Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
61 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Devin Nunes Has Top Secret Clearance Revoked (Original Post) UCmeNdc Jun 2017 OP
+1 Me. Jun 2017 #1
I'll believe that when it comes from a real news source. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #2
What you said. Amaryllis Jun 2017 #10
Ditto, sounds like unreliable information Kleveland Jun 2017 #11
Right. This story is two days old and I haven't seen it picked up anywhere else. Surely it would Midnight Writer Jun 2017 #13
It's been more than 2 months since he let slip the classified info -- pnwmom Jun 2017 #15
Like I said - I'll believe this when it turns up on a real news source. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #16
If you make a financial contributions to her account that will grantcart Jun 2017 #26
Ah. I see. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #30
well that sounds like happy news nt msongs Jun 2017 #3
House intelligence chair gets security clearance revoked. How awesome is that! unblock Jun 2017 #4
Isn't Trump the only one who can do that? n/t Tarheel_Dem Jun 2017 #5
no. the president does not grant or remove clearances. drray23 Jun 2017 #8
I asked because I heard on MSNBC that Dems were demanding that Kushner's clearance be... Tarheel_Dem Jun 2017 #52
I've got news for you FBaggins Jun 2017 #61
I hope this comes to fruition, I truly do. FlightRN Jun 2017 #6
Give horse a new set of shoes and a Bon Voyage party Warpy Jun 2017 #7
He has abused his security clearance, his games he has played with trump was not Thinkingabout Jun 2017 #9
K & R L. Coyote Jun 2017 #12
Is there another source to this story? kentuck Jun 2017 #14
Not that I could find. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #18
If it is not on CNN or MSNBC... kentuck Jun 2017 #20
The people who are doing the real digging are at the Washington Post and the NY Times. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #22
True. kentuck Jun 2017 #58
Um, patriobotics is a crackpot website. PSPS Jun 2017 #17
hah crackpotics, if you will tandem5 Jun 2017 #21
More Mensch Bullshit: Members of Congress don't have to get security clearances onenote Jun 2017 #19
Page 4 talks about them not needing security clearances, pnwmom Jun 2017 #23
FFS. Members of Congress don't go through background checks or get clearances. Period. onenote Jun 2017 #25
That's kind of scary when you consider some of the people who are in the House.... The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #27
Maybe so, but its always been this way. onenote Jun 2017 #28
They don't receive the same security clearances other people do. pnwmom Jun 2017 #32
But that's not what Mensch's gossip item says. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #36
No, you misquoted her. pnwmom Jun 2017 #38
But he never had a TOP SECRET clearance to revoke! The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #42
And what does that have to do with what Mensch wrote. Nothing. onenote Jun 2017 #39
Wrong. She did not say he had his security clearance revoked. pnwmom Jun 2017 #40
He never had a TOP SECRET clearance to revoke! The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #43
I'll try one more time. Members of Congress don't get security clearances. onenote Jun 2017 #44
Where is your link showing that they have access to even the highest levels pnwmom Jun 2017 #37
Where is your link that says they don't? onenote Jun 2017 #41
None of the links here have addressed the issue of consequences, pnwmom Jun 2017 #47
I give up. Believe what you want. One of these days you'll realize what a fraud Mensch is. onenote Jun 2017 #49
The intelligence committees are given classified info as needed for their work. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #29
So, since he recused himself, they shouldn't be giving him materials pnwmom Jun 2017 #33
They give the information to the committees, which are responsible The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #34
True; classified materials given to congressional committees are handled like this: The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #24
Your second link says, "The legal ramifications are murky." pnwmom Jun 2017 #35
The paragraph you cite about consequences relates to staffers, who DO have to get clearances. onenote Jun 2017 #46
I agree the wording was confusing, but House members DO receive training pnwmom Jun 2017 #48
It's not confusing to anyone but you. onenote Jun 2017 #50
Thanks for this. I don't understand why Mensch and BFF Claude Taylor, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #51
We DO know that Nunes is currently being investigated by the House Ethics pnwmom Jun 2017 #54
if this were true it would be all over the news. hrmjustin Jun 2017 #31
Once again, Mensch is publishing a "story" that can't be true. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2017 #45
Have you forgotten that the House Ethics Committee is currently investigating pnwmom Jun 2017 #53
The House Ethics Committee doesn't impose sanctions, it recommends them onenote Jun 2017 #55
If they have limited his access to top secret or SCIF materials while they investigate pnwmom Jun 2017 #56
Uhhhh. The rules of the Committee and the House? onenote Jun 2017 #59
+1000 Cattledog Jun 2017 #57
Well, that sounds like big news, for sure. MineralMan Jun 2017 #60

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
2. I'll believe that when it comes from a real news source.
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 10:39 PM
Jun 2017

Security clearances don't just get revoked. The person would get a notice called a Statement of Reasons, and they have the opportunity to appeal the revocation. While Nunes probably deserves to lose his clearance, if the relevant agency (probably the State Department) wanted to revoke it, they would have to follow required procedures, which take time. And who's in charge of the State Department these days?

So... take this, like all of Louise Mensch's "news," with a grain of salt. Maybe a whole salt lick.

Added: We've been reminded (below) that members of Congress don't actually need security clearances; the intelligence agencies give the appropriate committees whatever classified information the agencies determine they need for their work.

Which further proves Mensch is out to lunch, again.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
15. It's been more than 2 months since he let slip the classified info --
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 11:51 PM
Jun 2017

more than enough time for him to lose the top secret designation. (Patribotics doesn't claim he has no security clearance -- just not the top secret level.)

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
26. If you make a financial contributions to her account that will
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:30 AM
Jun 2017

give her the resources she needs to confirm the story she already confirmed.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,211 posts)
52. I asked because I heard on MSNBC that Dems were demanding that Kushner's clearance be...
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 03:02 AM
Jun 2017

revoked, but the guest seemed to think the Orange One was the only one who could pull his clearance. Good to know.

FBaggins

(26,697 posts)
61. I've got news for you
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 04:14 PM
Jun 2017

The "agency" that grants security clearance to members of the House is called "the voters".

So unless he was removed from Congress and we all missed it... this is yet another example of LM not know what the heck she's talking about.

Warpy

(110,913 posts)
7. Give horse a new set of shoes and a Bon Voyage party
Fri Jun 2, 2017, 10:51 PM
Jun 2017

and a slap on the rear, sober up, get over the hangover, discuss the best course of action over the next month, then lock the barn door.

It should have been revoked the day he skedaddled over to spill his guts to Asshole rather than clue in his committee.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
18. Not that I could find.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:05 AM
Jun 2017

As far as I'm concerned it's at least presumptively horseshit, like so many of Mensch's other "news" stories. If it turns out to be true, great; but I'm not impressed by a story that doesn't appear anywhere else and that purports to come from "sources with links to the intelligence community," which doesn't mean crap.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
22. The people who are doing the real digging are at the Washington Post and the NY Times.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:18 AM
Jun 2017

Some good stuff coming out of Reuters and Newsweek, too - the print media seem to be doing a better job than TV. If the WaPo runs a story I'll believe it. They, and other reputable news outlets, don't normally publish a story unless they've corroborated it by at least two independent sources. Mensch publishes gossip and rumors.

kentuck

(110,950 posts)
58. True.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 08:32 AM
Jun 2017

I agree. It is the print journalists that are doing the work on this scandal. CNN and MSNBC only report what they write.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
19. More Mensch Bullshit: Members of Congress don't have to get security clearances
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:12 AM
Jun 2017

Hard to "revoke" something that doesn't exist.


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R43216.pdf

See page 4.

She's an idiot. Or maybe she thinks we're idiots.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
23. Page 4 talks about them not needing security clearances,
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:22 AM
Jun 2017

but doesn't say whether they automatically have access to top secret or SCI classified materials.

I know I've heard about all members of Congress NOT having access to the highest levels of classified material. Ted Kennedy once said that he didn't blame other Dems who voted for Iraq because they didn't have access to all the classified materials that he did.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
25. FFS. Members of Congress don't go through background checks or get clearances. Period.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:28 AM
Jun 2017

From the CIA website:

All Members of Congress have access to intelligence by virtue of their elected positions. They do not receive security clearances per se.

Mensch claims Nunes security clearance has been "revoked". Which would be quite the trick since he doesn't have one to revoke.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
32. They don't receive the same security clearances other people do.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:34 AM
Jun 2017

But House members do take a secrecy oath and there are consequences for violating it.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
36. But that's not what Mensch's gossip item says.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:42 AM
Jun 2017

It doesn't say Nunes is being sanctioned in some way for misusing or disclosing classified information; it says *his security clearance has been revoked*, which obviously can't be true. I don't see any point in following Mensch's little games of Telephone that get basic facts wrong and don't lead to anything that can be confirmed.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
38. No, you misquoted her.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:44 AM
Jun 2017

She didn't say his security clearance was revoked. She said his TOP SECRET clearance was revoked. And then she went on to say:


"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information."

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
42. But he never had a TOP SECRET clearance to revoke!
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:49 AM
Jun 2017

She also said "Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say." That can't be true, either, since as a member of Congress he wouldn't have had *any* kind of security clearance. And if, in fact, he is being denied access to some of the information that is most likely being done internally by the committee itself.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
39. And what does that have to do with what Mensch wrote. Nothing.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:45 AM
Jun 2017

She said he had his security clearance revoked. As much as you don't want to admit it, the fact is that can't be true because there is no process for granting or revoking security clearances. They have security clearance simply by virtue of getting elected.

And yes the House (but not the Senate) requires its members to take a "secrecy oath." Violations of the oath are investigated by the House as violations of its rules -- not by the intelligence agencies.

If you think the republican-majority Congress has investigated and taken action against Nunes for violating his secrecy oath, I have a bridge to sell you.

Just give it up already. Your hero Mensch is a con-woman. And she's taken you in.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
40. Wrong. She did not say he had his security clearance revoked.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:48 AM
Jun 2017

She said his TOP secret clearance was revoked. And then she said:

"Mr. Nunes still retains a security clearance, sources say. But he has been denied access to the most sensitive intelligence information. "

And there is a process for dealing with violations, and members of Congress are informed about it. How do you know it doesn't include limiting access to the most secret classified material?


https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
43. He never had a TOP SECRET clearance to revoke!
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:51 AM
Jun 2017

He never had any kind of security clearance! Just give up; Louise is full of shit - again.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
44. I'll try one more time. Members of Congress don't get security clearances.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:53 AM
Jun 2017

They don't get top secret security clearances. They don't get Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information clearances. THEY DON"T GET CLEARANCES.

The intelligence agencies don't enforce clearance rules against members of Congress. Congress enforces its "secrecy oath". And you have to be the only person on earth who would believe the Republican House would take action against Nunes for violating that oath (which isn't even required of members of the Senate).

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
37. Where is your link showing that they have access to even the highest levels
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:42 AM
Jun 2017

of top secret info, info that can only be viewed in a SCIF?

onenote

(42,383 posts)
41. Where is your link that says they don't?
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:49 AM
Jun 2017

They don't get security clearances. They have access to intelligence materials subject only to the limitation that intelligence agencies tend to give out such information on a "need to know" basis, with intelligence committee members given priority. To the extent there is a "secrecy oath" (which is the case only in the House not the Senate), its a House rule, enforced by the House.

I know you want to believe in Mensch, but she's making you look silly.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
47. None of the links here have addressed the issue of consequences,
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:13 AM
Jun 2017

except to say there ARE consequences. So the question is still left -- what are the consequences of a breach, and could they include limiting access to the most secret materials?


https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
49. I give up. Believe what you want. One of these days you'll realize what a fraud Mensch is.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:17 AM
Jun 2017

You're not rational about this. You want to believe. I get it. But the reality is that Nunes didn't have any kind of security clearance and there was nothing that could be revoked. The consequences of violating the House-only secrecy oath are in the first instance imposed by the House. Intelligence agencies give information to the committees with intelligence subject matter jurisdiction. If you think the House majority on the Intelligence Committee is punishing Nunes by withholding information from him, you're more naive than I thought.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
29. The intelligence committees are given classified info as needed for their work.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:32 AM
Jun 2017

It's not distributed to all of the members.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
33. So, since he recused himself, they shouldn't be giving him materials
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:35 AM
Jun 2017

that are not necessary for his work.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
34. They give the information to the committees, which are responsible
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:38 AM
Jun 2017

for managing how it's used or who sees it. I don't think there's any way for the FBI or the CIA or whoever to give classified material to a House committee but with the restriction that Congressman So-and-So must not be allowed to see it.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
24. True; classified materials given to congressional committees are handled like this:
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:27 AM
Jun 2017

"Classified intelligence reports(1) are routinely provided only to the committees that have responsibilities in the national security area.(2) Members of these committees receive preference from the Intelligence Community in satisfying their requests on an individual basis. Among the national security committees, the intelligence committees and their Members are accorded preferential treatment..." https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/sharing-secrets-with-lawmakers-congress-as-a-user-of-intelligence/3.htm

If a member of Congress does improperly disclose classified information, as a practical matter the consequences are more likely to be political than legal. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/06/senate_intelligence_hints_at_prism_can_members_of_congress_be_tried_for.html

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
35. Your second link says, "The legal ramifications are murky."
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:39 AM
Jun 2017

That doesn't mean they're non-existent, or they couldn't include preventing access to top secret or SCI materials.

And there is this -- which states there ARE consequences.


https://news.clearancejobs.com/2014/06/28/congressional-staff-members-required-obtain-security-clearances/

House members and staff must take a self-imposed secrecy oath, while the Senate does not.
Once a congressional or judicial staff member are “read in,” he/she should receive training on how to properly protect classified information.

They also receive a clarification of the consequences when he/she does not properly protect classified information.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
46. The paragraph you cite about consequences relates to staffers, who DO have to get clearances.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:01 AM
Jun 2017

And the statement about the legal ramifications being "murky" is based on the fact that members of Congress have certain immunities under the speech and debate clause but, according to the author, it has never been tested whether a member who disclosed secret information could be tried for treason. It has nothing to do with revoking non-existent security clearances.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
48. I agree the wording was confusing, but House members DO receive training
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:15 AM
Jun 2017

in how to handle classified materials, and I have seen nothing implying there are no consequences for deliberately mishandling them. Have you?

onenote

(42,383 posts)
50. It's not confusing to anyone but you.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:25 AM
Jun 2017

The House and Senate self-regulate. Believe me, I've worked up there although not with any intelligence committees.

This article is not at all confusing about how security breaches are handled:

Investigation of Security Breaches
The Senate Office of Security and the House counterpart are charged with investigating or coordinating investigations of suspected security violations by employees. In addition, investigations by the House and Senate Ethics Committees of suspected breaches of security are authorized by each chamber’s rules, directly and indirectly. The Senate Ethics Committee, importantly, has the broad duty to “receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate.” The panel is also directed “to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information [from the Senate Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate.” The House, in creating its Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued similar instructions. H.Res. 658 ordered the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to “investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information [from the House Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer, or employee of the House.”

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS20748.pdf

These are formal procedures. If there had been a complaint and an investigation of Nunes by the Republican majority house we'd know. Mensch is wrong. And you are wrong to try so desperately to defend her.

By the way, we're approaching the second month anniversary of the April arrests she said were about to happen. How'd that work out?

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
51. Thanks for this. I don't understand why Mensch and BFF Claude Taylor,
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 01:36 AM
Jun 2017

both of whom are naught but gossips and rumor-mongers looking for hits on their blogs (and contributions to help them "investigate&quot , have acquired such a devoted following, since none of their big "scoops" have actually panned out. There's so much really juicy news coming from reputable news outlets - CNN never has to take down its BREAKING NEWS chyron any more - that there's no need to hang on every scrap of fake (or at least unsourced) news from obscure bloggers. We all want Trump and his repulsive collection of orcs and trolls to go away as soon as possible, but being taken in by the left's version of Drudge won't make that happen any faster.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
54. We DO know that Nunes is currently being investigated by the House Ethics
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 04:17 AM
Jun 2017

Last edited Sat Jun 3, 2017, 05:32 AM - Edit history (1)

Committee.

"If there had been a complaint and an investigation of Nunes by the Republican majority house we'd know."

Yes, we would know and we do know. He IS being investigated, even though the House has a Republican majority. In fact, even though the Ethics Committee comprises equal numbers of R's and Dems, it elected to start "the Nunes investigation on its own," rather than wait for the Office of Congressional Ethics to consider it first.

This is the most recent release by the House Ethics Committee:

http://ethics.house.gov/media-center

"The Committee is aware of public allegations that Representative Devin Nunes may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or other standards of conduct. The Committee, pursuant to Committee Rule 18(a), is investigating and gathering more information regarding these allegations.

"The Committee has determined to investigate these allegations in order to fulfill its institutional obligation, under House Rule X, clause 11(g)(4), to investigate certain allegations of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, and to determine if there has been any violation of the Code of Official Conduct under House Rule XXIII, clause 13. The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.

" In order to comply with Committee Rule 7 regarding confidentiality, out of fairness to all respondents, and to assure the integrity of its work, the Committee will refrain from making further public statements on this matter pending completion of its initial review."

______________________________________________-



The Ethics Committee elected to start the investigation and, with an evenly divided membership, at least one Republican must have joined the Democrats in making the decision.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-nunes-intelligence-committee-20170525-story.html

"The House Ethics Committee has no deadline to finish its work, and such investigations can take months, or years. Rob Walker, former chief counsel and staff director of the Senate and House ethics committees, said the investigation is probably still in the information-gathering stage, and staff members will have to get security clearance to even get access to some of the intelligence information in question.

SNIP

"The committee has oversight over questions of how classified information is handled. It started the investigation into Nunes' conduct on its own, rather than following normal procedure of having the nonpartisan Office of Congressional Ethics take a precursory look."
________________________

As of May 30, according to the WA Post, the investigation was still ongoing. More info here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9152512

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,280 posts)
45. Once again, Mensch is publishing a "story" that can't be true.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 12:57 AM
Jun 2017

As the above posts indicate, Nunes can't have had his "top secret" security clearance revoked because members of Congress don't get security clearances of any kind. They are not considered to need them (yeah, I know, right?); the intelligence agencies give the appropriate committees classified information only as needed. As usual, Mensch's story is unsourced gossip that gets the basic facts wrong.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
53. Have you forgotten that the House Ethics Committee is currently investigating
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 04:15 AM
Jun 2017

Nunes for his handling of classified material?

It isn't true that he had NO security clearance. He was cleared to view classified materials -- in other words, he had a security clearance. But he didn't have to APPLY and get APPROVED for one. He was AUTOMATICALLY granted a security clearance based on his position as a Congressman.

But now, it is entirely plausible that while he is being investigated, his ability to view top secret or SCIF materials has been limited by an action of the House Ethics Committee, which is made up of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

No one has posted the House rules that apply to his current situation -- when a House member is under investigation for violating security rules for classified information. I haven't seen anything that says being barred from access to top secret or SCIF materials, at least while an investigation is still ongoing, is NOT a possible consequence of mishandling them.

And as of May 30, according to the WA Post report below, he had NOT been cleared in the investigation of his own actions, and he had not resumed his position leading the Russia investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/30/devin-nunes-the-congressman-who-nearly-derailed-the-houses-investigation-into-russia-is-blaming-democrats/?utm_term=.65bae938e06d

May 30, 2017

The last time we heard from the chair of the House committee leading an investigation into Russia meddling, it was in April, when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) announced that he was temporarily stepping down from leading the investigation because he's under investigation for his handling of the investigation.

The House Ethics Committee (made up of an even number of Democrats and Republicans in Congress) is looking into whether Nunes improperly shared classified information.

SNIP

The status of his colleagues' ethics investigation into Nunes isn't clear, but Nunes's feelings about the whole Russia investigation are VERY clear: He blames Democrats for sidelining it.

SNIP

If Nunes does take over the Russia investigation again (he says he will once the ethics committee clears him), he appears to have no interest in assuaging people's concerns that he'll lead the Russia investigation impartially.

_________________

A statement from the House Ethics Committee is here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9152515

onenote

(42,383 posts)
55. The House Ethics Committee doesn't impose sanctions, it recommends them
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 05:41 AM
Jun 2017

The House Ethics Committee rules discuss the actions it can take upon completion of its investigation and the related adjudicatory process. Apart from issuing a "Letter of Reproval" its does not take direct action. Rather it recommends what it feels is an appropriate sanction to the full House. One category of sanction it can recommend is limiting a particular right or privilege enjoyed by the House member to the extent such limitation is consistent with the Constitution.

So maybe the Ethics Committee could recommend to the full House that Nunes be stripped of his right and privilege to have access to certain levels of secret information.

BUT...as you acknowledge, the House Ethics committee investigation is still underway. And the Ethics Committee itself has stated that "The Committee notes that the mere fact that it is investigating these allegations, and publicly disclosing its review, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee.
Even if the Committee has reached a judgment, it can't act on its own to punish Nunes. It can recommend a punishment to the full House.

By the way, as Mensch belatedly acknowledged, Nunes remains chair of the committee and while he has (sort of) recused himself from the Russia investigation the Committee's oversight with respect to intelligence matters goes beyond the Russia investigation and there is no indication that he is not involved in other committee activities that involve access to secret information.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
56. If they have limited his access to top secret or SCIF materials while they investigate
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 05:51 AM
Jun 2017

him for possibly violating the rules for handling secret or SCIF materials, I wouldn't view that as a "punishment" or "sanction." It would seem to be a justified precaution.

And I haven't seen any rule that prevents them from doing so.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
59. Uhhhh. The rules of the Committee and the House?
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 10:05 AM
Jun 2017

They're pretty clear. For example, Ethics Committee Rule 24 ("Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other Recommendations&quot sets forth in some detail the rules governing the process by which the Committee, if after an adjudicatory hearing, finds that a "Statement of Violation" has been "proved", can RECOMMEND to the full House that some sanction be imposed on a Member. One of those sanctions expressly listed is: (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. The only action identified that the Committee itself can take directly is the adoption of a Letter of Reproval. (Also see Committee Rule 10).

In addition to the above, the House Rules contain pages upon pages of very detailed rules governing both the Ethics Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The rule governing the Ethics Committee (XI(3) states that The committee may recommend to the House from time to time such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate to establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employ- ees of the House. A letter of reproval or other administrative action of the committee pursuant to an investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or implemented as a part of a report required by such subparagraph.

The rules governing the Intelligence Committee (X(11)(4) and (5) state
that the committee "shall investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a Member...and report to the House concerning any allegation that it finds to be unsubstantiated....If, at the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee on Ethics determines that there has been a significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a Member...it shall report its findings to the House and recommend appropriate action.

In all of these detailed rules there is not one word suggesting that the Ethics Committee itself has the authority to impose any restriction or other sanction on a member being investigated, let alone do so before the investigation has been fully completed and a decision reached pursuant to the committee's specific procedural rules.

You seem to be of the view that an entity of government has the power to do anything that is not expressly, by rule, denied to it, even if the rules governing that entity contain very specific grants of authority. I doubt that you actually hold to that view generally. It certainly is a view that I would expect Mr. Trump to hold -- that unless and until someone can show him where he is expressly barred from doing something, he has the power to do it.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
60. Well, that sounds like big news, for sure.
Sat Jun 3, 2017, 10:06 AM
Jun 2017

Let me go see what other news outlets are saying about it...

Wait...nobody is reporting that. Why? See, I wonder about things like that. It should be a big story, covered by all the major papers and networks, right?

So, what conclusion should I draw from this?

1. Are all of the major news outlets deliberately sitting on this important story?
2. Or, is Louise Mensch throwing another handful of past on the kitchen wall?

I think I'll go with number two. It sounds like crap to me anyhow.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion» Devin Nunes Has Top Secr...