SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Have you read your constitution today? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas M. who wrote (399)7/4/2019 6:50:13 PM
From: Thomas M.Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 403
 
Without even bothering to cite controlling adverse authority or follow the most basic procedural requirements for initiating a new civil action, Mr. Comey brazenly demands that this Court issue an order quashing a congressional subpoena directed to him – a request for relief so extraordinary and frivolous that, as far as undersigned counsel is aware, no district court in the history of the Republic has ever granted such a request. Although one would not know it from reading Mr. Comey’s papers, the Supreme Court has spoken unequivocally on this question: “the Speech or Debate Clause provides complete immunity ... for issuance of this subpoena.”

assets.documentcloud.org

This was the top law enforcement officer of the land treating the law and our democratic norms like toilet paper.

Tom



To: Thomas M. who wrote (399)7/14/2019 7:46:55 PM
From: Thomas M.Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 403
 
These actions—and indeed the very determination of the U.S. interest in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy—are presidential prerogatives. The Supreme Court has often affirmed, many times since United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., that it is the president himself, not the executive branch, who possesses “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power … as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations—a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.” Moreover, the president has plenary control within the executive branch of the intelligence power and classified information, which is defined, by the president, in terms of harm to national security. In short, the president is the person constitutionally charged with determining what constitutes the national security interest and national security threats for the executive branch, which is where the FBI is located.

Because the president determines the U.S. national security interest and threats against it, at least for the executive branch, there is an argument that it makes no sense for the FBI to open a counterintelligence case against the president premised on his being a threat to the national security. The president defines what a national security threat is, and thus any action by him cannot be such a threat, at least not for purposes of opening a counterintelligence investigation.





On What Grounds Can the FBI Investigate the President as a Counterintelligence Threat?

By Jack Goldsmith

lawfareblog.com