Jeff Sessions was asked many questions today 6/13 by the Senate intel committee. He answered many questions with the phrase "I don't recall"... well he said it so many times that one of the following is true:
1. Jeff Sessions has a severe memory problem -in which case he is a danger to the public if he is allowed to continue serving in the office.
2. Jeff Sessions is lying and saying he doesn't recall as a cover-up for himself or for Trump.
I was shocked to hear last week a U.S. Navy admiral claiming horseshit called executive priviledge. When I heard Sessions say it today I got a little pissed. There is no part of the Constitution that describes or creates executive priviledge. (maybe we could expect them not to say anything to the people, but not speaking to Congress???) Personally I think both the admiral and Jeff Sessions should be charged with contempt and be given a year in prison.
Sessions hearing didn't answer any questions that were hanging before he spoke. Nor did it bring any clarity about the guilt or innocence of the dude with orange hair
Quote from: fencerider on June 13, 2017, 07:13:24 PM
Jeff Sessions was asked many questions today 6/13 by the Senate intel committee. He answered many questions with the phrase "I don't recall"... well he said it so many times that one of the following is true:
1. Jeff Sessions has a severe memory problem -in which case he is a danger to the public if he is allowed to continue serving in the office.
2. Jeff Sessions is lying and saying he doesn't recall as a cover-up for himself or for Trump.
I was shocked to hear last week a U.S. Navy admiral claiming horseshit called executive priviledge. When I heard Sessions say it today I got a little pissed. There is no part of the Constitution that describes or creates executive priviledge. (maybe we could expect them not to say anything to the people, but not speaking to Congress???) Personally I think both the admiral and Jeff Sessions should be charged with contempt and be given a year in prison.
Sessions hearing didn't answer any questions that were hanging before he spoke. Nor did it bring any clarity about the guilt or innocence of the dude with orange hair
Doctrine of 'executive privilege' was established in SCOTUS case
United States vs. Nixon:
Quote from: In support of his claim of absolute privilege, the President's counsel urges two grounds, one of which is common to all governments and one of which is peculiar to our system of separation of powers. The first ground is the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties; the importance of this confidentiality is too plain to require further discussion. Human experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process. 15 Whatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art. II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties. Certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers; 16 the protection of the confidentiality of [418 U.S. 683, 706] Presidential communications has similar constitutional underpinnings.
The second ground asserted by the President's counsel in support of the claim of absolute privilege rests on the doctrine of separation of powers. Here it is argued that the independence of the Executive Branch within its own sphere, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629 -630 (1935); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190 -191 (1881), insulates a President from a judicial subpoena in an ongoing criminal prosecution, and thereby protects confidential Presidential communications.
However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide. [418 U.S. 683, 707]
The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.
"While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S., at 635 (Jackson, J., concurring).
To read the Art. II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of "a workable government" and gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/418/683.html
Well, I wouldn't say 'established', more like affirmed under the principle of separation of power, which is Constitutional.
The case also limits what can be claimed under executive privilege.
After we waterboard all the members of Congress ... then we can expect truth from the POTUS and the SCOTUS. Why does anyone expect anything from Congress?
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 11:06:53 PM
Why does anyone expect anything from Congress?
I don't expect - I expectorate. And I'm especially good at expectorating!
(http://i.imgur.com/JzIqzv4.gif)
oh... I see
incompetent people in SCotUS. I dont think that should be an excuse to not answer questions by Congress
SCOTUS - almost sounds like SCROTUS;)
Unbeliever are you good at expectorating in a car? or do you expect to get wet?
Quote from: fencerider on June 14, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
oh... I see
incompetent people in SCotUS. I dont think that should be an excuse to not answer questions by Congress
SCOTUS - almost sounds like SCROTUS;)
Unbeliever are you good at expectorating in a car? or do you expect to get wet?
All humans are incompetent. They are apes. But don't let that stop you ;-)
I haven't watched the Jeff Sessions hearing, but I gather it's been quite volatile. Some say a female senator became hysterical. Other's say she was only asking tough questions, at least one other said, no one asked any really tough questions. But my question is: Did anything out of the ordinary happen?
Quote from: SGOS on June 15, 2017, 08:23:13 AM
I haven't watched the Jeff Sessions hearing, but I gather it's been quite volatile. Some say a female senator became hysterical. Other's say she was only asking tough questions, at least one other said, no one asked any really tough questions. But my question is: Did anything out of the ordinary happen?
Senator Waters regularly goes into psychosis or hysterics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxine_Waters
A perfect template for Democrats.
Quote from: fencerider on June 14, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
oh... I see
incompetent people in SCotUS. I dont think that should be an excuse to not answer questions by Congress
SCOTUS - almost sounds like SCROTUS;)
Unbeliever are you good at expectorating in a car? or do you expect to get wet?
Agreed. I think Sessions went beyond 'executive privilege' and should be held in contempt.
Quote from: fencerider on June 14, 2017, 07:05:15 PM
oh... I see
incompetent people in SCotUS. I dont think that should be an excuse to not answer questions by Congress
SCOTUS - almost sounds like SCROTUS;)
Unbeliever are you good at expectorating in a car? or do you expect to get wet?
I haven't been inside a car for many years. I got burned out on them when I was an auto detailer.
But if it's a hot enough day, I don't mind getting a bit wet...
Listening to him was akin to watching a turtle attempt to climb a steep hill of sand. Painful.
That's exactly how I describe watching most other people play chess.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 15, 2017, 05:10:24 PM
That's exactly how I describe watching most other people play chess.
Some of us are pawns, others are kings ;-)
the hearing was the first time I bothered to look at a pic of sessions. From the sound of his voice on the radio I was expecting to see some medium to big size guy. I never expected to see a little nome that looks uncomfortable in his own skin. (I wonder if Bilbo Baggins was taller)
Quote from: fencerider on June 19, 2017, 03:52:35 AM
the hearing was the first time I bothered to look at a pic of sessions. From the sound of his voice on the radio I was expecting to see some medium to big size guy. I never expected to see a little nome that looks uncomfortable in his own skin. (I wonder if Bilbo Baggins was taller)
But, but ... you have to defend the innocent shorties against the evil majority, the tallies!
Sessions was exactly who I expected him to be. A weaselly evasive little sychophant carefully avoiding answering all questions and obviously smugly admiring his ability to do so. A typical old-school southern Republican...