Constitutinal Law experst shows off his skills *snicker*

[KLATTU]

Try not laugh when you read this..

WALLACE: Since then, we’ve learned that over 2,000 of her e-mails contained classified material, 22 of the e-mails had top-secret information. Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America’s secrets? OBAMA: I’ve got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations, there are hearings, Congress is looking at this. And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy. And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.

Read more at: The Corner | National Review Online
Got it? there's classified and there's classified.

He just created a new classification. Top secret top secret.
If Sarah Palin said this, Bill Maher would devote a month's worth of shows to it.

 

[Lutherf]

It's no secret that of all the "beautiful people" politicians are the special elite and their Constitution doesn't look the same as ours does. For them the Constitution is a mandate to do stuff. For the rest of us it's a limitation on what those assholes are allowed to do.

 

[OrphanSlug]

"Oh... Then as of this moment, they're on double secret probation!"

 

[Henrin]

So regular people only get in trouble if they release top secret top secret information. Well then, that would explain why I know someone that got busted for only sharing something in one of those old regular top secret documents, and not one of these new and fancy top secret top secret documents. It's good to know everyone is held to the same standards, right Hillary? Yeah..

Oh and btw, I love all the intentional talk like that even begins to matter.

 

[Chomsky]

Try not laugh when you read this..

WALLACE: Since then, we’ve learned that over 2,000 of her e-mails contained classified material, 22 of the e-mails had top-secret information. Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America’s secrets? OBAMA: I’ve got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations, there are hearings, Congress is looking at this. And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy. And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.

Read more at: The Corner | National Review Online
Got it? there's classified and there's classified.

He just created a new classification. Top secret top secret.
If Sarah Palin said this, Bill Maher would devote a month's worth of shows to it.

This kinda' reminds me of this one: "We're all equal, some are just more equal than others"!

I use this one all the time in explaining to my kids my take on family dynamics while living under my roof! :thumbs:

 

[Beaudreaux]

No one should be surprised that the same man that acts as though Article I of the Constitution doesn't even exist, feels that he and one of his buddies has the power to define what is and what is not a legal action as well as what is and what is not classified. Or should that be, classified classified, and top secret top secret?

What I see is a Constitutional Crisis in the making, with United States v Texas coming up before the SCOTUS regarding the Executive Branch's total end run around Article I of the Constitution and their blatant and wanton abrogation of their Constitutional requirement in Article II to "Faithfully Execute," and now added to that we have to ask whether the White House is putting pressure on the Justice Department to not empanel a Federal Grand Jury to indict Secretary Clinton if the FBI finds probable cause and evidence of a crime committed.

How anyone can dismiss this as not a critical moment in time regarding the actual future of our nation and the rule of law as the concept we are founded upon, is beyond me.

 

[eohrnberger]

Saw the interview this Sunday. Didn't believe Obama much at all, especially the part where he's not going to protect Hildabeast from the DOJ and the proper course of justice.

(Yeah, sure he won't. But his staff most certainly will, with his tacit approval - just as long as his plausible deniability is in tact. We already know that the DNC establishment wan't her as president, just look what they are doing to poor old Bernie)

 

[Chomsky]

No one should be surprised that the same man that acts as though Article I of the Constitution doesn't even exist, feels that he and one of his buddies has the power to define what is and what is not a legal action as well as what is and what is not classified. Or should that be, classified classified, and top secret top secret?

What I see is a Constitutional Crisis in the making, with United States v Texas coming up before the SCOTUS regarding the Executive Branch's total end run around Article I of the Constitution and their blatant and wanton abrogation of their Constitutional requirement in Article II to "Faithfully Execute," and now added to that we have to ask whether the White House is putting pressure on the Justice Department to not empanel a Federal Grand Jury to indict Secretary Clinton if the FBI finds probable cause and evidence of a crime committed.

How anyone can dismiss this as not a critical moment in time regarding the actual future of our nation and the rule of law as the concept we are founded upon, is beyond me.

I believe your concerns with the Constitutionality of some of the President's actions may have merit, but what has led you to question the President's actions in the Clinton affair?

Is there something occurring in excess of the normal administrative relationship between the Chief Executive and his Cabinet?

 

[Captain Adverse]

There are different levels of classification due to time-sensitive information. That's all he is trying to say.

I'm not sure it has merit in the investigation. However, there are things that are often not for general dissemination due to short-term concerns, and others that might be problematic in the long term if released.

 

[ludin]

I believe your concerns with the Constitutionality of some of the President's actions may have merit, but what has led you to question the President's actions in the Clinton affair?

Is there something occurring in excess of the normal administrative relationship between the Chief Executive and his Cabinet?

The FBI Are "Super Pissed Off" At White House For Improperly And Inaccurately Making Public Statements About Clinton Email Scandal - US Chronicle

he has already tried a couple of times and I think the FBI told him to back off.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I believe your concerns with the Constitutionality of some of the President's actions may have merit, but what has led you to question the President's actions in the Clinton affair?

Is there something occurring in excess of the normal administrative relationship between the Chief Executive and his Cabinet?

Good question - I'll try to answer it. The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the US. He appoints both the Attorney General and the FBI Director. In fact, many of the attorney's in the US Justice Department and high ranking officials in both the DOJ and FBI are Presidential political appointees and owe their jobs to the President. When the President of the United States makes comments similar to "I don't see anything wrong here" or "I don't think anyone has broken any laws" then that has an impact on the outcome of criminal investigations.

He should have either kept his mouth shut or simply replyed "that I'm sure the Department of Justice and the FBI (which is part of the DOJ) will come to the correct conclusions in this case" or he could have said "I have faith in the system, and should not say anything more than that while an active investigation is under way."

But he didn't. He declared that Secretary Clinton was innocent. He declared that she did nothing wrong. He declared that no laws were broken. How can the Attorney General or FBI now say anything different than what the President has already declared? That - I have a problem with, and so should all law abiding and law respecting citizens of the US.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[bubbabgone]

Try not laugh when you read this..

WALLACE: Since then, we’ve learned that over 2,000 of her e-mails contained classified material, 22 of the e-mails had top-secret information. Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize America’s secrets? OBAMA: I’ve got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations, there are hearings, Congress is looking at this. And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy. And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is basically stuff that you could get in open source.

Read more at: The Corner | National Review Online
Got it? there's classified and there's classified.

He just created a new classification. Top secret top secret.
If Sarah Palin said this, Bill Maher would devote a month's worth of shows to it.

Personally I'm waiting for someone to follow up with the big question ...

 

[Chomsky]

Good question - I'll try to answer it. The President is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the US. He appoints both the Attorney General and the FBI Director. In fact, many of the attorney's in the US Justice Department and high ranking officials in both the DOJ and FBI are Presidential political appointees and owe their jobs to the President. When the President of the United States makes comments similar to "I don't see anything wrong here" or "I don't think anyone has broken any laws" then that has an impact on the outcome of criminal investigations.

He should have either kept his mouth shut or simply replyed "that I'm sure the Department of Justice and the FBI (which is part of the DOJ) will come to the correct conclusions in this case" or he could have said "I have faith in the system, and should not say anything more than that while an active investigation is under way."

But he didn't. He declared that Secretary Clinton was innocent. He declared that she did nothing wrong. He declared that no laws were broken. How can the Attorney General or FBI now say anything different than what the President has already declared? That - I have a problem with, and so should all law abiding and law respecting citizens of the US.

I hope that answers your question.

Good reply.

Thanks.

I think yours is a reasonable argument, in that he's speaking politically through the bully pulpit. I earlier wondered if you had knowledge of anything else occurring.

But that being said, along with the inherent concerns with the Constitutional and administrative relationship between the three parties, I do think Obama will lean on them. It's a gut political perception on my part, and I don't see how we can detect it occurring either. We're not privy to those Cabinet meetings.

 

[Chomsky]

The FBI Are "Super Pissed Off" At White House For Improperly And Inaccurately Making Public Statements About Clinton Email Scandal - US Chronicle

he has already tried a couple of times and I think the FBI told him to back off.

Well, your link shows an unidentified FOX guest claiming "the feds are pissed-off" (I'm surprised she used that term on national television), which may or may not be true.

Not coming right at you Ludin, but calling-out what I see from the link you presented.

You may indeed be right, but I don't see your link as providing evidence supporting this.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Good reply.

Thanks.

I think yours is a reasonable argument, in that he's speaking politically through the bully pulpit. I earlier wondered if you had knowledge of anything else occurring.

But that being said, along with the inherent concerns with the Constitutional and administrative relationship between the three parties, I do think Obama will lean on them. It's a gut political perception on my part, and I don't see how we can detect it occurring either. We're not privy to those Cabinet meetings.

The only way we would know, would be if we are actually told by a person involved with actual first-person knowledge, like the FBI Director as an example. I don't think that would happen. However, if the FBI Director and a number of his senior level lieutenants resign right after the White House or DOJ announcing that the investigation is complete and no illegal acts took place and that Secretary Clinton is free of suspicion, then that alone will tell us something untoward happened behind closed doors. FBI Director Comey has already demonstrated that he and others would resign if their investigation recommendation was treated wrongly and dismissed by political powers that be to advance politics while harming the law - "Not many people remember that Comey almost resigned a high-profile law-enforcement job once before, upset because he thought White House politics were overruling the law. Back in 2004, Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy. The Justice Department determined that the Bush administration’s domestic-surveillance program, run by the National Security Agency, was illegal."

 

[ludin]

Well, your link shows an unidentified FOX guest claiming "the feds are pissed-off" (I'm surprised she used that term on national television), which may or may not be true.

Not coming right at you Ludin, but calling-out what I see from the link you presented.

You may indeed be right, but I don't see your link as providing evidence supporting this.

there were several reports of the same thing.
Obama attempted to stick his nose in the investigation and basically say what she did wasn't an issue.
of course the FBI got all up in arms.

there are several news stories about it. it appears the MSM didn't bother to report on it at the time.

 

[Chomsky]

The only way we would know, would be if we are actually told by a person involved with actual first-person knowledge, like the FBI Director as an example. I don't think that would happen. However, if the FBI Director and a number of his senior level lieutenants resign right after the White House or DOJ announcing that the investigation is complete and no illegal acts took place and that Secretary Clinton is free of suspicion, then that alone will tell us something untoward happened behind closed doors. FBI Director Comey has already demonstrated that he and others would resign if their investigation recommendation was treated wrongly and dismissed by political powers that be to advance politics while harming the law - "Not many people remember that Comey almost resigned a high-profile law-enforcement job once before, upset because he thought White House politics were overruling the law. Back in 2004, Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy. The Justice Department determined that the Bush administration’s domestic-surveillance program, run by the National Security Agency, was illegal."

Yes, I agree with your political perceptions.

These things alone are not proof or hard evidence, but would be reasonably strong indicators.

 

[Fishking]

...as well as what is and what is not classified. Or should that be, classified classified, and top secret top secret?

Well, classification authority is part of the executive powers and is regulated by Executive Order so, yes, Obama can decide it. Hillary can't, though.

 

[Fishking]

There are different levels of classification due to time-sensitive information. That's all he is trying to say.

Time sensitivity has nothing to do with classification level. It just means that your information may become obsolete.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well, classification authority is part of the executive powers and is regulated by Executive Order so, yes, Obama can decide it. Hillary can't, though.

You are incorrect. The President cannot circumvent law or even his own executive orders or the executive orders of other Presidents without him first changing the executive order in question and getting Congress to change the law. The law states, as well as the EO, that the agency that classifies information has the sole power to declassify the information. The President cannot overrule that agency's classification.

The President is not above the law.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Time sensitivity has nothing to do with classification level. It just means that your information may become obsolete.

Is that an argument or just nit-picking?

The information is classified because of either long-term or short-term concerns.

For example, something could be Top Secret for a matter of hours because release of it could cause problems during that short-time frame.

On the other hand, something could be Top Secret for an indefinite time frame (say, plans for the atomic bomb) due to long-term consequences of release.

That was what I meant by "time-sensitive."

 

[Fishking]

Is that an argument or just nit-picking?

The information is classified because of either long-term or short-term concerns.

For example, something could be Top Secret for a matter of hours because release of it could cause problems during that short-time frame.

On the other hand, something could be Top Secret for an indefinite time frame (say, plans for the atomic bomb) due to long-term consequences of release.

That was what I meant by "time-sensitive."

Well, it could become unclassified after a period of time but it's not classified due to time sensitivity. Classification is derived from how much damage the release of said information could cause to our citizens, national security, national interests, ect.

I'm kinda being nit-picky because this is a nit-picky type of thing.

 

[Chomsky]

Well, it could become unclassified after a period of time but it's not classified due to time sensitivity. Classification is derived from how much damage the release of said information could cause to our citizens, national security, national interests, ect.

I'm kinda being nit-picky because this is a nit-picky type of thing.

The bolded seems humorous at first - but you're right!

 

[iguanaman]

Well, classification authority is part of the executive powers and is regulated by Executive Order so, yes, Obama can decide it. Hillary can't, though.

Actually a SOS CAN decide if a document should be classified but may not declassify a document that the President as classified.

Is there one rule for agency heads like Clinton and another rule for the rest of us?
Yes, more or less. This is true both literally and as a practical matter. When it comes to classified information, agency heads have special responsibilities and special privileges. They have plenary authority to classify or declassify information. If rules regarding classified information are broken, they have the authority to determine administrative punishments. Unless they go so far as to break the law, no one is authorized to administratively punish them. But beyond this, rules are always different for those at the very top of organizations. Government leaders like business leaders are chosen for their judgment and discretion. They must be free to exercise both. In the public sphere, problems arise because laws and administrative rules and regulations are often written in ways that admit of no exception. Moreover, some laws, like laws against corruption or against spying, should admit of no exceptions. But for the most part heads of agencies do what they think best, and if we want an effective government, this is as it should be. If leaders behave badly, appropriate sanctions are less likely to be criminal sanctions than pressure to resign or even impeachment.

Should Clinton be indicted?
Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

 

[Fishking]

You are incorrect. The President cannot circumvent law or even his own executive orders or the executive orders of other Presidents without him first changing the executive order in question and getting Congress to change the law. The law states, as well as the EO, that the agency that classifies information has the sole power to declassify the information. The President cannot overrule that agency's classification.

The President is not above the law.

Executive Orders get changed all the time. Bush amended Clinton's EO on classification and Obama amended Bush's EO. The agencies that classify their products do so by regulations set down in EOs. In other words, the President is the boss of all the agencies and classification authority is derived from the President's office.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information