This article said that Trump attempted to personally direct members of law enforcement to break the law while he was speaking to them near the border with Mexico.
This is a serious claim and certainly impeachible if true.
The people who work for the government are responsible to ignore unlawful orders, but we cannot expect them to keep that up under sustained pressure.
Someone please explain to me why what the president asked them to do is not actually illegal.
This is not the kind of thing that we can like appeal to first principles on.
I don't want to see any trite or simplistic replies like "no borders no country."
The law says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. But I don't know what it says off hand.
Can any of your shed some light on this?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politic...index.html

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Considering the source is CNN, it would be prudent to withhold judgement for now.

---

If true, he certainly overstepped his bounds.

If the President were to directly order government officials to break the law and ignore standing court decisions, and there were direct irrefutable proof of that happening, then perhaps there's something there worth looking at more closely. If the President says something stupid to the Border Patrol, well, yeah. He's an idiot and it's starting to look like his mental capacities are slipping away a la Reagan towards the end. What more do you expect?

---

Considering the source is CNN, it would be prudent to withhold judgement for now.

THIS!^^^^

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

This would be perfect for another special investigator!! Try tapping your fingers together when you say "impeach". really gets the juices flowing

---

.... Just shaking my head...

---

This article said that Trump attempted to personally direct members of law enforcement to break the law while he was speaking to them near the border with Mexico.
This is a serious claim and certainly impeachible if true.
The people who work for the government are responsible to ignore unlawful orders, but we cannot expect them to keep that up under sustained pressure.
Someone please explain to me why what the president asked them to do is not actually illegal.
This is not the kind of thing that we can like appeal to first principles on.
I don't want to see any trite or simplistic replies like "no borders no country."
The law says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. But I don't know what it says off hand.
Can any of your shed some light on this?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politic...index.html

There you go again!

---

Good Lord Mike.. Put some cortisone on that TDS.

---

This article said that Trump attempted to personally direct members of law enforcement to break the law while he was speaking to them near the border with Mexico.
This is a serious claim and certainly impeachible if true.
The people who work for the government are responsible to ignore unlawful orders, but we cannot expect them to keep that up under sustained pressure.
Someone please explain to me why what the president asked them to do is not actually illegal.
This is not the kind of thing that we can like appeal to first principles on.
I don't want to see any trite or simplistic replies like "no borders no country."
The law says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say. But I don't know what it says off hand.
Can any of your shed some light on this?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politic...index.html

CNN, anonymous sources, blah, blah. Even though it was CNN, I read the article and in the context of what is happening with immigration and border security, it appears like someone is taking hype speech and trying to burn the man. Trump is wearing his frustration on his sleeve and in those particular forums, the audience is feeling the same. Are you calling the cops if you are standing in the locker room at half time and the rah rah speech is "let's continue to beat their [BLEEP]. We need to kill those dudes!"? No, of course not, it's hype. It is even stated in the article that he is aware of the laws and his supporting cast is aware as well. They feel like their backs are against the wall and it more or less appears to be "table-top" discussion on how far they can push to solve an increasing issue. You know, talking through the issues and coming up with a temporary solution that hopefully leads to a more permanent one. Like we do when working through an engineering flaw. Made complete sense to the engineer, however, it is not end user-friendly. Our immigration laws need to change for the better of the American people but unfortunately, there is a group of power hungry incompetents more hell-bent on hurting than helping.

---

This is classic "crying wolf." If Trump ever did anything legitimately wrong, no one is even going to listen because of all this nonsense. Never in my life have I heard so much talk about impeachment for anything. This is a terrible standard.

---

Simple question though:
If Trump actually said what CNN reports, do those amount to unlawful orders?
They are certainly orders.
Are they actually unlawful?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump. Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem. So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

---

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

Current policy doesn't resemble open borders.  Ask the people herded under overpasses if they think the borders are open.
This aspect is unpleasant, but lawful.  Detention while an asylum claim is adjucated is par for the course.
The president allegedly ordered CBP employees to stop letting asylum seekers cross, while letting documented people and goods continue to cross.  
Would that amount to an unlawful order?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

DING DING DING

---

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

So he only wants to do what he actually campaigned on, and 60 million people voted for him to do?

Got it.

---

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

So he only wants to do what he actually campaigned on, and 60 million people voted for him to do?

Got it.

Ah, the old "everyone who voted for that candidate agreed with every word that candidate said" fallacy.  Haven't seen that one in a little while.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Simple question though:
If Trump actually said what CNN reports, do those amount to unlawful orders?
They are certainly orders.
Are they actually unlawful?

Simple answer: No

---

The trouble is, the Democrats have completely ceded the issue of border security and illegal immigration to Trump.   Trump is the only person who seems to want to do something about the problem.   So instead of parsing every statement for an impeachable offense, the Democrats would be better off if they come up with a policy that doesn't resemble open borders.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

Okay then Amazing Kreskin!

---

Simple question though:
If Trump actually said what CNN reports, do those amount to unlawful orders?
They are certainly orders.
Are they actually unlawful?

Simple answer: No

Why not?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Simple answer: No

Why not?

U.S. Code and Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. This isn't a military-CINC like chain of command issue. In the civilian order there is no "direct order" capability as the Chief Executive. Neither the President, nor the White House in general have direct formal authority over agency heads and members unless dictated by congressional statute. Not the case here.

---