McConnell unsure if Trump's border emergency is legal after meeting with Pence

[mystery-ak]

McConnell unsure if Trump's border emergency is legal after meeting with Pence
by Susan Ferrechio
 | February 26, 2019 04:11 PM



Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he isn't sure himself if President Trump's emergency declaration about the southern U.S. border is legal, even after a meeting with Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence met with GOP senators in a closed-door meeting Tuesday to help convince them that Trump acted within the boundaries of the law when he declared an emergency in order to steer $3.6 billion toward the construction of a steel slat fence on the border. But many GOP senators debated Pence on that point, and many, including McConnell, still weren't sure what they thought about it when they left.

“We are in the process of weighing that,” McConnell said after the meeting. McConnell said he hasn’t “reached a total conclusion” about whether the move is legal, although he backs the president’s use of the declaration to build a southern border wall.

Pence brought a Justice Department lawyer to the meeting to try to convince Republicans Trump is acting within his constitutional authority to divert $3.6 billion from the military construction budget. The meeting took place just a few weeks away from when the Senate is likely to vote on a resolution disapproving of Trump's decision.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mcconnell-unsure-if-trumps-border-emergency-is-legal-after-meeting-with-pence

[Wingnut]

The post turtle is at it again.

[libertybele]

The post turtle is at it again.

The GOP anti-Trump crowd continues to grow.

[Bigun]

McConnell is unsure what day it is most of the time.

[skeeter]

The post turtle is at it again.

Yep. His fence sitting routine is growing old. I do not believe it is fooling anyone.

Was McConnell "unsure" Obama's DACA EO was legal?

[Sanguine]

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

“We are in the process of weighing that,” McConnell said after the meeting. McConnell said he hasn’t “reached a total conclusion” about whether the move is legal, although he backs the president’s use of the declaration to build a southern border wall.

Does this make sense to anyone?

[edpc]

Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes, it means he’s punting to SCOTUS so he can say he supported the president either way the decision goes. It’s sometimes called having your cake and eating it, too.

[Wingnut]

Yes, it means he’s punting to SCOTUS so he can say he supported the president either way the decision goes. It’s sometimes called having your cake and eating it, too.

It ain't cake he is eating.

[edpc]

It ain't cake he is eating.

I’m not in charge at the idiom factory.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yes, it means he’s punting to SCOTUS so he can say he supported the president either way the decision goes. It’s sometimes called having your cake and eating it, too.

This makes even less sense.

[edpc]

This makes even less sense.

I've done all I can for you. Anne Sullivan is dead.

[Chosen Daughter]

Does this make sense to anyone?

Yes, it makes perfect sense to me.  McConnell made a deal with Trump to sign the piece of crap bill and he would support his Emergency Declaration.  He got what he wanted and now he is backing out of the Emergency Declaration.  I honestly don't understand how President Trump could have been that stupid.  In the first place the bill neutered border security and the wall.  Secondly McConnell has obviously been rallying Republicans against border security.

McConnell is now trying to say he doesn't know if it was legal.  Come on.  The President was set up for the fall.

[roamer_1]

McConnell is now trying to say he doesn't know if it was legal.  Come on.  The President was set up for the fall.

I also question the legality... As do Conservative lawmakers. It isn't the emergency declaration. It is the end run around the House's control of the purse, especially after the House has made its intentions clear.

I want the border sealed up as much as anybody. But not at the expense of breaking the law, causing a Constitutional crisis, or at best, setting a precedent that will be used in the future in imprudent ways.

[Bill Cipher]

It means McConnell is considering the issue in a serious manner. 

[Sanguine]

It means McConnell is considering the issue in a serious manner.

 

[Wingnut]

It means McConnell is considering the issue in a serious manner.

You said that without a /s   

You are slipping my man.

[Chosen Daughter]

I also question the legality... As do Conservative lawmakers. It isn't the emergency declaration. It is the end run around the House's control of the purse, especially after the House has made its intentions clear.

I want the border sealed up as much as anybody. But not at the expense of breaking the law, causing a Constitutional crisis, or at best, setting a precedent that will be used in the future in imprudent ways.

If it was breaking the law Mitch would have known it before he promised to support it.  But maybe Mitch isn't that sure about what is the law.  I am sure this is against the law Mr. McConnell.  No wonder you are not willing to stop the flow of drugs into our country.


https://www.thenation.com/article/mitch-mcconnells-freighted-ties-shadowy-shipping-company/

https://waragainstallpuertoricans.com/2016/07/09/90-pounds-of-cocaine-discovered-on-a-boat-owned-by-the-family-of-mitch-mcconnell-the-majority-leader-of-the-u-s-senate/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-senate-hopeful-defends-ad-calling-mcconnell-cocaine-mitch/

[roamer_1]

If it was breaking the law Mitch would have known it before he promised to support it.  But maybe Mitch isn't that sure about what is the law.  I am sure this is against the law Mr. McConnell.  No wonder you are not willing to stop the flow of drugs into our country.

Or it could be that Sasse, Tillis, Paul, and other Conservatives have made themselves known, and he is repositioning.

[Chosen Daughter]

Or it could be that Sasse, Tillis, Paul, and other Conservatives have made themselves known, and he is repositioning.

U.S. Constitution
Article 4 Section 4

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)

[roamer_1]

U.S. Constitution
Article 4 Section 4

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)

Like I said - It is the lack appropriation that I am against, and the bald-faced rebellion against the House's hand on the purse, and the House's expressed intent- The authority to repel invasion is not even in question.

[edpc]

No military threat at southern border, top U.S. general says

http://www.rollcall.com/news/no-military-threat-at-southern-border-top-u-s-general-says

[Sanguine]

No military threat at southern border, top U.S. general says

http://www.rollcall.com/news/no-military-threat-at-southern-border-top-u-s-general-says

General O’Shaughnessy doesn't know what he's blathering about.

[edpc]

General O’Shaughnessy doesn't know what he's blathering about.

That's too bad, since he is in charge of N. American defense and was appointed to his position by Trump, less than a year ago.

[Sanguine]

That's too bad, since he is in charge of N. American defense and was appointed to his position by Trump, less than a year ago.

On, that we agree.