I missed it?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:07 pm42. He didn’t get the memo about the white dad not being the butt of jokes anymore.
urbanleftbehind (984496) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:07 pmMr Tillman, when Republicans were “arguing” for “more” executive power, it was within the context of Bush 43’s position as Commander in Chief.
We weren’t arguing for “more” power that was extraconstitutional.
The problem with you Alinky/Kimberlin people is that you want to limit executive power when a Republican is President, but then you want it to be unlimited when your guy’s in office. When your guy’s in office, you want “executive power” to supersede the inherent powers of Congress.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:15 pm“Any in particular you would cite? Or did all 60 million of them shout it in unison and I missed it?”
– Gabriel Hanna
John Yoo?
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:19 pm@Leviticus:John Yoo?
He advised the government on what interrogation techniques are legal and which are not, is that what you are referring to? That’s not exactly “expansion of executive power” is it?
I don’t believe he ever said anything like ‘I have a pen and a phone’, but hey, you show me different and I will acknowledge that you found one.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:22 pmyou can get anything out of the press, except the truth lately
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:22 pm#48 Didn’t Obama specialize in constitutional law? I believe that he did. Maybe that’s why he knows what he can do and what he can’t. I’m not saying I completely agree with everything he’s done, so do jump to conclusions. Going into another country to kill one of their people, I have strong reservations about, even if it was bin Laden. I struggle with that one for example.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:25 pm“He advised the government on what interrogation techniques are legal and which are not, is that what you are referring to? That’s not exactly “expansion of executive power” is it?”
– Gabriel Hanna
He advised the Executive that statutory restrictions on torture could be disregarded because (he argued) they restricted the Executive’s authority to conduct war.
“prosecution under 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A may be barred because enforcement of the statute would represent an unconstitutional infringement of the President’s authority to conduct war”
Seems like an expansion of executive power to me.
Leviticus (efada1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:25 pm*don’t jump to conclusions.
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:26 pmNo, he taught Alin sky. O unity organizing, and sold it as legal theory.
John you consulted the relevant European court precedents on interrogation and crafted his memorandum accordingly.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:29 pm@Leviticus:Seems like an expansion of executive power to me.
It’s not. It’s a statement of what executive power is, according to the Constitution.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:30 pmHere’s the problem with criticism of “humiliating” Romney:
No one contests the fact that Romney said what he said.
Right, wrong, or somewhere in between, Romney owns his words and his opinions.
When Trump called, Romney’s “BS” detector should have went off, and he should have said “Given my comments during the campaign, I think too much attention would be paid to the interpersonal dynamic, and not enough to the foreign affairs of the US. Someone else would be a better choice for the job. I’m happy to provide my advice on a few names if desired.”
1. Romney asked to be humiliated — he should have taken the sage advice of Omar Little about “Coming at the King” and not missing.
2. Romney has placed himself now in the position of having the carrot dangled in front of his nose, only to get a whip to the backside when the job goes to another.
I’m sure Trump was prepared to endure the denunciations of the Dems, but I don’t find it surprising at all that he feels like there area few scores left to settle with ostensible “allies.”
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:31 pm@Tillman:Didn’t Obama specialize in constitutional law?
I don’t know if he did or not, I think he lectured on it as an adjunct, but regardless there are any number of people who are experts in Constitutional law and they don’t agree with each other on everything, so I don’t agree that “he knows what he can do and what he can’t. “
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:33 pmSo how is what Carlos slim and bozos turns out, just byzantine fiction I mean narrative.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:38 pmObama specialized in Constitutional Law???? LMAO. Tell another funny one please.
Obama was a “Lecturer” at Univ. of Chicago, not a tenured professor.
And he taught as seminar class to 2nd and 3rd year students that had a narrow focus of race, voting rights, and late in his career there on gender. The only constitutional subject touched on was substantive due process and the equal protection clause.
He never published a single scholarly paper. He was a full time politician, who taught a couple classes a year so he could be considered part of the school’s faculty.
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:40 pmShipwreckedcrew, FYI http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Tillman (a95660) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:45 pmWhat was it the President-elect said of Willard????…. ‘He choked! Once a choker, always a choker.’
So, riddle us this, Trumpman– why hire The Choker?
DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:48 pm@Tillman: Your link backs up SWC 100%.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:49 pmThe Jodi cantor review right before the convention, only revisited years later by Joel pollak re the derrick bell connection was very illuminating
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:54 pmNotice that they used “professor” in lower case — Chicago calls all their faculty members “professors”, which is not standard. Traditionally, “Professor” is a tenured member of the faculty, who works there full time.
And IMO one of the reasons he never accepted an offer to get on the tenure track was that he didn’t want to be required to publish. He got what he wanted out of the arrangement — a chance to enhance his resume and to call himself a “Professor” of Con Law.
But anyone who has been through law school understands the difference.
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:55 pmPerry doesn’t read his own links, foghorn leghorn is a pig in a poke.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:56 pmA little off-topic – OK, a LOT off-topic – but has anybody been following the “active shooter situation” at THE Ohio State University?
It produced the most unintentionally funny headline in recent history, courtesy of the Columbus Dispatch:
“Police ID shooter as business student”
The business student’s name? Abdul Razak Ali Artan.
Deuce Frehley (8afd8b) — 11/28/2016 @ 3:58 pm#52 Mr Tillman-Kimberlin,
No, Barack doesn’t have great insight into constitutional law.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/28/2016 @ 4:02 pmBut Clarence Thomas has great insight into constitutional law, so why don’t you embrace his points of view? Is it because you don’t like black people?
Somali student who immigrated into the US from Somalia via Pakistan.
Complained recently about a lack of Muslim prayer rooms at tOSU.
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 11/28/2016 @ 4:15 pmThat would be like saying Mohammed atta, aspiring urban planner.
narciso (d1f714) — 11/28/2016 @ 4:31 pm“It’s a statement of what executive power is, according to the Constitution.”
– Gabriel Hanna
Don’t you have to be in a war to take advantage of “war powers”?
Leviticus (c33e9e) — 11/28/2016 @ 4:35 pm@Leviticus:Don’t you have to be in a war to take advantage of “war powers”?
Not since, oh, 1789. Reflect that the United States has declared war only 5 times.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 5:08 pmYou don’t actually have to “DECLARE WAR” to have declared war. The AUMFs with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan satisfy the War Powers Act as much as something that formally said “We Declare War.” We were as much at war with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan as we ever could be, and we utterly defeated them.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/28/2016 @ 5:17 pm@Kevin M:The AUMFs with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan satisfy the War Powers Act as much as something that formally said “We Declare War.”
You got that right. But you can go even farther back than that. Lincoln used war powers, but the United States was never formally at war with the Confederacy–formally speaking there was no nation to be at war with.
And of course Washington exercised war powers in 1791.
Gabriel Hanna (9b1f4a) — 11/28/2016 @ 5:23 pmThere is no definition of what constitutes a “declaration of war”. As such, the Authorization to Use Force issued by Congress after 9/11 likely satisfies any constitutional obligation in that regard.
So, Bush was a President “at war” at the time of the Yoo memos.
shipwreckedcrew (e90d7c) — 11/28/2016 @ 5:23 pmOkay. Maybe I should take a shower.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/28/2016 @ 6:58 pmIs there any special soap for getting egg off?
A Declaration of War mostly means that certain laws (and maybe certain internationally respected rules) kick into effect. It is not the same thing as an authorization of the use of force.
The people who wrote the constitution intended the general powers of Xongress and the difficulty in establishing a standiong army – no appropriation for the military being good for more than two years – to be the restraint.
Sammy Finkelman (dcc9ca) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:00 pmWhat Sammy said. There are international treaties and conventions about declared/undeclared wars, lawful/unlawful warfare, and similar lipsticks on pigs. However, they only apply to the losers.
nk (dbc370) — 11/28/2016 @ 7:17 pmhttp://twitter.com/Patterico/status/803602916233777153
Patterico (572840) — 11/29/2016 @ 6:29 am