10 ms·

Congress isn't above lying about this. Pelosi was dumb enough to contradict herself on that score (I could have stopped that sentence after three words). They

by tsotha 11y ago

Congress isn't above lying about this. Pelosi was dumb enough to contradict herself on that score (I could have stopped that sentence after three words). They knew. They just didn't want anyone to know they knew when the cat was out of the bag. "The CIA lied to me" sounds a lot better than "I knew what they were doing. So what?" Deflecting blame is the #1 key skill for a Congressman. Also... "prohibited"? By whom? By rules the committee itself made. That the committee can change. Federal agencies don't have the power to prevent Congress from doing a damn thing. Don't kid yourself - Congress is the problem here.

simoncion 11y ago
> Congress isn't above lying about this. Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in public hearings), to the DoJ, the Supreme Court, the President, or anyone else for that matter. > Also... "prohibited"? By whom? Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Congressmen are NOT immune from prosecution that stems from their disclosure of classified information that they receive firsthand.[0] What's more, the Speech or Debate clause only protects Congressmen from arrest and detention while performing their official duties. It doesn't shield Congressmen from prosecution stemming from illegal acts performed while acting as Congressmen. So, no, Federal agencies can't prevent[1] Congressmen from revealing directly-disclosed-to-the-congressman classified information on the debate floor. But then, a Congressman can't protect himself from prosecution, fines, and jail time after the big reveal. [0] Remember that the Pentagon Papers were sent to a Congressman by a newspaper. Generally speaking, disclosure of classified information that's in the public interest by a person who is not under an obligation to control access to said information is a protected activity, as is disclosure of classified info by the press. [1] Though, they can directly discourage it by limiting cooperation with Committees and access to personnel. This would clearly be a roadblock, rather than a permanent obstruction, but it would probably serve as a permanent obstruction to dispassionate Congressmen.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Okay, and who makes the laws?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Okay, three things: 1) Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. Congress passes bills that become laws. The judicial system's rulings on cases form precedent which fills in the holes of (or totally perverts, depending on the case) law passed by Congress. The judicial system's part in this is part of why it's so critically important to get good rulings on edge cases. 2) You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. 3) To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congres should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. This would obviously permit them to act in any way that they felt would best allow them to improve the health and well being of the Republic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - tsotha 11y ago
      >Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. No. Judges do not make law. I see what you're trying to say, but making law is not their function. To the extent they engage in legislating from the bench they ought to be punished with censure and/or impeachment. >You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. That ship sailed long ago. Congress exempts itself from all sorts of laws. Insider trading is the one that pops into mind most prominently. And do you remember the House banking scandal? Most recently they've exempted themselves from the ACA. The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. If that's the state of the law now they ought to change it. >To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congress should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. They certainly need enough freedom to do their jobs. That's why the constitution includes the Speech and Debate clause.

by tsotha 11y ago

simoncion 11y ago

> Congress isn't above lying about this. Agreed. I also note that the Intelligence Agencies aren't above lying to Congress (whether behind closed doors or in public hearings), to the DoJ, the Supreme Court, the President, or anyone else for that matter. > Also... "prohibited"? By whom? Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Congressmen are NOT immune from prosecution that stems from their disclosure of classified information that they receive firsthand.[0] What's more, the Speech or Debate clause only protects Congressmen from arrest and detention while performing their official duties. It doesn't shield Congressmen from prosecution stemming from illegal acts performed while acting as Congressmen. So, no, Federal agencies can't prevent[1] Congressmen from revealing directly-disclosed-to-the-congressman classified information on the debate floor. But then, a Congressman can't protect himself from prosecution, fines, and jail time after the big reveal. [0] Remember that the Pentagon Papers were sent to a Congressman by a newspaper. Generally speaking, disclosure of classified information that's in the public interest by a person who is not under an obligation to control access to said information is a protected activity, as is disclosure of classified info by the press. [1] Though, they can directly discourage it by limiting cooperation with Committees and access to personnel. This would clearly be a roadblock, rather than a permanent obstruction, but it would probably serve as a permanent obstruction to dispassionate Congressmen.

tsotha 11y ago
>Uh, actually prohibited by long-standing Federal law? USC Title 18, Section 793, and Section 798 totally apply here. Okay, and who makes the laws?
- simoncion 11y ago
  Okay, three things: 1) Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. Congress passes bills that become laws. The judicial system's rulings on cases form precedent which fills in the holes of (or totally perverts, depending on the case) law passed by Congress. The judicial system's part in this is part of why it's so critically important to get good rulings on edge cases. 2) You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. 3) To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congres should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. This would obviously permit them to act in any way that they felt would best allow them to improve the health and well being of the Republic. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >Both Congress and the Judiciary make law. No. Judges do not make law. I see what you're trying to say, but making law is not their function. To the extent they engage in legislating from the bench they ought to be punished with censure and/or impeachment. >You're implying that Congressmen should pass a law that places them above the law? That's an incredibly slippery slope. That ship sailed long ago. Congress exempts itself from all sorts of laws. Insider trading is the one that pops into mind most prominently. And do you remember the House banking scandal? Most recently they've exempted themselves from the ACA. The idea laws pass only when voted on by the full house and yet only a tiny subset have the data to make decisions is absurd. If that's the state of the law now they ought to change it. >To arg. ad. absurd.[0] your position: Congress should just pass a law that frees all Congressmen from any and all legal obligation while acting in their official capacity as Congressmen. They certainly need enough freedom to do their jobs. That's why the constitution includes the Speech and Debate clause.