The Acting Director of National Intelligence should not be permitted to defy a subpoena...

[kentuck]

...from the Congress of the United States.

Send him a notice. If he refuses to appear for the subpoena, he is breaking the law. If he does not show up at such-and-such time, then he will be charged with Contempt of Congress. If it has to go to the Courts, then no one should expect any favors from the judges.

Also, a fine of $25,000 per day, each day that the subpoena is defied.

Final Notice.

[TheRealNorth]

1. I would support sending the House Seargent at Arms to detain this guy

[ok_cpu]

2. Just heard Digby make a great point

There is no "higher authority" than the US Congress. They are a coequal branch of government.

[FBaggins]

4. That actually defeats the argument

There are three co-equal branches of government... which by extension means that there's also no higher authority than the judiciary AND no higher authority than the executive.

This is why these sorts of things are normally hashed out in negotiations between executive/legislative. If they can't come to an agreement... then the judiciary breaks the tie.

[Thomas Hurt]

6. He is violating a statute passed by the Congress and signed by a President...

as well defying the authority of the Congress.

It should be in front of the courts already.

[FBaggins]

8. He is... but did Congress have the authority in the first place?

Congress says yes... the President says no. Yes... it is a statute passed by Congress and signed by a president. Seems simple enough.

But when the President signed it he put in one of those “you’re not the bossa me” signing statements. Saying basically that he can ignore it when he wants to.

This is an ongoing executive vs. legislative conflict that is independent of which party controls each branch at the time. In fact... when someone moves from one branch to the other they tend to change their mind.

[cstanleytech]

12. On the other hand Congress does have the power of the purse that they can wield and withhold

funding for pet projects the President wants assuming they are willing to deal with the potential backlash of doing so of course.

[Captain Zero]

28. Could the House withhold salary funds for 'acting' directors until they are confirmed

by the Senate or dismissed ?? Make them work for free until they are confirmed. Maybe say funds to be with held after an acting director has passed some set number days of service. Like Joe Blow can get paid for 70 days of acting service but by then he needs to be confirmed or no dough. They don't have any trouble confirming judges.

[Volaris]

21. This is why line item veto isn't actually a thing that exists...because

Only the Sitting President thinks it's a good idea lol..

As far as signing statements, I really wish the supreme court would find them illegal at this point...it opens an avenue for the Executive to just decide they're going to ignore the law thwyre agreeing to by signing it in the first place...if that much disagreement exists, the president can have the balls to veto it and go from there.

At this point, signing statements = ' the next guy here can be required to obey; I just ain't gonna and congress can fuck off.'.

NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[FBaggins]

22. The signing statement itself has little effect

It's just a statement of how the executive branch intends to interpret the law (which is their job). What matters is whether or not the part they object to actually is unconstitutional... and it only becomes a factor if and when two things happen:

1 - The executive fails to follow that part of the law, and
2 - The legislature takes them to court over it.

As an example - Congress frequently puts in some notification requirement to a new act. "You can have this money, but you have to send the deputy undersecretary for basketweaving up to the Hill twice a year to report how it's going or the money goes away". That's an unconstitutional arrogation of executive authority to the legislative branch... but is it worth vetoing an otherwise acceptable bill? Nah.

So the President signs it... but includes a statement that translates to "Keeping y'all informed sounds like a good idea... so we'll try our best. But we're stating right here that you don't have the Constitutional authority to require us to do that... so if we can't... we won't. No offense intended" So long as everyone plays nice... it isn't an issue. But if the President doesn't do it one year and the Congress decides to sue over it... they're going to lose. I can't remember any case like this that they've won. So it doesn't go to court. Both sides bluster and show their tailfeathers and they cut some sort of deal to save face.

At this point, signing statements = ' the next guy here can be required to obey; I just ain't gonna and congress can fuck off.'.

Actually... I think it's just the opposite. "It seems reasonable to me so I'll do it. I just won't tie the next President's hands"

[Volaris]

23. 'You can have this money, but...'

Why would this be illegal in the first place?

I'm asking because it seems to me like Congress can place whatever conditions it wants on the money it spends on the executives behalf...and one would think that if the executive asked for 'basketweaving money' in the first damned place, it would be happy to comply with whatever strings congress attached tbh..

I'm asking because I clearly dont understand, and that's why i come here😎

[FBaggins]

24. Congress can only appropriate money... it can't manage the spending of it directly.

They could decide to pass a new budget that defunds the program in the following year, but they can't give themselves the power to manage the program on an ongoing basis. That's an executive function.

if the executive asked for 'basketweaving money' in the first damned place, it would be happy to comply with whatever strings congress attached tbh

That part is true. That's why they send the undersecretary twice a year to make a report. They just won't set a precedent that Congress has the power to require it. But they want the money next year too... so they play nice.

[Volaris]

25. Well if the Executive has the power to spend the money congress appropriates

Any damned way it wants, then trump should be able to move whatever money he wants from wherever he wants to build his boondoggle of a wall and congress can't really object...right?

I'm not saying I agree with this, but if this is the case, 'departmental budgets' are basically meaningless...and if I have to trade trump's stupid wall for the next president stripping the Pentagon of whatever cash we need for universal healthcare (including for all the peeps that are gonna find a way OVER that wall)....


Then I'm all for that...except in practice it totally destroys Congressional power of the purse.

And that seems just silly...

[FBaggins]

30. Apologies if I oversimplified it. That isn't what I meant

It isn't that Congress appropriates and then the executive does whatever it wants. Congress can set all kinds of requirements. They just can't insert themselves into the ongoing management. If they created a new federal gun registration system (we're ignoring other constitutional issues here), they could say that the fee could be waived based on need... but the agency involved (ATF?) would set up the enacting regulations a create a fee waiver process. Congress could appropriate more or fewer funds to make the program work... but they couldn't write a law that said "all fee waivers must be approved by staff on the Senate Security Committee"

[cstanleytech]

31. They could however attache a warning to the money that if its used for x or x instead that

there will be a severe cut to the next round of funding for the DOD.
That might cause the Repugnants to hesitate over allowing one of their Presidents to go rogue in the future and start misusing the funds.

[FBaggins]

32. They could do something like that verbally or as a memo

In fact, a House committee did that very thing when the administration moved around funds for the wall. I can't remember who it was, but one of the Democrats came right out and said that they were less likely to include such flexibility in the next budget if the Pentagon was going to abuse the power. The guy form the Pentagon basically said "I know and it concerns me... but this Trump guy is in charge"

But they couldn't put it into the bill - because one Congress cannot bind the hands of the next one. Each budget is a new entity with its own existence. So there couldn't put in the bill "there will be a 10% in future appropriations if you use toilet seat funding for anything else"... but they CAN say "funds in this section may only be used to purchase toilet seats".

[cstanleytech]

33. Either way they do have the ability to apply pressure with the power of the purse but it

can of course have potential negative political effects if they decide to do so.

[ok_cpu]

7. I get what you're saying

and I think there's nuance there. As a practical matter, you're spot on. But, in this case, citing a "higher authority" as a way to stonewall a Congress who is entitled to the report is not valid. Especially where the Judiciary hasn't broken the tie, as you say.

Give a different reason if there's a real matter of opinion. But even your position makes the point that the Legislative and Executive branches are on equal footing with the Judicial as the occasional arbiter.

[kentuck]

9. But the Legislative Branch of the People is "more equal" than the other two.

Because the Legislative has the authority to impeach the Executive but the Executive does not have the authority to impeach the Legislature. So, in that sense, the final power is in the hands of the People, just as the Founders intended.

[FBaggins]

10. Arguably true... but not relevant here

That’s the power of the full legislative branch. By itself it wouldn’t mean that the chairman of a committee in one chamber of the legislature could dictate to that other “co-equal” branch just because the branch that he’s in (but cannot speak for) is arguably more equal.

[kentuck]

11. They are "co-equal" for the purpose of governing.

In reality, the Founders thought the Legislature of the People was where the final say would be.

[FBaggins]

13. Just the opposite in fact

"Governing" is mostly distinct from "legislating". While there's some overlap in terminology, there's a reason that the chief executive of a state is called a "governor".

But I get what you mean.

[uponit7771]

18. +1

[gldstwmn]

16. Yay! Another lawsuit we'll win in 5 or so years.

Am I wrong for wishing Orange just dies in his sleep?

[FBaggins]

17. Probably not in this case because we would likely lose

Most of these signing statement scenarios relate to congressional arrogation of power that the courts have struck down when it gets to them.

Congress still passes such laws, but doesn't usually fight them in court any longer (lest they been thrown out). They just whine about it when the executive blows them off.

In this case... that's ok... because the administration is clearly in violation of the plain language of the law. Schiff can point fingers all day long and make them look like they're trying to hide something (which they likely are) and the administration will be seen as acting like the law doesn't apply to them (which it doesn't... but saying so won't look good).

On edit - oooh... even better. It looks like Schiff knows at least some of the substance of the whistleblowing. Some of it is leaking. Now Trump will have to get angry at an illegal leak that at least looks like Congress should have been given it.

[lindysalsagal]

3. and yet, he has

[Maraya1969]

5. He has because they have let him. I am sure there is a politician that can figure out the answer

And yes, maybe it is to just send officers to arrest him.

Look at what the Trump administration has done; put children in jail. If they can do that we can certainly put the AG in jail!

[stopdiggin]

27. the whole "send officers to arrest" seems highly unlikely

I think maybe we should put that one to bed?

[Maraya1969]

29. No! Because damn it I am so sick of Democrats saying, "This won't work" "You can't do that"

And blah blah blah blah. I read it on here all the damn time. Nay Sayers. Over and over squashing ideas.

When has that behavior ever lead to doing great things? What famous leaders in history had that attitude?

Fuck that. I'm hanging out with the determined and creative ones.

I wish you would join us.

[stopdiggin]

34. I like your spirit

same time .. not sure that an action that hasn't been employed (successfully or otherwise) in nearly a century would qualify as "creative."

(I'm kind of curious -- where would these detainees be held? -- by whom? -- for what length of time? -- isn't detention an executive function? would they be entitled to representation? -- bail hearings? -- due process? -- could their detention be appealed? -- to whom? -- arguing what? could a detainee ultimately "win" his case? is there a case per se? -- is there a jury? -- how impaneled?)

On second thought .. I'm thinking this process could become VERY creative! The news media would be willing to PAY for this stuff !!

[Kablooie]

14. And if he refuses to pay the $25,000 a day? What then?

Congress's legal system is based on trust and respect, not punishment and coercion.
This should probably change but as for now Congress is a toothless slug.

[gldstwmn]

15. It's all the rage now.

[malaise]

19. Yes

RFN

[Skittles]

20. once you have shown a willingness to roll over and over

it's hard to get your credibility back

[dawg day]

26. These GOPers only care about money and power

so big fines will definitely get their attention. Please! Fine them! A LOT!