Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him
Trailrunner7 writes "A group of six Congressmen have asked President Barack Obama to remove James Clapper as director of national intelligence as a result of his misstatements to Congress about the NSA's dragnet data-collection programs. The group, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said that Clapper's role as DNI 'is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs.' Clapper is the former head of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and has been DNI since 2010. In their letter to Obama, the group of Congressmen calling for his ouster said that he lied to Congress and should no longer be in office. 'The continued role of James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence is incompatible with the goal of restoring trust in our security programs and ensuring the highest level of transparency. Director Clapper continues to hold his position despite lying to Congress, under oath, about the existence of bulk data collection programs in March 2013. Asking Director Clapper, and other federal intelligence officials who misrepresented programs to Congress and the courts, to report to you on needed reforms and the future role of government surveillance is not a credible solution,' the letter from Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson says." "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."
Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa, Ted Poe, Paul Broun, Doug Collins, Walter Jones and Alan Grayson. What's the over/under on child porn?
It's not a "lie" if they aren't convicted, and even then for most people it will still be a "misstatement".
The win at all costs nature that American politics have turned into as of late have made seeing just how blatant a lie you can get away with part of the game rather than something to be avoided.
Asking nicely for his removal will accomplish nothing at all. Either go for conviction or don't bother. Saying "he's not nice and we don't like him anymore" is not going do anything other than cause the administration to chuckle.
-jon
>> "Misstatement," of course, being the favorite euphemism for "lie."
I though it was, "If you like your X, you can keep your X." :)
Clapper's in the crapper.
Unfortunately, "lying to congress" has some protection from that kind of punishment to prevent congress from using congressional inquiry as a lazy version of a bill of attainder.
*Congress* is worried about liars???? Who the hell do they think they are? Pot, meet kettle. Congressmen themselves like like dogs as a matter of course, but they will be all upset if anyone lies to them??? Yeah, right.
C|N>K
Congress has the authority to remove people from positions in the federal government on their own. Why don't they use it?
And no, it doesn't need to be an impeachment of the President, it can be any officer or person holding a position of trust in the U.S. government. Dozens of impeachment bills are presented every year in Congress, where they seldom get any sort of attention even when they pass as it is usually for obscure offices or minor judges. if these congressmen were serious, they would just start the process and hold that over the head of President Obama to act before they do.
It just seems that in this case talk is cheap, as if filing a bill is something not in their authority.
People have been complaining forever about Congress doing nothing about the NSA's egregious overreach. This is just a gesture, but it's a gesture in the right direction.
Best case, Obama ignores the letter, then Congress gets royally pissed off and does something with more teeth.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
It's a good start, although I'd like "Removed from his position" to be replaced with "Prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
More people need to be shitcanned over this but, really, the fact that these programs are event "arguably" legal is the major issue here. The laws that allow the NSA to snoop on all of us need to be repealed first and foremost.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Power occupies a vacuum.
If you don't run government in favour of the people, i.e. pre-Reaganite social democracy, it will end up being run in favour of minority special interests, IOW the businessmen who benefit from massive data collection.
About the same as for all the fucking democrats who co-authored and supported the bill.
Stop being a useless fuck and actually learn something. Neither party is on your side here.
I will remind you that Barry Bonds went to jail for lying to Congress. They didn't hesitate to throw him in jail.
Either throw Clapper in jail or rewrite the laws to reflect reality: If you are powerful enough and have the full support of the current administration, you are immune from prosecution.
And while you are at it, take that stupid blindfold off that statute of justice. That is from another world and another time. It has no relevance today.
If a regular joe lied to congress, under oath, they'd send his ass up the river on a multitude of charges running the gamut from conspiracy to perjury to treason. Clapper should be judged by the same laws. Let a jury decide.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Well, Chang'e was not only made in China, but is currently about 400.000 km away and appears stuck. I doubt things are going much better for Hop'e.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Ted Poe (R - TX), Paul Broun (R - GA), Doug Collins (R - GA), Walter Jones (R - NC), Alan Grayson (D - FL)
Good to see they got a Democrat on board. Here's hoping more of all stripe sign on.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Isn't Darrel Issa the arsonist Car theif who suppressed congressional testimony on Warrantless domestic wiretapping and dismissed the Bush admins erasure of E-mails on PlameGate as a simple software glitch? Why yes, yes he is.
While I have my doubts about Clapper, it really doesn't help the cause when you put a non-credible person at the front. Issa will say or do anything that benefits him, and that's not invective, it's documented fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://www.perrspectives.com/b...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
His sound activated switch is a piece of crap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
It seems to be using the Klashnikov action, but chambered for 5.56 round, and takes AR15 magazines.
Either that, or someone got AK47 and AR15 mixed up.
Reading the questions that were asked and the responses he gave, it's pretty hard to believe Clapper didn't understand what was being asked. Personally, I think the concepts of "data" versus "metadata" and "known-to-be US citizens" versus "unknown/haven't checked" were so muddied in his head (and the CIA/NSA generally) that he might have thought he was answering honestly. It reminds me of the days when people emphatically said "Of course the US doesn't torture prisoners"... "for a very special and legally-dubious definition of what constitutes 'torture'". Twist words and definitions long enough and you start believing the new definitions yourself, but that makes it hard to communicate with others. "Oh! By 'any data on US citizens' you meant the normal, English, everyday meaning of the word 'data', not the twisted, something-other-than-metadata meaning we use at the CIA/NSA? And we'll just casually pretend that we don't know if the people we're sweeping up are US citizens or not, even though they probably are given the vast scope of collection."
So, with what we know about the program now, either: 1) the guy was lying intentionally, or 2) he's innocent but incompetent because he didn't understand the nature of the programs that were underway and/or 3) he couldn't correctly communicate with the legislators asking him to explain what was going on in plain language. That's a failure of his duty any way you look at it. Malicious intent or incompetent. Take your pick.
At that kind of level on an important issue, those are grounds for firing regardless of whether he was "lying".
I am a United States [Senator | Representative]. I have far, far too much integrity to be at all influenced by the [countless | untold | several] millions of dollars contributed to my campaign by that [lobbyist | special interest | one percenter | lying pond scum]!
When you pay someone to be sneaky and devious, it should't come as a surprise when it turns out they've been sneaky and devious.
> But the imperial presidency (which started under Bush and has only grown stronger under Obama)
ROTFL. Bush Jr was a slightly weaker than average president. If you want to see an imperial presidency, look at Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy. Congress didn't authorize the civil war, Lincoln sent the army to destroy the south by his own executive order. Kennedy too sent the armed forces into the south to enforce desegregation, on his own initiative. Bush sought (and received) congressional approval for what his predecessors would have called "routine military exercises".
One thing is new - presidents in the past have left Congress out of the decision making, but the didn't tend to flatly defy Congress, declaring that they have chosen to ignore the law and write their own. Obama's unilateral changes to Obamacare such as delaying the employer mandate for a year is a new kind of imperial presidency. Congress passed the mandate and Obama immediately said "nope, I'm going to ignore the law and declare my own law instead." I don't think even Roosevelt had done that.
Clapper needs to go. Nearly everyone in the U.S. government seems to be lying to the public and it should stop now.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
He belongs in prison, along with his deputies that obeyed his orders to violate the Constitution thousands of times. Same goes for Keith Alexander. Obama, too, must be impeached for signing off on all of it. We are at a 200-year break point. Either the American citizenry reasserts its primacy in the democracy and teaches all and sundry again that the law is for everybody, we will lose it all for the next century or two. I would prefer we take those steps now when we still have means to attack the corruption rather than several generations deep into the police state when we will have nothing.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Be sure to listen to the actual conversation before jumping on headline opinion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The first black President will never be impeached. It does not matter what he does.
He lied to Congress and should no longer be in office. If this is a standard that we held all elected officials to, Capitol Hill would be depopulated tomorrow.
Alberto Gonzalez flat out lied to Congress and got a week to "correct" his testimony and I was tearing my hair out. Clapper did the same and it's hardly registered in public discourse. If Congress gets lied to their oversight obligations are compromised which is intolerable.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
This softball approach to politics is annoying especially when the Obama regime plays anything but hard ball. He is currently using his office to go after critics and opponents at a rate and in ways unheard of before. It's almost as if he's working against a clock. I fear for what's next.
You say that like it is a bad thing, DC should be depopulated. All the better if they take crap non-laws (Patriot Act) and bloat (Tax Code) with them.
the correct answer when they have the goods on you, but you don't want to be seen bumbling around on TV, is "We will be providing such detail as we can to the Chairman in private, so he can brief the committee under oath."
if you bullshit your way through the hearings, you are not informing Congress as required by your enabling legislation and the Constitution, and your sorry ass needs to go now, today.
that's how it works.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Congressmen Say Clapper Lied To Congress, Ask Obama To Remove Him
What is it about headlines that makes people unwilling to use the word "and"? I can understand it in ye olde days of printe when you might need to claw baxk whatever space you could (did it then just become a convention?), but it's not like you'll break teh internets with a few extra characters.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Clinton blatantly led bout his relationship with Lewinski, for instance... Didn't really do him any harm. The American people have already shown they can tolerate lying from people in office, so what's the problem?
(doubtless about to be modded to -infinity for trolling)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm not sure why the news article got it wrong, but the letter
http://issa.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FINAL-NSA-Reforms-Letter-01-23-2014-2.pdf
actually says "despite lying".
Contact your representatives, and sign the petition.
http://wh.gov/lNZ9T
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Thanks for that. I realized shortly after posting that troops may not have actually arrived under Kennedy.
He did authorize the use of troops with Executive Order 11111. Eisenhower, like Kennedy, had some stones.
Those two probably wouldn't agree on the time of the sunrise. The fact they both agree on this is pretty clear evidence that the Obama administration is out of control.
Monroe chose a certain interpretation of the bill _as_he_signed_it_into_law. The same is true of any Bush signing statements - they are commentary on the new law at the time the law is enacted.
With Obamacare, the law was passed, then a year later Obama declared he was going to ignore it - and then declared brand new law to replace it, just making something up unilateraly and declaring it to be the law of the land.
He was impeached for it, and it related to his social life (and of no bearing on his job, other than giving the other side a reasonable blackmail setup).
Clapper lied to Congress about national security, which matters considerably more than sexual favors.
I doubt Congress could jail the President for lying to them, impeachment is their option (and possibly jail after leaving office I would imagine, but I am not familiar with those rules).
BlameBillCosby.com
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first. (As per the Constitution.)
Wilson started military action in World War I first, then later asked Congress to recognize that he'd already taken us to war.
Similarly Truman sent troops to Korea without asking for Congressional authorization.
Obama went into Libya after Congress, both parties, specifically told him not to. DEMOCRAT congressman Dennis Kucinich called this "an impeachable offense". Obama's own party leaders said:
"It's not even disputable, this isn't even a close question. Such an action -- that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy -- is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
Are you not getting the difference between a president carrying out a law passed by congress (Bush in Afghanistan) versus disregarding Congress and doing what they please (Truman) versus declaring they will defy Congress and do precisely what law makers have said they must not do (Obama)? His own party says "it's not even close".
Clinton was convicted of perjury, and lost his law license in Arkansas with Paula Jones sexual harassment case. However, he never testified in front of Congress under oath. He did go on national TV and testify to the American people that he had no sexual relations with Monica. That was a lie to everyone, but it wasn't under oath. So yes, that one wasn't illegal.
Clapper was under oath.
Point of fact, please pay attention.
Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.
It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.
I say again, I shit you not.
This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.
While different branches of government can restrain each other, their incentives are still to protect each other at the expense of the public. Since the vast majority of "crimes" these days can legally only be litigated by district attorneys (and not civilians and victims in the general public), there is plenty of discretionary power as to what gets prosecuted.
Are the DAs going to lose their jobs if they fail to pursue such blatant perjuries?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
What exactly are you talking about? Contempt of Congress is a crime. They don't even need the executive or judicial branches. The Congressional Sergeant at Arms has the power to arrest someone, bring them to trial in Congress, and imprison them in the Capitol jail. This power was upheld by the Supreme Court in Anderson vs. Dunn (1821).
But IANAL, so maybe you know something that I don't. To what limitation on this power do you refer?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Clinton's lie *WAS* under oath... just not under oath to congress. Why is an oath in congress of greater importance than an oath in court?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And then drone his family. Call it 'collateral damage', like you usually do, Obama.
It's about degree of evil. A president with marital problems isn't that evil. Lots of people have marital problems, lots of people cheat, and I think in the eyes of the American people it wasn't that bad.
Lying to congress about making black ops moves like you see in movies real (I always thought things like Division and Treadstone were just for good drama, but now I'm a bit more suspicious)
You also forgot the "Fast and Furious" scandal, where at least Eric Holder should have lost his job/been arrested if not more people. But they didn't, and it all got brushed under the rug. "This isn't the plan to create our own evidence on why we need to bad guns that you're looking for..." move along.
Not only that, isn't lying under oath to congress a criminal offense? If he lied, why don't they charge him?
James Clapper and Congress to a lesser extent are behaving exactly as predicted by the Iron Law of Bureaucracy which states:
"In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."
If there is any merit to the adage "Knowledge is Power" then the usurpation by the NSA in totalitarian total access certainly empowers the federal bureaucracy that both Clapper and Congress work for. As it has always been since the beginning of our country it is the responsibility of the citizens to correct the government. Unfortunately due to the corruption of our election process accelerated by unfettered campaign finance most people do not vote for third party candidates and we end up with corporate sponsors instead of representatives. The next time you visit the ballot box remember to vote your conscious and not for who the corporate controlled media want you to believe will win. You have control over the former but not the later.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
When I'm in agreement with a Republican but it's pretty clear that Clapper did nothing but lie. And I find it amusing that congressmen in general are getting their underwear in a bunch because they found out the NSA is spying on them too. Oh well.
I've got Mod points so I can't post as myself. I never voted for Clinton and didn't like his support of NAFTA, But the "Clinton perjured himself" crowd is absolutely ignorant and would convict the man of j-walking.
Clinton was NOT guilty of Perjury because the judge's instructions were that for the purpose of the trial "sex was fornication" -- and THAT is why we had a lot of weasel word debates. Apparently, people forgot that technical details do matter.
Also, the President was not guilty of committing the basic crime he was charged for -- which everyone seems to forget.
The "Starr Report" spent years and millions of dollars, ranging from "Travel Gate" to "some place in Arkansas gate" to "gate gate" and got nothing to show for it. The report showed that Clinton was innocent on all counts. In fact, Starr's staff sent a letter of apology and they all signed it. Ken Starr, of course, did not.
There was no perjury involved and that was not the actual accusation of the impeachment, and you'll notice that he WAS IMPEACHED, but that's the process -- he just wasn't found guilty.
Being impeached as a President means you were investigated, not that you were found guilty. The Republicans to score political points want to show evidence of all the smoke they've raised around Clinton, but they never actually point to any evidence of wrong doing. It's as if mountains of innuendo and their accusations were something credible.
Since when did anyone in congress get elected by telling the truth? Clapper is the same as the congress: people in power who never tell the truth. We can't handle the truth has always justified secrecy, and they have a lot of secrets. Americans prefer a highly skilled liar to represent the interests of corporations. Corporate espionage exposes the true conspiracy of governmental snooping and the corporations are pushing back. But this has little to do with lying to the American people - that's routine.
Bush asked Congress for authorization and CONGRESS authorized the actions first.
After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.
Obama is not "black", besides having none of the experience of a black who grew up in the USA, he's half white.
lying about blow jobs and his not considering that "real sex", totally on the same level as violating the constitution and turning the USA into a surveillance/police state
Dear Anonymous Coward,
You are obviously fairly young. Go back a bit in time, say 1971 or so. Check out Nixon's Marine Guards. From high plumes on their hats to gold braid everywhere else. That's what an imperial presidency looked like. In the background AT&T (the one and only national telephone company at the time) and IT&T (all of your international phone lines) basically worked for Nixon. Targeting Tea Partiers at the IRS? A little innocent fun. Back then the IRS worked for the White House and Nixon's enemies' (there was an actual list) were routinely raked over the IRS coals.
Ahh, simpler times...
Kind regards,
An older Anonymous Coward
MS has no need to use underhand techniques to get into your system. The NSA probably does.
Someone from MS (probably MSR) once wrote a list of statements about security, one of which, if I can paraphrase sloppily, said "if your computer's running someone else's software, it's not your computer any more".
Given that, by definition, MS Windows PCs are running MS software, it's not your PC any more. Unless you turn of all kinds of updates that the system has, then one of the "essential" security updates could include a program which upon installation does absolutely anything that MS wants - change all your settings, install anything, remove anything, dick with your registry, your firewall, even play with your router settings, absolutely anything.
NOTA BENE: I've basically not touched a MS Windows system for about a decade and a half, I am almost entirely talking out of my arse when it comes to what MS updates actually do. However, I work in the field, and I know what should be possible (anything at all, no matter how innocent during installation that is executed without a sandbox is enough, anything that can cause arbitrary registry keys to be written to is enough, anthing that can drop executables into certain directories is enough), nothing is pure fantasy. MS can do *anything* with your system, as it's not your system, by their own admission it's theirs.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
No, people are black when it fits the desired political narrative ala Obama. People can also be white when it fits the political narrative ala George Zimmerman. To the left, everything is viewed through the lens of race. The politcal value of a story is dictated by the subject. A black, poor, sexually unique person is at one side of the spectrum (the indisputibly good side), and a white, rich, male is on the other (the indisputibly evil side). Everybody falls on this scale and it is to be the primary factor used in judging someone's life story or worth to society..
The bleating seemed to me to be coming from Washington. The thousand or so most powerful people in the United States, and their assorted staff, were stampeding around, in fear for their lives. The people? Ehhh - they were edgy, maybe a little fearful, but I saw nothing like Washington's panic elsewhere in the nation.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If Congressmen could not change their positions we would end up with even more recalcitrant demagogues than we have now.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
That means, that in the USA there's an organization (NSA) with a budget of billions, with no effective oversight, that specializes in (industrial) espionage on everyone in the world.
As a European, I feel so much safer now!
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Not socioeconomic circles. Clapper is a cop. Cops never get charged with perjury. Never.
As DA aren't doing their job, defense attorneys should setup a web site and collect transcripts of cops testilying. Searchable by cop name and department. Court reporters own the copyright to transcripts. So it will have to be overseas.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Only if it's the Biden they're writing about in 'The Onion'. He sounds cool.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When geekoid added his sig, I became convinced he's a clever troll with a gift for irony.
Troll of not, there is no point in trying to argue with him.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Social life? Bullshit. He lied in his testimony in a federal civil rights case. Sexual harassment is not 'social life' for anybody else and it isn't for Clinton.
That said: I'm kind of glad. It stopped much of the crazy overboard push related to 'sexual harassment' from the 90s. 'One free grope' and all, not that I'd suggest anybody try that, it exposed NOW as they hypocrites they are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Some changes Obama unilaterally decided on include eliminating the funding source, the mandate, and declaring his union buddies don't have to comply with the law. (Equal protection clause, anyone?).
You say "you alleged". Leaders of his own party have said his overreach into writing his own law, rather than going to congress, is an impeachable offense; "no question about it, not even close", democrat congressmen have said. You like the guy, that's fine, I get that. Be honest with yourself, though, he's not perfect, not anywhere close to perfect. One of those imperfections is that he's thoroughly confused about his role vis-a-vis congress.
I've been thinking about it, and I think even more punishment needs to be dealt out:
The senators or whatever on the security services oversight committee have done the American public a great disservice by increasing Clapper's budget instead of starting an impeachment against him; therefore, they're clearly not up to their task, and their seats at the oversight committee should be given to different senators (probably replace each senator by another one from the same political party is easiest).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Get ready for the dirt to be spilled on Darrell Issa...
What dirt? He's an asshole. He's the guy who was all about having a panel of old white guys deciding on women's reproductive issues and not letting Sandra Fluke testify--in short, he is responsible for a good chunk of the whole "war on women" rhetoric that came out against the Republicans. No matter which party someone supports, it's a stupid move to support him.
I really don't think there's much the NSA could dish out on him that's worse than his record.
Eisenhower was before Kennedy.
But Balder.
So was it suggested that he be removed for what he did, or was it suggested that he be removed because he lied about it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
NPR is funded by the government and is a fave of progressives (of both the Democrat and Republican stripe) who themselves favor huge powerful central government. Let's examine the source documents, shall we?
Article 2 (The President), Section 1
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Article 2 (The President), Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers: he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Yes, many Presidents have sought "wiggle room"; trying to say "if you view this particular law's wording THIS way, then I can do {insert action here} while still upholding my oath of faithfully upholding the law" but that's still FAR short of the new Obama Precedent of saying "I KNOW tha law explicitly says 'January 1st, 2014' but I have a pen and a telephone and I declare that the law now says 'right after the November 2014 elections'". Obama has similarly said, "sure, the law SAYS everybody is subject to this clause of the ACA, but my union friends would be hurt by that and I have a pen and a telephone so now my union friends are exempt" and "the ACA says certain subsidies are only available in states that setup their own exchanges, but those Republican governers faithfully followed the plain text of the law and did not obey me when I bullied them. They did not setup state exchanges and now I cannot use those bribes/subsidies in those states to buy support but I have a pen and a phone and so SHAZAM now those subsidies ARE in those states..."
A president cannot do what Obama is doing in a "Constitutional Republic with checks-and-balances". A dictator CAN re-write laws on-the-fly without any legislative branch. If you support this while "your guy" is doing it, you'd better be prepared to accept it on the day when somebody you hate is in power. You want Sarah Palin to have that power? Would you have given that power to Romney or McCain? If not, you'd better look in the mirror and do some soul-searching.
It seems to me that Congress needs to act on this if our children are to have a republic. We've already heard that the Supreme Court, the highest institution of an entire branch of government, "lacks jurisdiction" to review the NSA's secret court decisions, which technically makes their secret court the highest in the land. If the NSA cannot be held accountable to Congress, there goes another branch. This looks like a coup.
Esoteric reference.
I'm just saying that the fact that Clinton lied about it didn't seem to matter in the least with regards to his overall popuarlity with the American public (notwithstanding a few very hard-core and perhaps somewhat vocal zealots, but they were a minority), so why should the fact that this guy in congress told another fib, albeit about a matter considerably more important, that it should be judged any more harshly just because of what was being lied about? If you're not going to condemn a man for lying about something trivial, it makes no sense to do so to another for lying about something else, even it was more important... in fact, dragging the whole notion of "he lied" is immaterial and irrelevant. If what he did was bad, it shouldn't matter that he lied about it or not, unless one is prepared to consider lying as being particularly wrong in the first place, which in my observation, most people do not.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I thought of that non-quote as I wrote it, too. The subject does remind you of the saying.
However, Jackson was supporting the exclusive power of Congress over Indian affairs, not snubbing Congress.
Jackson also was not changing or refusing to enforce any law. He only observed that the officials in Georgia would likely disregard a court decision. If the court had ordered Jackson to do something, then it might be in some way comparable. However, the court ordered Georgia officials to release the men. President Jackson was a bystander.
> Personally, my humble opinion is that the Executive Branch does have the authority to not enforce a law.
In my opinion, the executive has limited discretion is decide that a law is intended to apply in one case, and is not intended to apply in another case. An example would be speeding to emergency room vs. speeding to a football game. In such an instance, the executive isn't denying the law itself, merely realizing the common sense fact that laws have intent behind them, a reason for being. The LEGISLATURE who wrote the speed limit law did not intend for it to hamper a rescuer in a life-and-death emergency, and the executive can recognize the legislative intent.
On the other hand, consider this law:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP, if the ISP handles complaints in the proper way as specified by the law.
In my opinion, the executive cannot, as policy, delete the second half of the law. If they do, you end up with:
ISPs are protected from being sued because their customers send phishing spam or other unlawful material through the ISP.
Disregarding the second half of the law would give phishing-spam-r-us.net magical legal protection, saying you can intentionally set up a datacenter devoted to defrauding people and you have an absolute defense against being sued for it. Those decisions of law are for Congress to make, not the president, in my opinion.
Similarly, imagine this law:
The government must pay each parent of schoolchild $10,000 per year, and the parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school of their choice.
The president deletes the first half:
parents must pay $10,000 tuition to a school.
The law as passed gives parents choice of where their child goes to school, without actually changing funding since the funding is coming from tax money. If the president deletes the first half, it becomes a $10,000 tax on parents. The president does not have the authority to unilaterally create a tax like that.
Obama effectively did the last, creating a huge new tax. The law was:
Everybody has to pay the health insurance companies. The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
Obama changed it to:
The insurance companies have to pay for people who waited until after they got sick to buy insurance.
That's effectively a multi-billion dollar tax on those companies. It's not the president's job, and not within his power, to create new taxes. That's the job of Congress.
The Republicans are already called "racists" any time they oppose or criticise Obama (just tune-in ABC,CBS,NBC,PBS,MSNBC etc) so there would be a massive PR hit for even filing charges against the nation's first black president.
Please re-read the post. I know it would be stupid to file impeachment charges against Obama himself, even if things like Benghazi could be shown as iron clad proof that he deliberately ordered the death of a U.S. ambassador (aka actual 1st degree murder charges if any of that is true not to mention flat out treason). I won't repost what else I've said on this subject, but Barack Obama himself is indeed untouchable and can do pretty much anything he wants and Congress will let him. Ignore the guy at the top and the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Other members of the Obama administration don't have the same level of protection though, particularly as their role is to take the bullets (political or otherwise) aimed at the President. It doesn't even matter if they were ordered to perjure themselves, they have to take the fall. They most certainly can be impeached, particularly if their impeachment will make it so Obama is seen as the good guy and these folks making these false statements are shown as rogue individuals not following the law. It will hardly be the first ones to get kicked out either.
If a junior undersecretary or even Forest Service supervisor was to do something stupid, they most certainly can be impeached and removed from office by Congress and such action would likely be done with bipartisan support (depending on how stupid that action might be). Obviously these members of congress don't mind demanding that this particular presidential assistant is fired and thinks that effectively they have a case to show he is incompetent to perform his job duties. I'm just saying to close that circle and make a realistic attempt at doing the job themselves.
If anything, Hillary Clinton got out of the Obama Administration just in time to avoid permanently ruining her potential future career. It will be interesting to see if the Democratic Party will consider her to be damaged goods in 2016 or if she has a real shot at getting the Democratic nomination.
Alan Grayson's a loudmouth Democrat from Florida, and if either the Obama or Bush administrations had anything on him, they'd have used it long ago. I think he's wrong about a lot of things, but it's sure fun to watch him.
Grayson was the Congresscritter who proposed a "War Makes You Poor" Act, which would have required the Bush Administration to do an actual accounting of the costs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and pay for them either by raising taxes or naming specific programs they were going to cut, not just silently running up debt while pretending to be fiscally responsible. Yeah, sure, it got about as far as you'd expect (:-), but it was entirely appropriate. I'm surprised he's been able to stay in Congress, since part of his mission there has been to piss off people who richly deserve it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And if your girlfriend asks how she looks in her dress do you ever respond "Like a fat cow?" because it's the truth and you want to be righteous?
Most people understand that, when it comes to lying, there are grey areas (i.e. "white lies").
I wouldn't tell my wife that a dress made her look like a fat cow, because no dress ever really could... A dress isn't really going to change how my wife actually looks at all... at most it will be the case that it may be a dress itself that is unattractive, and I would make that distinction by saying that I didn't like the dress.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Of course lying to Congress is bad, and it makes me feel bad about how poorly these people are behaving. But not only are politicians lying openly, it just makes me crazy when they leave the country to avoid testifying before Congress, then are allowed back into the country like nothing happened.
Might want to read the wikipedia entry that was cited before running off. Issa increased the insurance on the bussiness 400% immediately before the fire, which was arson, and then when the insurance company offered a pittance of the full value he settled. Strangely, he removed the computers with sensitive information from the premises the day before, and the fire happened at a very convenient time for him. He was never charged because the insurance company wanted to settle not litigate.
Wait, what? That doesn't make sense either. Since when does an insurance company not want to litigate and nail someone they suspect of defrauding them?
There were numerous provisions of the ACA that allowed the president to delay components. The flexibility needed to implement the law well were built into it on purpose, you dolt. Why would this not be worth consideration, oh, learned pile of turds?