The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 04, 2014, 12:19:03 am
-
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208118-house-panel-calls-hagel-to-testify-on-bergdahl-swap (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208118-house-panel-calls-hagel-to-testify-on-bergdahl-swap)
Hagel called to testify on prisoner swap
By Martin Matishak - 06/03/14 05:15 PM EDT
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) has asked Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to testify on the controversial prisoner trade that freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
"I am particularly troubled by the release of five senior Taliban leaders, men with the blood of many on their hands, and the implications for our deployed forces,” McKeon said in a statement Tuesday. “I am no less concerned that the Obama Administration broke a national security law, passed with bipartisan support and signed by the President, in transferring these detainees.
"I am eager to receive answers on both counts,” he added, inviting Hagel to appear before the panel on June 11.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Tuesday endorsed the idea of a congressional investigation into the prisoner swap.
“The administration has invited serious questions into how this exchange went down and the calculations the White House and relevant agencies made in moving forward without consulting Congress,” Boehner said in a statement.
The swap has been criticized by some members of Congress, who say the decision to transfer five detainees from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl's release was a negotiation with terrorists.
-
I think Susan Rice and John Kerry should be called the House Foreign Relations Committee and be questioned to their roles.
-
I think Susan Rice and John Kerry should be called the House Foreign Relations Committee and be questioned to their roles.
I agree. For whatever that is worth.
-
I think Susan Rice and John Kerry should be called the House Foreign Relations Committee and be questioned to their roles.
Question: Since Susan Rice is now an appointed National Security Adviser to the President, a position that does not require a Senate confirmation, does she need respond to anything coming from Congress?? She does not have immunity per se, but Congress cannot call the President on his official duties, and she works directly for the President.
:pondering:
-
Question: Since Susan Rice is now an appointed National Security Adviser to the President, a position that does not require a Senate confirmation, does she need respond to anything coming from Congress?? She does not have immunity per se, but Congress cannot call the President on his official duties, and she works directly for the President.
:pondering:
Did Lois Lerner, a non-confirmed IRS official, have to respond to anything from Congress?
Good idea, Chieftain, but you're overthinking it. Rice is paid by the executive branch, just as Lerner is paid by the executive branch.
-
Question: Since Susan Rice is now an appointed National Security Adviser to the President, a position that does not require a Senate confirmation, does she need respond to anything coming from Congress?? She does not have immunity per se, but Congress cannot call the President on his official duties, and she works directly for the President.
:pondering:
Both of them can respond to a subpoena.The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192
-
Question: Since Susan Rice is now an appointed National Security Adviser to the President, a position that does not require a Senate confirmation, does she need respond to anything coming from Congress?? She does not have immunity per se, but Congress cannot call the President on his official duties, and she works directly for the President.
:pondering:
As far as I know there is no one who get's a paycheck from Uncle Sugar who is not subject to congressional over site and thus subject to a congressional subpoena.
-
As far as I know there is no one who get's a paycheck from Uncle Sugar who is not subject to congressional over site and thus subject to a congressional subpoena.
I agree. They will both answer to a subpoena or go to jail. I will include all e-mails and documents in relation to the matter
-
Did Lois Lerner, a non-confirmed IRS official, have to respond to anything from Congress?
Good idea, Chieftain, but you're overthinking it. Rice is paid by the executive branch, just as Lerner is paid by the executive branch.
.
Just looking for possible ways for the Regime to wiggle out of this. Susan Rice if a frickin' menace. I thought Tom Donilon was a Class 1 Zealot Nutjob, but even he has very little over Our Susan. No telling what they will come up with to avoid the truth, but I am sure they will think of sumpthin....
-
Question: Since Susan Rice is now an appointed National Security Adviser to the President, a position that does not require a Senate confirmation, does she need respond to anything coming from Congress?? She does not have immunity per se, but Congress cannot call the President on his official duties, and she works directly for the President.
:pondering:
The president can be called on the carpet in appropriate circumstances. For example, Nixon's tapes were successfully subpoenaed by the special prosecutor, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). That being said, however, I would think that the president could not personally be punished for ignoring a subpoena - certainly not by imprisonment - since that would effectively allow one branch of the government to decapitate another coordinate branch. For that formal articles of impeachment would probably be required. However, while this would make it impossible to force the president to testify in person, it probably would not prevent the issuance of a search warrant of the White House in appropriate circumstances.
But that's the president, not someone who works for the president. Someone like that can be subpoenaed, just like the president, and probably on a wider set of grounds, and almost certainly could be punished for contempt by, e.g., imprisonment. However, given the sensitive nature of Ms. Rice's position, and given that the case involves the military and foreign relations, she could almost certainly invoke privilege - a privilege which is derivative of the president's privilege on matters of national security and foreign relations - to avoid testifying. That being said, if an instance of actual criminal activity was being investigated, it's possible that a court might decide she could be subpoenaed to answer questions about that subject in particular, with the proceedings closed and sealed to protect national security, and that she could be punished by fine or imprisonment if she refused.
-
Did Lois Lerner, a non-confirmed IRS official, have to respond to anything from Congress?
Good idea, Chieftain, but you're overthinking it. Rice is paid by the executive branch, just as Lerner is paid by the executive branch.
Did she have to respond? Yes. The question isn't whether she had to respond, but whether the political will existed to punish her for contempt.
-
The president can be called on the carpet in appropriate circumstances. For example, Nixon's tapes were successfully subpoenaed by the special prosecutor, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). That being said, however, I would think that the president could not personally be punished for ignoring a subpoena - certainly not by imprisonment - since that would effectively allow one branch of the government to decapitate another coordinate branch. For that formal articles of impeachment would probably be required. However, while this would make it impossible to force the president to testify in person, it probably would not prevent the issuance of a search warrant of the White House in appropriate circumstances.
But that's the president, not someone who works for the president. Someone like that can be subpoenaed, just like the president, and probably on a wider set of grounds, and almost certainly could be punished for contempt by, e.g., imprisonment. However, given the sensitive nature of Ms. Rice's position, and given that the case involves the military and foreign relations, she could almost certainly invoke privilege - a privilege which is derivative of the president's privilege on matters of national security and foreign relations - to avoid testifying. That being said, if an instance of actual criminal activity was being investigated, it's possible that a court might decide she could be subpoenaed to answer questions about that subject in particular, with the proceedings closed and sealed to protect national security, and that she could be punished by fine or imprisonment if she refused.
She can claim executive privilege but Congress will fire back with a Contempt of Congress and Obstruction. It did not work with Nixon or Iran-Contra. I do not think that Congressman Ed Royce will be so kind to her.
Caselaw
Quinn v. U.S., 349 U.S. 155, 75 S. Ct. 668, 99 L. Ed. 964, 51 A.L.R.2d 1157 (1955).
Fields v. U.S., 164 F.2d 97 (App. D.C. 1947).
-
Did she have to respond? Yes. The question isn't whether she had to respond, but whether the political will existed to punish her for contempt.
The political question is whether or not current and past soldiers, their outraged families, and a traitor traded for terrorists trump faceless political organizations being targeted by the IRS. IMO, this is the biggest scandal of the Obama presidency, and he's in Poland putting lipstick on his piggish face to countries who he sold out to Russia.
This one has legs, and could be the end of the Obama presidency. The groundswell on social media is incredible to me. People who have never posted anything political on Facebook are posting about this.
-
The groundswell on social media is incredible to me. People who have never posted anything political on Facebook are posting about this.
Obama flagrantly broke the law by not giving the leadership of both parties 30 days notice concerning this matter. When the Osama Bin Laden operation took place both parties were given notice.
*spelling error
-
Obama flagrantly broke the law by not giving the leadership of both parties 30 days notice concerning this matter. When the Obsama Bin Laden operation took place both parties were given notice.
Obama did not bother to notify the necessary committees of both parties either in the House or the Senate that this was going down in a timely manner. The news channels interviewed Dianne Feinstein and she seemed very angry and she is a Obama cheerleader.
-
The political question is whether or not current and past soldiers, their outraged families, and a traitor traded for terrorists trump faceless political organizations being targeted by the IRS. IMO, this is the biggest scandal of the Obama presidency, and he's in Poland putting lipstick on his piggish face to countries who he sold out to Russia.
This one has legs, and could be the end of the Obama presidency. The groundswell on social media is incredible to me. People who have never posted anything political on Facebook are posting about this.
I'm still not sanguine on any ignored subpoena being enforced against her personally, and the administration will most assuredly claim executive privilege to quash any subpoena.
-
"What difference at this point does it make?”
-
"What difference at this point does it make?”
huh?
-
I'm still not sanguine on any ignored subpoena being enforced against her personally, and the administration will most assuredly claim executive privilege to quash any subpoena.
Ed Royce can certainly move toward a Contempt of Congress and sends it to the House. He has the votes in in his committee to take it the House.Then it goes to the full House of Representatives votes stating that Susan Rice is refusing to answer questions. Then the House approves the contempt citation. This same situation happened to Lois Lerner.
-
They didn't even try to mask this Dog Whistle.
Punish your enemies, reward your friends.
The redistribution of wealth coming this time, is going to be even more staggering. Not to mention the chaos inducement.
-
Ed Royce can certainly move toward a Contempt of Congress and sends it to the House. Then it goes to the full House of Representatives votes stating that Susan Rice is refusing to answer questions. Then the House approves the contempt citation. This same situation happened to Lois Lerner.
It's a political matter - it depends on whether the political will exists; it's certainly not a procedural matter.
-
It's a political matter - it depends on whether the political will exists; it's certainly not a procedural matter.
Congress has the right to know why Obama released five extremely dangerous terrorists without their knowledge. When I saw steam coming out of Diane Feinstein ears something got her very angry and she wanted to know why Obama did this. And she supports Obama's every nutty foreign policy matters
-
Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”
Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”
-
Congress has the right to know why Obama released five extremely dangerous terrorists without their knowledge. When I saw steam coming out of Diane Feinstein eans something got her very angry and she wanted to know why Obama did this. And she supports Obama's every nutty foreign policy matters
I'm quite sure she will be told, in a lengthy drawn out process, why Obama did this.
-
I'm quite sure she will be told, in a lengthy drawn out process, why Obama did this.
Its a little late now. Every member of the intelligence, foreign relations and defense committees including the leadership of both Houses should have been told of this weeks ago.
-
Its a little late now. Every member of the intelligence, foreign relations and defense committees including the leadership of both Houses should have been told of this weeks ago.
The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?
-
The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?
Troll
-
Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”
Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”
clearly there's a constitutional powers conflict here - it's been around for a while and has come up in other contexts, although it's usually in the foreign affairs/war powers context I believe.
-
Troll
I don't think he was trolling. It's a legitimate question. No administration is this stupid. They see the writing on the wall for this fall, and are seeing how far Americans will let them go. If there is no real response to this calculated outrage, then who is going to stop Obama and his Marxists from fundamentally and suddenly changing this country to its core?
-
The Regime says FU. What ya gonna' do about it?
Move to enforce the statute that was violated and let a court sort it out. It'd get to the Supreme Court rather quickly I think. I for one would be interested to see what the Roberts Court would do with a case like this, given the very incremental way the Court has handled a lot of other charged cases.
-
I don't think he was trolling. It's a legitimate question. No administration is this stupid. They see the writing on the wall for this fall, and are seeing how far Americans will let them go. If there is no real response to this calculated outrage, then who is going to stop Obama and his Marxists from fundamentally and suddenly changing this country to its core?
I agree.
-
I agree.
He just telling me FU? Is that proper for the decorum for a board?
-
Troll
I am not a troll.
Anything that even gets close to a chink in Dear Leaders armor from here on out, will be deemed a Constitutional Crisis.
They are looking forward to a long hot summer.
-
Move to enforce the statute that was violated and let a court sort it out. It'd get to the Supreme Court rather quickly I think. I for one would be interested to see what the Roberts Court would do with a case like this, given the very incremental way the Court has handled a lot of other charged cases.
The smart way to expedite this is to have one or more of the families who had brave men die while looking for this deserter file the case in a friendly federal court, and have as much media as you can get to cover it. The major networks would ignore it, but social media won't let it be ignored, and the MSM will have to follow suit to be at all credible. Much as what happened to Bergdahl. He went from what most Americans thought was a hero to a deserter (at best) in a matter of 2 days, and that's all due to social media being able to spread the word of those who served with him, and knew the story firsthand. This is RatherGate on steroids, as far as what it could mean to the Obama presidency.
-
He just telling me FU? Is that proper for a board
I think you may have misinterpreted what he said/wrote. He wasn't telling you to FU, he was characterizing - I think - in earthy terms what the administration is essentially doing: telling Congress and the country at large to shut up and deal with it because they - the administration - aren't going to listen to anyone anyways.
-
The smart way to expedite this is to have one or more of the families who had brave men die while looking for this deserter file the case in a friendly federal court, and have as much media as you can get to cover it. The major networks would ignore it, but social media won't let it be ignored, and the MSM will have to follow suit to be at all credible. Much as what happened to Bergdahl. He went from what most Americans thought was a hero to a deserter (at best) in a matter of 2 days, and that's all due to social media being able to spread the word of those who served with him, and knew the story firsthand. This is RatherGate on steroids, as far as what it could mean to the Obama presidency.
Except that I don't think those folks would have standing to sue under the statute Obama apparently violated.
-
He just telling me FU? Is that proper for the decorum for a board?
He posted that the regime says FU. I agree, that's what the administration is doing to us all right now. I think you read it wrong.
-
I think you may have misinterpreted what he said/wrote. He wasn't telling you to FU, he was characterizing - I think - in earthy terms what the administration is essentially doing: telling Congress and the country at large to shut up and deal with it because they - the administration - aren't going to listen to anyone anyways.
I'll let it slide
-
He posted that the regime says FU. I agree, that's what the administration is doing to us all right now. I think you read it wrong.
I'll let it slide
-
Except that I don't think those folks would have standing to sue under the statute Obama apparently violated.
There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed. What are the other options?
-
There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed. What are the other options?
A member of Congress who was supposed to have been informed could sue; I would think that, e.g., Feinstein, would have standing to sue.
-
A member of Congress who was supposed to have been informed could sue; I would think that, e.g., Feinstein, would have standing to sue.
Feinstein isn't going to file a suit, and if a GOP member of congress does, it makes it 100% political. As of now, public sentiment is against Obama because the service members who served with this POS are the ones making claims against him. I posted in another thread how the AP is already trying to make it political with their language, but no one here commented on that thread.
-
There must be some sort of civil suit that can be filed. What are the other options?
There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.
-
There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.
She can take the 5th amendment. Which would not it be a smart idea. It make her looking like she is hiding something
-
Feinstein isn't going to file a suit, and if a GOP member of congress does, it makes it 100% political. As of now, public sentiment is against Obama because the service members who served with this POS are the ones making claims against him. I posted in another thread how the AP is already trying to make it political with their language, but no one here commented on that thread.
Which is why this is what the courts call a "political question" not a matter of law.
-
There are no other point. Once the House votes to compels you testify there is no way around. She can ignore it or go to jail.Look at Lois Lerner. You can't ignore a judicial or Congressional inquiry. Basically they can do anything they want.
There is always the matter of privilege, and in this case matters of national security could very well support a finding of privilege.
-
There is always the matter of privilege, and in this case matters of national security could very well support a finding of privilege.
A major Constitutional check on the executive branch in Washington, D.C. is congressional oversight: the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch, usually carried out by congressional committees.
The Senate plays a particularly important role in checking the power of the executive branch because it has the power to confirm Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officials — a form of leverage that senators often exploit until they get what they want from the President
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_three_methods_that_congress_uses_to_oversee_the_executive_branch
-
A major Constitutional check on the executive branch in Washington, D.C. is congressional oversight: the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch, usually carried out by congressional committees
Powers
Article I of the Constitution sets forth most of the powers of Congress, which include numerous explicit powers enumerated in Section 8. Constitutional amendments have granted Congress additional powers. Congress also has implied powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution.
Congress has authority over financial and budgetary matters, through the enumurated power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. (power of the purse) The Sixteenth Amendment extended power of taxation to include income taxes.[7] The Constitution also gives Congress power over appropriating funds, with all government spending required to be included in congressional appropriations. This power is an important way for Congress to keep the executive branch in check.[7] Other powers granted to Congress include the authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money.
The Constitution also gives Congress an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military. Congress also has the power to establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Congress also has the power to admit new states to the Union (Article Four).
One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This is called congressional oversight. This power is usually delegated to United States congressional committees—standing committee, select and special committee, select committees, or joint committee composed of members of both houses. Congress also has the exclusive power of removal, allowing impeachment and removal of the President.~
This is another method:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090204154843AAOcF1e
Congress has powers over the Executive Branch.Imperial Presidency is a term used to describe the modern presidency of the United States. It became popular in the 1960s and served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits
-
Just an FYI...
Feds Collaborate With Wikipedia Editors to Improve 'Wikipedia Entries Related to Government Publications'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feds-collaborate-wikipedia-editors-improve-wikipedia-entries-related-government-publications_794261.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feds-collaborate-wikipedia-editors-improve-wikipedia-entries-related-government-publications_794261.html)
-
He posted that the regime says FU.
It is just my religion forbids the use of that type of language.
-
It is just my religion forbids the use of that type of language.
OK, but that doesn't mean that Biden or Obama won't use those words toward you.
This is a big "effing" deal!
-
This is a big "effing" deal!
"Thanks"!!