Tweet
-
Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992 -
Barrack Obama can rescue Joe by saying he declassified those documents but if he does that he also gets Trump off the hook because it confirms president’s can declassify. But I think this is all a setup to use the 25th Amendment to get rid of Joe. He’s a liability to the Democrat party and they want to replace him before the election in 24.
Anyways I don’t think anyone in the FBI wants to raid Jill’s panty drawer. The Biden’s are getting the easy treatment.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar! -
If they were planning on getting Biden off the 2024 ticket, they would dump Scamala Harris first. Because she's got zero chance of winning... even as an "incumbent".Eat Us And Smile
Cenk For America 2024!!
Justice Democrats
"If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992Comment
-
No he can't, there's a fucking process. Can presidents sell our nuclear secrets to the Russians by "declassifying with (their) minds"?
Jesus fuck, did you even watch the video before spewing ignorance? That's like saying Joe Biden was pulled over for speeding while Trump was later arrested after getting drunk and running over a teen girl and fleeing the scene and hiding his car. And then saying Biden is getting treated with kit gloves while the angry sheriffs beat down on poor Donald in a secret conspiracy. Both involved a traffic infraction. Exactly the SAME thing, right? Why use any fucking critical thinking skills when you can snort the Fox "News" Kool AIDS?...Anyways I don’t think anyone in the FBI wants to raid Jill’s panty drawer. The Biden’s are getting the easy treatment.Comment
-
It's going to become a false equivalence whataboutery thing though for all the 'normal' people that don't really spend much time on politics.
A real PR lose the high ground fuck up by Biden.Comment
-
This is because the president—and only the president—has what’s called “plenary” power over national security matters, including document classification and de-classification. The Supreme Court articulated what’s currently the last and best word on the subject in Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), a case examining whether a civil service board could review someone’s being denied a national security clearance, a power it came to via a congressional act.
The Supreme Court gave an unequivocal “no,” based in part on the fact that the executive office is the final word on classification:
The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961).No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
I don’t watch Faux you partisan simpleton. Anyways there’s going to be a few things happening you aren’t going to be happy about and might even find alarming. Have a nice life.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
Biden is toast. He’s going to be replaced. The next drama is Kamala Harris’s parent’s were non-citizens when she was born. That makes her an anchor baby. There will be a big debate whether she’s a natural born citizen or not.
Joe nor Kamala are candidates you want in 2024. So expect all sorts of political and legal shenanigans. Why would the Republicans want to set up Joe? Him and Kamala are what you want to run against. The million dollar question is who do you run?No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
-
Yeah, um, NO!
A Critical Look at Navy v. Egan
By Steven Aftergood • November 16, 2009
A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
But the case has often been misunderstood and misrepresented, according to a new study (pdf) by Louis Fisher of the Law Library of Congress, who reviewed the development and interpretation of Egan in more than 180 judicial decisions.
The Egan decision was prompted by a narrow statutory dispute: Did the Merit Systems Protection Board (an executive branch body) have the authority to review the revocation of a security clearance by the Navy (another executive branch body)? The court concluded that Congress had not intended to permit such review.
But in reaching that straightforward conclusion, “various passages in Egan strayed from this central issue and created confusion and misconceptions” about the scope of executive authority and the role of the courts, wrote Dr. Fisher. Among such passages was a discussion of the President’s constitutional powers culminating in the statement that “Unless Congress specifically has provided otherwise, courts traditionally have been reluctant to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs.”
Over time, Egan came to signify the notion that courts should grant the “utmost deference” — or even absolute deference — to the executive on issues of national security. Citing Egan, one court in 1993 held that “the presumption of reviewability is entirely inapplicable in matters concerning national security.” This is an extreme view that would exclude the courts altogether from national security affairs. “Egan does not support that interpretation,” wrote Fisher. But there it is.
In a 2002 report on leaks of classified information, Attorney General John Ashcroft cited Egan in support of the proposition that “The President has the power under the Constitution to protect national security secrets from unauthorized disclosure. This extends to defining what information constitutes a national security secret and to determining who may have access to that secret.” These statements are true except for the implication that such authority is exclusively the province of the executive. The Attorney General conspicuously neglected to note the qualification in Egan which stated “Unless Congress has specifically provided otherwise….”
Recently, observed Fisher, some courts have presented a more nuanced reading of Egan. In proceedings such as Al-Haramain and Horn v. Huddle, courts have rebuffed executive arguments for complete deference in cases where Congress has legislated its intent into statute.
Fundamentally, Fisher concludes, “Nothing in Egan recognizes a plenary or exclusive power on the part of the President over classified information.” See “Judicial Interpretations of Egan“ by Louis Fisher, Law Library of Congress, November 13, 2009.
Dr. Fisher will be the luncheon speaker at a day-long conference November 18 on “The State of the State Secrets Privilege” at American University Washington College of Law.
Don't quit your day job barracks lawyer. But there is nothing in there about unilateral declassification powers for POTUS, only that dually elected he will have access. Only the most fraudulent of interpretations gives POTUS unlimited control over state secrets. But there are things he is not told when it comes to SAP's...The Supreme Court gave an unequivocal “no,” based in part on the fact that the executive office is the final word on classification:
The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S.Const., Art. II, § 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 367 U. S. 890 (1961).Last edited by Nickdfresh; 01-18-2023, 02:06 PM.Comment
-
Don't ever post a large picture of the Bidet faggit ever again, Nickdlibtard. Especially a shitty photoshopped one.
He should be in jail for those documents. I would say he should be executed, but we all know he's already brain dead. Much like Nickdementia.
It's a 60's piece of shit Corvette. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about a classic car, even though it is a chic car. Not a chic magnet, a chic car.Comment
-
Sorry, really I'm sorry.
Didn't mean to give you a massive (minor) erection...
Okay Trump balllicking sheep idiot...He should be in jail for those documents. I would say he should be executed, but we all know he's already brain dead. Much like Nickdementia.
ALL 60's cars were sort of shit by any standard, but tell me your favorite...It's a 60's piece of shit Corvette. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about a classic car, even though it is a chic car. Not a chic magnet, a chic car.
Chic? Kay bud...Comment
-
For Von.
Still less gay than his Douchebuggery...Comment
Comment