Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
SR,YK
HHusky
Member Posts: 23,978
in Tug Tavern
https://www.newsweek.com/ex-trump-officials-ominous-warning-about-classified-documents-mishandling-1805816
"I found the indictment to be a really vivid picture for the American public of what the national security community dealt with for four years when he was president," Neumann, who served during the Trump administration, said while making an appearance on ABC News' This Week.
"I found the indictment to be a really vivid picture for the American public of what the national security community dealt with for four years when he was president," Neumann, who served during the Trump administration, said while making an appearance on ABC News' This Week.
Comments
-
You keep posting this stuff. Why?
-
-
Groundhog daySources said:You keep posting this stuff. Why?
-
The dazzler wants to make clear that he doesn't support the equal application of the law. Only applies to republicans and not democrat candidates. Hillary's unsecured illegal private server was just an honest mistake. And there was never any coverup at all, just smashed phones and bleached hard drives. Nothing to see.Sources said:You keep posting this stuff. Why?
-
-
It’s important that we all pause for a minute and contemplate the lived experience of the intelligence community
-
-
While not pertinent to the Article II powers of the actual President, the dissent sets out the correct view of Presidential powers.Blueduck said:Here's some light reading, because inquiring minds want to know
https://sgp.fas.org/eprint/egan.pdf
=========
Dissenting in this case, Chief Judge Markey insisted that the “authority to grant or
deny a security clearance is committed to the sound discretion of executive agency heads.
See Exec. Order 10450 . . .”19 He objected that the majority’s decision “will dilute the
responsibility the President placed on” the armed services and executive agencies and ran
“clearly contrary to well-established principles of deference owed national security
determinations of executive agencies.”20 To him, the protection of classified information
“is an executive responsibility flowing from the President’s constitutional mandate to
provide for the national defense. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2.”21 Section 2 of Article II does
not vest all of national defense in the President. Important powers and duties are
expressly reserved to Congress under Article I. One problem with a national security
case like Egan is that the Justice Department is always present to defend and promote
executive power but the attorney representing the private party is in no position, either
through capacity or incentive, to defend and promote congressional power. -
Page 7 section FWestlinnDuck said:
While not pertinent to the Article II powers of the actual President, the dissent sets out the correct view of Presidential powers.Blueduck said:Here's some light reading, because inquiring minds want to know
https://sgp.fas.org/eprint/egan.pdf
=========
Dissenting in this case, Chief Judge Markey insisted that the “authority to grant or
deny a security clearance is committed to the sound discretion of executive agency heads.
See Exec. Order 10450 . . .”19 He objected that the majority’s decision “will dilute the
responsibility the President placed on” the armed services and executive agencies and ran
“clearly contrary to well-established principles of deference owed national security
determinations of executive agencies.”20 To him, the protection of classified information
“is an executive responsibility flowing from the President’s constitutional mandate to
provide for the national defense. U.S. Const., Art. II, § 2.”21 Section 2 of Article II does
not vest all of national defense in the President. Important powers and duties are
expressly reserved to Congress under Article I. One problem with a national security
case like Egan is that the Justice Department is always present to defend and promote
executive power but the attorney representing the private party is in no position, either
through capacity or incentive, to defend and promote congressional power.
-
