Drip Drip Drip

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

I'll argue why the lies

1) culture. Trump, kushner, Ivanka lie about everything. It's a culture of lies.

2) the background check came up with reasons Jared would be risky to grant a clearance. Foreign entanglements, risky behavior - like talking to MBS over Whatsapp.

3) there was documentation of jared mishandling classified information already <- this ones a guess, but based on the cavaliar way they've approached everything, not unreasonable imo.

*IF* my understanding is correct, the last would be within the purview of the oversight committee.  The rest?  Even though it doesn't represent how most think things should be done, are not.  Edited to add: Elijah Cummings needs to tread careful ly, I think, because if the investigation stretches beyond the scope of the Oversight committee, then that politicization has the potential to minimize any real findings that the committee may uncover. 

 

[Steam Flyer]

*IF* my understanding is correct, the last would be within the purview of the oversight committee.  The rest?  Even though it doesn't represent how most think things should be done, are not.  Edited to add: Elijah Cummings needs to tread careful ly, I think, because if the investigation stretches beyond the scope of the Oversight committee, then that politicization has the potential to minimize any real findings that the committee may uncover. 

The President having the right to grant clearances for any reason doesn't necessarily mean the President has the right to not tell people why he's doing it.

Given Trump's response to the requests, it's a bit rich for you to tell Cummings he has to be careful not to politicize it. Trump is politicizing it and will politicize it. That's what he does, and Republicans march right along wherever he goes.

Let's try to remember who is supposed to be the good guys.

You can't be the good guy if you indulge in bad behavior on the excuse that the other guy is already doing it. Sorry.

-DSK

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

The President having the right to grant clearances for any reason doesn't necessarily mean the President has the right to not tell people why he's doing it or that he's done it.

Given Trump's response to the requests, it's a bit rich for you to tell Cummings he has to be careful not to politicize it. Trump is politicizing it and will politicize it. That's what he does, and Republicans march right along wherever he goes.

To the 1st?   As much as we might not like it, I think that it actually does.  To the second?  You really don't read things all the way thru before you respond, do you?   If the committee finds something that's actionable - I don't want to see that diminished by providing the opposition the ability to legitimately refute the claims by proving that they acted beyond the scope of their authority.   RIF - but, only if you want to understand what someone else is thinking. 

 

[Sean]

Not intending to be contrary Sean - but, Cummings agenda for the committee  != its statutory scope , nor does it define the statutory scope of executive privilege w/r/t issuing clearances.   The President absolutely does have the authority to issue a clearance to anyone for anything he deems necessary - the POTUS is the ultimate classification authority.    

If they want to investigate the behavior of the people to whom classified information has been entrusted?  IMHO that's completely within their purview.  Trying to suggest that they can tell the POTUS who can and can't have a clearance?  My understanding of this process and the regs that govern it say that that's a non-starter. 

Oversight is one thing, remedy, is another. It’s absolutely within Congress’s purview, and in my view their duty, to raise a red flag when the POTUS does something inappropriate.

 

[VhmSays]

I'm stating that views on the legitimacy of investigations rest on public perception and politics, not matters of law. Trump has gotten out in front of many of the investigations of he & his admins conduct with an aggressive PR strategy of bullshitting and lies. It's been reasonably successful, as evidenced with public perception of the Mueller investigation. I see nothing different in he & his admins response to the committees request. It was more bullshit & PR than the law.

As for the first - the founders gave the CIC broad powers, but often subject to congressional "advice and consent" - e.g officers require congressional approval. Taken to an extreme - if someone was convicted of espionage and stripped of their clearance - do you really think the President should be able to regrant access to classified information without having to tell anyone about it so he could never be held accountable?

He has the authority to pardon and yeah the authority to grant access to classified information to whomever he feels like, he can even declassify anything anytime. Whether you or me think he should be able to is irrelevant till the law is changed, till then in this he is unaccountable.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

He has the authority to pardon and yeah the authority to grant access to classified information to whomever he feels like, he can even declassify anything anytime. Whether you or me think he should be able to is irrelevant till the law is changed, till then in this he is unaccountable.

There is a very big difference between legally liable and accountable.

 

[Mrleft8]

Serious question - does that apply to executive appointments?  To be clear, I think that it SHOULD - but, aren't political appointments are a little different then OPM regulations?  You have to question the wisdom and intent of anyone who'd purposefully do something that every other officeholder in the land would avoid for the sake af fairness and propriety.    

The anti-nepotism law applies directly to the executive branch. It was created because of JFK/RFK, and was used against Carter, and Nixon, as well as Obama.

 

[SloopJonB]

The anti-nepotism law applies directly to the executive branch. It was created because of JFK/RFK

Arguably not a good instance to justify it.

RFK's backdoor work and recommendation to ignore Kruschev's last letter and go with the more conciliatory second last one is generally credited with saving the world during the missile crisis.

Along with the Russian sub commander who refused to launch his nukes of course.

 

[hasher]

Russian sub commander who refused to launch his nukes of course

Hadn't read that before.  Good read.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

 

[Raz'r]

Hadn't read that before.  Good read.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov

Is he the "one-ping Vasili" role model?

 

[SloopJonB]

Is he the "one-ping Vasili" role model?

Probably closer to the guy who never got to see Montana

 

[Bus Driver]

Fuck the Freedom of the Press and the rights of US citizens.

 

[justsomeguy!]

Fuck the Freedom of the Press and the rights of US citizens.

Unfortunately, old news.

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/journalists-fisa-court-spying/?curator=MediaREDEF

Wish I could find a direct link to it, but this phone...

Mexico is "helping" the US with this too.

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/08/us-mexico-border-journalists-harassment/

 

[Sean]

Manafort sentenced to only 47 months. 

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Lying about dealings with Russians happens in every campaign. 

 

[Sean]

Lying about dealings with Russians happens in every campaign. 

I suspect Berman-Jackson will see things differently.

 

[Navig8tor]

Oopsie, 

Paulie Whoopsies a winner.

An all expenses paid vacation at Club Fed 47 months

" I know it is my conduct that bought me here"  He asks for compassion however, he did not apologize.

Another sentencing next week,  concurrent? is the question.

 

[Navig8tor]

I suspect Berman-Jackson will see things differently.

Yep,  think judge Amy will be a little less charitable and Roger Stones antics have not helped.

Given his health, whatever Judge Amy tacks on will likely result in a one way trip to the pen

 

[Olsonist]

An otherwise blameless life, well blameless for someone permanently disbarred.

 

[Sean]

Oopsie, 

Paulie Whoopsies a winner.

An all expenses paid vacation at Club Fed 47 months

" I know it is my conduct that bought me here"  He asks for compassion however, he did not apologize.

Another sentencing next week,  concurrent? is the question.

Consecutive more likely I'd say. I hate to think judicial partisanship has anything to do with this.  Ellis is a Reagan appointee, Berman-Jackson an Obama appointee.