Apples and Moon Rocks. MJ and OJ were celebrities, and with that comes the added spotlight and public discourse. For the common accused criminal, we speak of them in general, and make boogeymen out of stereotypes, but the accused directly sees little ill impact (except from the prospective employer who sees the accusation and goes...ehhhhhh....without caring to know the facts). Celebrities, though, we get snippets of court transcripts that are trimmed and tailored for maximum impact, and whatever the prevailing public opinion largely ends up these guys' view for a while--except for the vocal detractors of that view. Arnie Smith who might have burgled that place last week, though, no one really truly gives a damn.
The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable in just 'some states', and even so, only protects oneself from providing incriminating information about them.
What's being referred to is likely what could be called 'spousal testimonial privilege', which would bar the prosecution from compelling a spouse to testify against a defendant (however, the defendant cannot invoke this to prevent testimony against him/her, should the spouse voluntarily be testifying). As far as where it holds true, it seems to be so for Federal cases, and I presume largely varies depending on state for offenses tried in the state, in state courts (Tenth Amendment probably comes in to play here). Largely, though, it wouldn't apply here, since the two were not married--a law allowing a significant other to invoke this sort of privilege without being married would surely bring up the loophole of 'the only witness in the double-murder was my girl/boyfriend', where that person may have been a friend, until the lawyer stepped into the picture. It may also not apply being that both of them are defendants of related crimes (she took possession of property he stole).
I've had this idea for a while that one way to attempt fixing the system would be to have mandatory recording of all activities of our elected officials (while they are performing their duties). My theory is that if you have complete audibility of everything they've said or done, and that you can dig into it retroactively, fewer nefarious things would happen. (Based on the simple psychological principle that we are all better people when we think we're being watched.)
Even if this were implemented, it would have to be by means of self-policed recording of the officials themselves; a claim of 'oops, the equpment failed during the time period in question'--would put it in the hands of whomever is demanding accountability to provide (the only) recording(s) of the event(s) in question...this isn't yet quite feasible, to have every citizen with a camera in hand, or to find the nearby citizen who did (and this discounts any allegations of modification and whatnot that would be sure to arise, especially if the citizen video were the only one to exist). And if no such recording ever surfaces, it's he-said-she-said once again, and leaves us no better than we've got currently.
Is it a nice ideal? For sure, it would possibly ensure transparency in government and enforcement, but it's just not feasible unless we want to end up in, or force ourselves into, a state where everything is recorded, all the time, by all people. Even then, whose point of view becomes not only admissible, but the best representation of events?
A happy medium is best, where if something is recorded in the open (or involves a direct interaction with a public official who is generally an extension of the jurisdiction's Executive branch) and the least desirable solution for those in charge; the drive to change would require people to give a damn, rather than not voting or voting solely on party lines and who has the best promises. It's a mobilization effort that isn't likely to happen for some time; third-parties storming the House, with full elections every two years, would take a long time, given the number of seats even if you factor in the frequency of elections. The Senate is much trickier, with 6-year terms but elected in portions; as many election cycles as it would take to dilute the House, count on as many to dilute the Senate, which means thrice as long (and would require continuing dilution of the House). If you want a veto-proof majority of people who might go along with things, the only way to avoid needing to get a third party into the President's seat, you're talking MUCH longer than the Legislature. Round out the cycle, the Judiciary, which serve for life...even if you pass laws that are offensive in their view of the Constitution, they're gone anyway.
Is it possible that all the necessary work could be done, and government for the people be enacted again and start correcting some or all of these things? Entirely so. But it's work that will take at least a generation, if not more, to even stem the tide of bad legislation, let alone reverse it. Voter apathy is the root of it, I would say, and the biggest obstacle to overcome.
This assumes you have a lawyer on retainer and on speed dial (I guess the former implies the need for the latter). And, might work. Attorney-Client privilege is one of those things that even the most zealous seem to be leery on eroding--that might be the one thing that could cause a revolt (if I'm wrong, please, let me know; I've not seen anything here or elsewhere to oppose me, but I'm not omniscient). So, it might be workable in this sort of case (if you can't get the recording, you can't really prove it took place or got anything of substance).
IV. "Electronic, mechanical, or other device'' means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility or any component thereof: (1) Furnished to the subscriber or user by a communication carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business in accordance with applicable provisions of telephone and telegraph company rules and regulations, as approved by the public utilities commission;
That's right: telephone equipment is specifically excluded. Assuming his voicemail was provided by his carrier, that's excluded too. He's innocent by black-letter law, and the cops are committing a clear abuse by arresting him under the circumstances.
This is where it gets troublesome. From the article:
Alleman said he made a cell phone call as Officer Brian Montplaisir approached his vehicle.
The call was to Porcupine411, an answering service for Libertarian activists who are in trouble with police.
This is, arguably, a call made for the sole purpose of getting a record--either by the answering service's voicemail or a live party on the other end--of the discussion being undertaken in whatever incident is in question. This might preclude use of Sec IV(a(1)) to say this was a bad arrest, if it can be determined that this was the known sole intent of his phone call was something other than a normal phone call ('...being used by the subscriber or use in the ordinary course of its business' is pretty wide open). If he'd called his sister, no question, toss it. Who he called can be called into question for what his intent was, and what his 'ordinary course of business' was, and if this diverged or not.
Is it splitting hairs? For sure, with a nanometer laser; I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate...partly because it's fun.
Of course, the corrallary is also true then, that you can be photographed and recorded when you are being stopped for a red light violation. And in the US there are few restrictions on what you can do with a photograph once has been taken. This means that having it appear in the local 10-page newspaper with the caption "Dangerous Criminal Arrested" when it was a traffic stop is perfectly OK. Of course, you might get the newpaper to print a retraction on page 8, but why would anyone look at that?
With that caption, you better damn well be prepared to defend it as parody, otherwise it's, more likely than not, libelous. The photo itself, fine, whatever, enjoy your First Amendment, but captions added after the fact are not the picture.
Key word is 'think'; if they think you might have snapped a picture of someone who might have been a terrorist on the same SD card as you were using to take pictures of them, fair game; and I'm sure that's exactly what the report would say.
Peop,e really need to stop pushong multi-monitor gaming until it stops being complete crap.
Unless...you're a multi-monitor gamer playing multiple games. I'm sure there's some savant out there with a dual-everything--monitor, keyboard, mouse, the works--setup that he ambidextrously pwns noobs with on an hourly basis.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective as a came up as a drinker. You needed to be good at the games to avoid (voluntary or otherwise) stomach evacuation, and you needed to play the games to not be labeled a lightweight. In hindsight, it does seem in the interest of fairness--not the frathouse way, as I've observed it--for the person who is doing well to be brought down to the loser's level...but I've never seen it in practice.
If I understand this correctly--the winner gets increasingly inebriated?
Most drinking games I've played go just the opposite--the loser ends up further inebriated. See also: Chandeliers, Stick the Dealer (known in some quarters as Fuck the Dealer).
It's not a poor decision that adults shouldn't be able to hop on down to their local game outlet and pick up a title they want, because the kiddies' heads might be addled by it?
It's not red tape, it's idiocy. Yes, the guidelines are set and codified, and they're ridiculous. Saying something isn't appropriate for a 15 year old (a generalization so ungodly vague, I can't even begin to analogize it) isn't suitable for sale to ANYONE in the country is preposterous; only someone saying that it's completely off-base (for one reason or another) is going to have a chance to bring attention to, and possibly change, the status quo.
End of the day, here's a brilliant idea: how about, worldwide, parents be parents. Take an interest in your child(ren)'s idle time, monitor what they do, what they buy, how they act, and how they communicate with the world outside of your home. And, holy hell, if you see or find something you find unsettling, talk to them about it, and if you're not successful in doing that, get outside help. Will there be some children that still fly off the handle? Unfortunately, yes, there will be--there's no sure-fire way to prevent someone who is truly ill from slipping through, and in some cases, those who are ill will take inspiration from creative works. But, remember, correlation does not equal causation, and if a parent pays goddam attention, some of the bull being blamed on games probably becomes avoidable.
A valid point, but I somewhat doubt that's the main motivation here. Even if the title were to be granted classification, piracy would still happen in the case of those not inclined to pay for it. There's likely a segment that would pay for it in a local shop, but not to import it, but in the big scheme, it's likely relatively small.
End of the day, it's worthwhile for publishers/developers/etc to push on this sort of thing to gain awareness of the issue, and try and affect public view, so that they don't have to muck around with watering down content and changing the titles in a significant manner just to be able to release to market.
Now if the malware dialed once for a short short burst and never again then it can all be put on the guy who developed the malware, however if there was enough time in the attack to scan and detect the malware then he's not entirely to blame.
From the article AND summary:
...and then infecting German PCs with software that would automatically dial the numbers for short periods of time.
Its very possible that the situation you present here was what was happening, the wording isn't really clear (it could be intended to mean short-duration calls, or only a certain number of days/hours/etc before shutting itself down).
The fact that SCOTUS--not just an arbitrary panel--handed down a decision that the publication of the information was able to be published under the First Amendment, and thus the party publishing it could not be punished for it (directly indicating the paper--however, a defense could (and probably successfully) be mounted that Ellsberg provided the information for publication as part of his job duties, enabling him to take that same shield). This is a check on the Executive power. Any declassification that may have happened otherwise, you're right, would have nothing to do with Ellsberg.
The point you make with the data leaked by Assange and associates, and the directive given by DoD and other privileged personnel, is irrelevant here; that directive by its nature would only cover employees/contractors with such privileges. Also, being that it is an action taken by an Executive agency, should an individual choose to challenge it in court, it could be struck down (again, the Judiciary are charged with balancing against the Constitution and its Amendments when reviewing both Legislative and Executive acts and actions--see also, Don't Ask, Don't Tell), again under the First Amendment (this time, though, the argument would be Freedom of Association--this order would seem to prevent these folks from otherwise participating in online communities that would have other matters to discuss).
Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?
It took a while to get his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In the meantime, to get anything passed, compromise to some degree with the GOP was a necessity. Argue politics as much as you want, the mathematics of a set number of Senators and the rules of the Senate win every time.
As far as 'repealed' goes, it's rare that such ever truly happens. Unpopular laws get watered down by the opposing majority, but their complete undoing would require far too many like-minded, party-oriented people to be a realistic possibility. It's the sad result of a two-party system; each side has its own goals, its own zealots and its own moderates, and mixed up legislation is the result.
To play the Devil's Advocate here...while the journalist may not have committed crimes, did they have material contact with someone who did? If so, their records may have some relevance.
Ceasing the aforementioned Devil's Advocate role, might the request have been over-broad? Perhaps. Was it necessary? Likely not, in the structure presented. Was it within the letter of the law? Probably, and this is just an indication of which laws might need a little bit of narrowing.
Correction: the President does not nominate top people in the DoJ, he appoints them directly. Nomination is for the top people of the Judicial branch.
Correction of the Correction: The Attorney General is a Cabinet position, and the head of the DoJ; Cabinet positions are appointments by and with the consent of the Senate by simple majority. Federal judgeships, including SCOTUS openings must also be approved in the same way.
Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.
He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.
And because of the government misconduct, we cannot truly be sure of what the outcome of the trial would have been, nor what the appeals process would have led to. Two days after Ellsberg's surrender, SCOTUS determined (6-3) that their publication of the documents "outweighed the government's claim to potential harm to national security."; this likely would have affected at the very least an appeal made by Ellsberg, if not the possibility of a conviction itself.
Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.
Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.
It actually takes a little more than a whim. Cabinet members, while appointed by the President, must be confirmed by the Senate; at the time Obama was elected, the Dems did have a majority in the Senate (and, on party lines, enough to get a confirmation through), but it was not filibuster proof--meaning, if the GOP didn't like the person appointed, they can block the vote, effectively preventing appointment of someone who would possibly undermine any of the prior administration's efforts, where they are/were deemed critical points. I don't recall for certain if this came to pass, but in either case, the possibility of such did exist, and may have impacted decisions on who to appoint to these jobs. And while the President may dismiss a member of the Cabinet if the message they present to their subordinates diverges from his will, if he wants to appoint someone who will go with him 100%, he's back in the same position unless his party has a filibuster-proof Senate majority (and can be certain that all of his party will go along with him).
In short, where checks on the Executive exist insofar as Executive appointments, the President has to have at least 51 people on his side in the Senate to even try and get done what he wants; but unless he has 60, he's going to have to compromise and deal with a bit of insubordination or 'mixed-messages' being delivered down the chain.
To be fair, how many hours of operation does a garage bulb experience? Even despite the trauma of off-on cycles on an incandescent bulb, the short duration of the on-time really seems to offset.
Slashdot Mirror
Apples and Moon Rocks. MJ and OJ were celebrities, and with that comes the added spotlight and public discourse. For the common accused criminal, we speak of them in general, and make boogeymen out of stereotypes, but the accused directly sees little ill impact (except from the prospective employer who sees the accusation and goes...ehhhhhh....without caring to know the facts). Celebrities, though, we get snippets of court transcripts that are trimmed and tailored for maximum impact, and whatever the prevailing public opinion largely ends up these guys' view for a while--except for the vocal detractors of that view. Arnie Smith who might have burgled that place last week, though, no one really truly gives a damn.
The Fifth Amendment isn't applicable in just 'some states', and even so, only protects oneself from providing incriminating information about them.
What's being referred to is likely what could be called 'spousal testimonial privilege', which would bar the prosecution from compelling a spouse to testify against a defendant (however, the defendant cannot invoke this to prevent testimony against him/her, should the spouse voluntarily be testifying). As far as where it holds true, it seems to be so for Federal cases, and I presume largely varies depending on state for offenses tried in the state, in state courts (Tenth Amendment probably comes in to play here). Largely, though, it wouldn't apply here, since the two were not married--a law allowing a significant other to invoke this sort of privilege without being married would surely bring up the loophole of 'the only witness in the double-murder was my girl/boyfriend', where that person may have been a friend, until the lawyer stepped into the picture. It may also not apply being that both of them are defendants of related crimes (she took possession of property he stole).
I've had this idea for a while that one way to attempt fixing the system would be to have mandatory recording of all activities of our elected officials (while they are performing their duties). My theory is that if you have complete audibility of everything they've said or done, and that you can dig into it retroactively, fewer nefarious things would happen. (Based on the simple psychological principle that we are all better people when we think we're being watched.)
Even if this were implemented, it would have to be by means of self-policed recording of the officials themselves; a claim of 'oops, the equpment failed during the time period in question'--would put it in the hands of whomever is demanding accountability to provide (the only) recording(s) of the event(s) in question...this isn't yet quite feasible, to have every citizen with a camera in hand, or to find the nearby citizen who did (and this discounts any allegations of modification and whatnot that would be sure to arise, especially if the citizen video were the only one to exist). And if no such recording ever surfaces, it's he-said-she-said once again, and leaves us no better than we've got currently.
Is it a nice ideal? For sure, it would possibly ensure transparency in government and enforcement, but it's just not feasible unless we want to end up in, or force ourselves into, a state where everything is recorded, all the time, by all people. Even then, whose point of view becomes not only admissible, but the best representation of events?
A happy medium is best, where if something is recorded in the open (or involves a direct interaction with a public official who is generally an extension of the jurisdiction's Executive branch) and the least desirable solution for those in charge; the drive to change would require people to give a damn, rather than not voting or voting solely on party lines and who has the best promises. It's a mobilization effort that isn't likely to happen for some time; third-parties storming the House, with full elections every two years, would take a long time, given the number of seats even if you factor in the frequency of elections. The Senate is much trickier, with 6-year terms but elected in portions; as many election cycles as it would take to dilute the House, count on as many to dilute the Senate, which means thrice as long (and would require continuing dilution of the House). If you want a veto-proof majority of people who might go along with things, the only way to avoid needing to get a third party into the President's seat, you're talking MUCH longer than the Legislature. Round out the cycle, the Judiciary, which serve for life...even if you pass laws that are offensive in their view of the Constitution, they're gone anyway.
Is it possible that all the necessary work could be done, and government for the people be enacted again and start correcting some or all of these things? Entirely so. But it's work that will take at least a generation, if not more, to even stem the tide of bad legislation, let alone reverse it. Voter apathy is the root of it, I would say, and the biggest obstacle to overcome.
This assumes you have a lawyer on retainer and on speed dial (I guess the former implies the need for the latter). And, might work. Attorney-Client privilege is one of those things that even the most zealous seem to be leery on eroding--that might be the one thing that could cause a revolt (if I'm wrong, please, let me know; I've not seen anything here or elsewhere to oppose me, but I'm not omniscient). So, it might be workable in this sort of case (if you can't get the recording, you can't really prove it took place or got anything of substance).
Had she taped in Virgina
Given the reference at hand, this is an amusing typo. Even though Lewinski's never seemed to be directly involved.
So, if the Cubs win the Series, look out Corporate America?
IV. "Electronic, mechanical, or other device'' means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, facility or any component thereof: (1) Furnished to the subscriber or user by a communication carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business in accordance with applicable provisions of telephone and telegraph company rules and regulations, as approved by the public utilities commission;
That's right: telephone equipment is specifically excluded. Assuming his voicemail was provided by his carrier, that's excluded too. He's innocent by black-letter law, and the cops are committing a clear abuse by arresting him under the circumstances.
This is where it gets troublesome. From the article:
Alleman said he made a cell phone call as Officer Brian Montplaisir approached his vehicle. The call was to Porcupine411, an answering service for Libertarian activists who are in trouble with police.
This is, arguably, a call made for the sole purpose of getting a record--either by the answering service's voicemail or a live party on the other end--of the discussion being undertaken in whatever incident is in question. This might preclude use of Sec IV(a(1)) to say this was a bad arrest, if it can be determined that this was the known sole intent of his phone call was something other than a normal phone call ('...being used by the subscriber or use in the ordinary course of its business' is pretty wide open). If he'd called his sister, no question, toss it. Who he called can be called into question for what his intent was, and what his 'ordinary course of business' was, and if this diverged or not.
Is it splitting hairs? For sure, with a nanometer laser; I'm simply playing Devil's Advocate...partly because it's fun.
Of course, the corrallary is also true then, that you can be photographed and recorded when you are being stopped for a red light violation. And in the US there are few restrictions on what you can do with a photograph once has been taken. This means that having it appear in the local 10-page newspaper with the caption "Dangerous Criminal Arrested" when it was a traffic stop is perfectly OK. Of course, you might get the newpaper to print a retraction on page 8, but why would anyone look at that?
With that caption, you better damn well be prepared to defend it as parody, otherwise it's, more likely than not, libelous. The photo itself, fine, whatever, enjoy your First Amendment, but captions added after the fact are not the picture.
Key word is 'think'; if they think you might have snapped a picture of someone who might have been a terrorist on the same SD card as you were using to take pictures of them, fair game; and I'm sure that's exactly what the report would say.
Peop,e really need to stop pushong multi-monitor gaming until it stops being complete crap.
Unless...you're a multi-monitor gamer playing multiple games. I'm sure there's some savant out there with a dual-everything--monitor, keyboard, mouse, the works--setup that he ambidextrously pwns noobs with on an hourly basis.
I guess it's just a matter of perspective as a came up as a drinker. You needed to be good at the games to avoid (voluntary or otherwise) stomach evacuation, and you needed to play the games to not be labeled a lightweight. In hindsight, it does seem in the interest of fairness--not the frathouse way, as I've observed it--for the person who is doing well to be brought down to the loser's level...but I've never seen it in practice.
If I understand this correctly--the winner gets increasingly inebriated?
Most drinking games I've played go just the opposite--the loser ends up further inebriated. See also: Chandeliers, Stick the Dealer (known in some quarters as Fuck the Dealer).
It's not a poor decision that adults shouldn't be able to hop on down to their local game outlet and pick up a title they want, because the kiddies' heads might be addled by it?
It's not red tape, it's idiocy. Yes, the guidelines are set and codified, and they're ridiculous. Saying something isn't appropriate for a 15 year old (a generalization so ungodly vague, I can't even begin to analogize it) isn't suitable for sale to ANYONE in the country is preposterous; only someone saying that it's completely off-base (for one reason or another) is going to have a chance to bring attention to, and possibly change, the status quo.
End of the day, here's a brilliant idea: how about, worldwide, parents be parents. Take an interest in your child(ren)'s idle time, monitor what they do, what they buy, how they act, and how they communicate with the world outside of your home. And, holy hell, if you see or find something you find unsettling, talk to them about it, and if you're not successful in doing that, get outside help. Will there be some children that still fly off the handle? Unfortunately, yes, there will be--there's no sure-fire way to prevent someone who is truly ill from slipping through, and in some cases, those who are ill will take inspiration from creative works. But, remember, correlation does not equal causation, and if a parent pays goddam attention, some of the bull being blamed on games probably becomes avoidable.
The white half-calf, block-heel boots on a nice hispanic leg ALWAYS gets my motor running.
A valid point, but I somewhat doubt that's the main motivation here. Even if the title were to be granted classification, piracy would still happen in the case of those not inclined to pay for it. There's likely a segment that would pay for it in a local shop, but not to import it, but in the big scheme, it's likely relatively small.
End of the day, it's worthwhile for publishers/developers/etc to push on this sort of thing to gain awareness of the issue, and try and affect public view, so that they don't have to muck around with watering down content and changing the titles in a significant manner just to be able to release to market.
Now if the malware dialed once for a short short burst and never again then it can all be put on the guy who developed the malware, however if there was enough time in the attack to scan and detect the malware then he's not entirely to blame.
From the article AND summary:
...and then infecting German PCs with software that would automatically dial the numbers for short periods of time.
Its very possible that the situation you present here was what was happening, the wording isn't really clear (it could be intended to mean short-duration calls, or only a certain number of days/hours/etc before shutting itself down).
The fact that SCOTUS--not just an arbitrary panel--handed down a decision that the publication of the information was able to be published under the First Amendment, and thus the party publishing it could not be punished for it (directly indicating the paper--however, a defense could (and probably successfully) be mounted that Ellsberg provided the information for publication as part of his job duties, enabling him to take that same shield). This is a check on the Executive power. Any declassification that may have happened otherwise, you're right, would have nothing to do with Ellsberg.
The point you make with the data leaked by Assange and associates, and the directive given by DoD and other privileged personnel, is irrelevant here; that directive by its nature would only cover employees/contractors with such privileges. Also, being that it is an action taken by an Executive agency, should an individual choose to challenge it in court, it could be struck down (again, the Judiciary are charged with balancing against the Constitution and its Amendments when reviewing both Legislative and Executive acts and actions--see also, Don't Ask, Don't Tell), again under the First Amendment (this time, though, the argument would be Freedom of Association--this order would seem to prevent these folks from otherwise participating in online communities that would have other matters to discuss).
Jamaica will only have the Atomic Bong, and peace sh... You want some potato chips, mon?
Indeed. And Obama was elected as a Democrat President with a Democrat Congress... you think he couldn't have got these laws repealed if he really wanted to?
It took a while to get his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In the meantime, to get anything passed, compromise to some degree with the GOP was a necessity. Argue politics as much as you want, the mathematics of a set number of Senators and the rules of the Senate win every time.
As far as 'repealed' goes, it's rare that such ever truly happens. Unpopular laws get watered down by the opposing majority, but their complete undoing would require far too many like-minded, party-oriented people to be a realistic possibility. It's the sad result of a two-party system; each side has its own goals, its own zealots and its own moderates, and mixed up legislation is the result.
To play the Devil's Advocate here...while the journalist may not have committed crimes, did they have material contact with someone who did? If so, their records may have some relevance.
Ceasing the aforementioned Devil's Advocate role, might the request have been over-broad? Perhaps. Was it necessary? Likely not, in the structure presented. Was it within the letter of the law? Probably, and this is just an indication of which laws might need a little bit of narrowing.
Correction: the President does not nominate top people in the DoJ, he appoints them directly. Nomination is for the top people of the Judicial branch.
Correction of the Correction: The Attorney General is a Cabinet position, and the head of the DoJ; Cabinet positions are appointments by and with the consent of the Senate by simple majority. Federal judgeships, including SCOTUS openings must also be approved in the same way.
Ellsberg only avoided conviction and a long prison sentence as a result of government misconduct of a gross nature surrounding a break-in of his house.
He *should * have spent a half-century in jail or so.
And because of the government misconduct, we cannot truly be sure of what the outcome of the trial would have been, nor what the appeals process would have led to. Two days after Ellsberg's surrender, SCOTUS determined (6-3) that their publication of the documents "outweighed the government's claim to potential harm to national security."; this likely would have affected at the very least an appeal made by Ellsberg, if not the possibility of a conviction itself.
Thus conscious, stated policies of president-and-administration X are legitimate targets for personal criticisms, but holdovers from X-1 are not.
Why not? At nothing more than a whim Obama can remove and replace those holdovers. His request is all it would take. In light of the very well-established fact that the President commands the executive branch, there can only be two possibilities: he doesn't change those "holdovers" because he approves of them, or, he would disapprove of them and would change them except that he's unaware of their existence because he's incompetent.
It actually takes a little more than a whim. Cabinet members, while appointed by the President, must be confirmed by the Senate; at the time Obama was elected, the Dems did have a majority in the Senate (and, on party lines, enough to get a confirmation through), but it was not filibuster proof--meaning, if the GOP didn't like the person appointed, they can block the vote, effectively preventing appointment of someone who would possibly undermine any of the prior administration's efforts, where they are/were deemed critical points. I don't recall for certain if this came to pass, but in either case, the possibility of such did exist, and may have impacted decisions on who to appoint to these jobs. And while the President may dismiss a member of the Cabinet if the message they present to their subordinates diverges from his will, if he wants to appoint someone who will go with him 100%, he's back in the same position unless his party has a filibuster-proof Senate majority (and can be certain that all of his party will go along with him).
In short, where checks on the Executive exist insofar as Executive appointments, the President has to have at least 51 people on his side in the Senate to even try and get done what he wants; but unless he has 60, he's going to have to compromise and deal with a bit of insubordination or 'mixed-messages' being delivered down the chain.
According to Google, two days ago.
To be fair, how many hours of operation does a garage bulb experience? Even despite the trauma of off-on cycles on an incandescent bulb, the short duration of the on-time really seems to offset.