re: You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government

quote:

---

Now there's a black guy in the White House so our standards have changed.

---

Yea! The race card. Predictable.

"When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."

Right?

quote:

---

You'll see the Rs and Ds switch arguments just like the majority of this board.

---

This is the fricking problem, two Ds one making the comment and the other thanking her for and supporting her comment.

What do we do, instead of being pissed ANY pol would utter such insanity we yet again fall into the D or R bullshite. Either way American's shoule de livid we have elected fricking idiots such as this.

quote:

---

But if we're being serious, while technically correct (otherwise how could anything be classified?), I don't see what relevance it has on the subject of subpoenaing someone to testify about their activities in relation to a federal elections law.

---

Well executive privilege for one. Just like FOIA exemptions there are exemptions from congressional subpoenas. There are protections within the law for the executive branch, as there is for the judicial branch.

quote:

---

But if an act is illegal per federal law, it doesn't make much sense at all that executive privilege would shield related activity from oversight.

---

Cart before the horse. Has anything been proven to have happened that indeed violated a federal law? I hear your argument, it was used many times against the Bush administration's extensive use of executive privilege. But right now no one has been convicted of violating any federal law, nor has any congressional committee made any finding stating the same (though that is very different from a conviction).

SO you are saying that if there is an indication of a violation of federal law then a threshold has been passed for a subpoena? Congress' subpoena powers are pretty broad especially as they relate to ordinary citizens but when you get into the area of other branches of government being subject to congressional investigation there are some exemptions. Plus they invariably end up being adjudicated. Executive privilege is one of the primary aspects of true separation of powers.

Like I said, taking a position of no testimony may bump up against any promised transparency, but she is correct about the right to know having limitations.

quote:

---

Now there's a black guy in the White House so our standards have changed.

---

well at least he's clean

quote:

---

well at least he's clean

---

Articulate too, well until the TOTUS is unplugged.

quote:

---

f Congress and an "Oversight Committee" are to have any credible oversight in regards to this particular settled law, the "right to know" if an arm of the executive is breaking the law should not be in question. Legitimate oversight should pretty much be authorized carte blanche in regards to activities governed by this law, or it's worthless.

---

Got it, that is your belief, but it isn't supported by law at the present time.

ETA: Just a note that you used the word "legitimate" with oversight and that is really the crux of the issue, what is legitimate oversight.

quote:

---

She made the comments while protesting the committee's Republican majority for voting to ignore a claim by the White House that David Simas, director of it's Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was immune to a congressional subpoena to testify. Republicans believe the office is being used a political campaign operation, a violation of federal election law.

Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., noted he was not alleging any wrongdoing by Simas, but there was a history of violations involving that particular office in prior administrations that justified requesting his testimony.

---

The White House has a valid argument to fight the subpoena but Norton is just trying to make an appeal to low educated voters... probably because she isn't the brightest bulb in Congress herself.